Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 June 5

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< June 4 << May | June | Jul >> June 6 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


June 5

edit

04:48, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Willachameleon

edit

My draft was immediately declined- however the subject of my draft is mentioned in Wikipedia page for Dance moms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Moms. In addition, the Wikipedia page for Kalani Hilliker is up and running and the sources are almost identical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalani_Hilliker. Since the sources are almost identical I don't understand the criticism of my sources which include online news sources e.g. Daily Mail, the Internet Movie Database, and direct links to examples of the subject's professional performances. Please explain as the only difference I am seeing is that Kalani is white and Camryn is black. Willachameleon (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Willachameleon: whatever other articles may exist out there among the 7m in the English Wikipedia is totally beside the point in what comes to the acceptance or otherwise of this draft. All but two of your sources are user-generated, and therefore not reliable. Of the two exceptions, one is the Daily Mail, which is a deprecated source and mustn't be cited. The final one, Reality Tea, isn't much better IMO, and in any case alone not enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Willachameleon

edit

My article draft was rejected based on references - please kindly compare to the references in the Kalani Hilliker published Wikipedia article. Those references are largely similar and were used as a guide in determining whether to submit. If those types of references are sufficient for the Kalani Hilliker article please explain why they are not sufficient for the Camryn Bridges article. Willachameleon (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Willachameleon They are not. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:53, 5 June 2025 review of submission by MatthewGSimonson

edit

To whom it may concern,

I serve as the Student Governor for North Carolina, and consequently serve as the Chief Executive Officer for the North Carolina Student Legislature. I am in dire need of some assistance in trying to publish my organization's article on Wikipedia. After several attempts, I've yet to be successful. I have added a lot of significant historical background of my organization, notably during the civil rights movement in North Carolina. In addition, I've provided, in detail, the significance the organization plays in today's time, including notable alumni, and similar organizations (that might I add, also have Wikipedia sites with less sources).

I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions as to how to get approved. I would like to believe that the article meets the criteria, including having objective writing, providing multiple independent sources, and quality work.

Please help, I've spent the entire day trying to figure this out... yet I'm still coming up short somehow!!

Thanks in advance to anyone who helps! MatthewGSimonson (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewGSimonson: this draft has now been rejected, meaning that it won't be considered further.
At least when I reviewed the draft, it was supported by primary sources, and very weak ones at that, which do not show that the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines the term, namely that multiple secondary sources, which are reliable and entirely independent of the subject, have on their own initiative provided significant coverage of the subject and what makes it worthy of note. You, being closely associated with this subject, telling us about the subject's background and history and significance is not what we need to see. We want to see what third parties have said about those things. And if such third parties cannot be found, then the subject is almost certainly not notable enough to justify its own article, no matter how old and prestigious etc. it may be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Allakas

edit

The article has been refused thrice and I don’t get how it doesn’t conform to standards. There are much less notable people on Wikipedia, after all. Allakas (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allakas If there are less notable people that there are Wikipedia articles about, please tell us who those are so we can take action, or you can even nominate them for deletion yourself. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us weed out inapprorpriate articles. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles, see other stuff exists. With millions of articles, we need the help.
The awards do not contribute to notability since the awards themselves do not merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Pulitzer Prize). The rest of the draft just details his activities, and does not describe what makes him a notable person due to his involvement in those activitites. What about his activities makes him important/significant/influential? That's what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help! Could you check if it fits the criteria now? Allakas (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allakas If you feel that the article is now a summary of independent reliable sources with significant coverage- not coverage that merely details his activities- of Mr. Das that shows how he is a notable person, you may resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Allakas

edit

I believe there is some coverage on Mirdaul though my article was not accepted. Could someone please help on how to improve the article? Allakas (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:21, 5 June 2025 review of submission by PramodEditior

edit

Hello, my draft article 'FIL Industries Private Limited' was declined. I would like to understand what changes are needed to get it approved. Could someone please guide me? PramodEditior (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PramodEditior You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I fixed this.
You are telling us what you/your company wants us to know about the company- instead, you should be telling us what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company and what makes it a notable company as Wikipedia defines one. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell about itself, its offerings, and its activities.
Awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors read it, too. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:25:48, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Ttmms

edit

I would like to ask for independent feedback regarding notability of this article topic, as pointed out by article creation reviewer. For people not in the field of control engineering, I add link to the openalex list of papers citing the paper describing the software and to the discussion forum used by people seeking help about software. On the page Help:Referencing_for_beginners I read the statement: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." which I find somehow in contrast with the feedback I received on this article, namely the always present statement ".. and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources". Even if not all has been added as references, there are ~200 published articles by independent research group mentioning or talking about tool described in the proposed draft.

I acknowledge that the topic of the article is covered or mentioned mainly in academic research. Arguably because scientific publication is the main form of publication for people interested in this topic. It can also be mentioned that eventual usage in industry may even be actively kept secret. This skewed mix of available references automatically imply a given topic is not-notable?

There is consensus on a bibliometric measure, or set of measure, to be used as a signal for notability? Ttmms (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ttmms Rather than give a further review I will ask you a question. Do all the references express opinions about Acados, or are they simply noting that they used it as part of their paper on something else? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Brandonoxymoron

edit

I'm just curious about what can be done differently to get this article published as it's similar in length to this article about another sports broadcaster who is employed with the same company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Fisher_(broadcaster)

The article I wrote has a little more information than the former and the subject of the article is much more acclaimed, discussed, touted, and decorated. An article for Nick Gallo is quite necessary. Brandonoxymoron (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: Draft:Nick Gallo
@Brandonoxymoron: this draft is only referenced with citations to Thunder's social media accounts, which are pretty much useless in what comes to either verifying any of draft contents or establishing notability. Most of the information is unreferenced. You need to cite sources that establish notability per WP:GNG, and also make sure that every material statement is supported by an inline citation to a reliable published source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see that now. I appreciate the feedback greatly. Simply reading the guidelines was all I had to do and I did not until a few minutes ago. I actually did some research this time and added a handful of citations so fingers crossed. Thanks for the feedback though, seriously! Brandonoxymoron (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Praveenpmanappattu

edit

Pls tell me which part must be removed Praveenpmanappattu (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable publications, and very little else.
If you tell us what the subject or their associates say or want to say, it is likely to sound like an ad. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 5 June 2025 review of submission by DJSasha Dave

edit

I have just updated Dj Sasha's page with his management and have verified the information with the artist himself but the update has been declined. We wanted to give people an up to date page to go to?!? DJSasha Dave (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DJSasha Dave If you are not DJ Sasha Dave, you must change your username immediately via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
Our articles are typically written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. It isn't required to verify information with the subject/their representatives.
This page is to ask about drafts in the draft process; you're asking about an existing article, you should use the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You submitted a draft via your sandbox; you should instead be proposing incremental changes via edit requests on Talk:Sasha (DJ). You can also use the edit request wizard to facilitate the process. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I declined User:DJSasha Dave/sandbox, I must admit I didn't even realise there was an existing article at Sasha (DJ). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @DJSasha Dave. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:44, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Shadman Islam 007

edit

My article submission was rejected unfortunately . If you give me an opportunity to resubmit article further , i will edit it correctly with more sentences aligned with wiki page process Shadman Islam 007 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Draft:Shadman Islam. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Reena.rex

edit

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. Could you please explain what type of references are acceptable? I have some genuine and government-issued references that I would like to use Reena.rex (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. S0091 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Reena.rex

edit

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. Could you please explain what type of references are acceptable? I have some genuine and government-issued references that I would like to use. Reena.rex (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reena.rex government sources are usually fine to use for verifiability but the do not help with establishing notability because they are primary sources. See Your first article for additional guidance. S0091 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Reena.rex. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Folabiomath

edit

Hello, Good day. I just wanted to know the update about the page. All queries have been addressed. Folabiomath (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not yet resubmitted it. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Brandonoxymoron

edit

Resubmitted message due to typo: Hey folks, I have an article that I am seriously struggling with as it's been denied twice now. Was just wondering if any experienced wiki users could take a brief skin through my sited sources and references and let me know if they're credible enough or what I could be missing. All feedback is much appreciated. Brandonoxymoron (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your duplicate posting; if you make a typo you can open the edit window for this section and edit your typo instead of making a new duplicative thread. It's not even necessary to, perfect spelling is not expected on talk pages.
You have not established that he is a notable person, you have just summarized his employment. Is he particularly influential as a broadcaster according to independent sources? 331dot (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:44, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Aoneko78

edit

I'm having trrouble understanding why the Broward-Palm Beach New Times citations aren't sufficient for this page? Both these articles significantly address the poet and are independent of him (and me). Is it that still more citations are needed? What is the threshold for number of citations in order to get this approved? Aoneko78 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection with Mr. Heath beyond taking his picture?
It's difficult to evaluate the source as it is not online, though offline sources are permitted.
There is not a specific number of citations required, but to pass this process reviewers usually look for at least 3. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Gdoron

edit

Dear helpdesk,

I've submitted an article about ocd.app, a mobile health application developed by GGtude Ltd. for the treatment and mental health issues.

The app's efficacy is supported by a strong body of peer-reviewed research:

The platform has been supported by 18 peer-reviewed studies conducted across the world including 12 published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as cited in the references section. Research includes samples from clinical populations, subclinical groups, and university students, supporting broad generalizability. In addition to symptom reduction, studies demonstrated increases in resilience to psychological triggers. Results have been published in reputable journals such as Behaviour Research and Therapy, Journal of Affective Disorders, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, and Scientific Reports.

Every effort has been made to ensure the draft maintains a neutral point of view, complies with Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines, and references reliable independent sources.

Disclosure: I, Professor Guy Doron, co-founder of GGtude Ltd., am the original author of this article. I acknowledge a conflict of interest regarding the subject matter and have strived to adhere to Wikipedia’s neutrality, reliable sourcing, and conflict of interest guidelines throughout the drafting process. Gdoron (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not asking a question, what help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gdoron: Read WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Your draft is not in compliance with that guideline (every medical claim needs to be sourced to a peer-reviewed journal article that corroborates it), and this is before getting into the draft being a blatant advertizement for the app. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The contribution has been studied thoroughly and has 18 peer-reviewed studies conducted across the world including 12 published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, has significant research backing. My question is How can I revise the submission for it to be acceptable for submission? Gdoron (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:13, 5 June 2025 review of submission by 197.239.13.225

edit

Hello, I’ve just submitted an article titled “Draft:DJ Bush Baby” related to a breaking event. It’s properly sourced and neutral. Requesting quick review due to its time-sensitive nature. Thank you! 197.239.13.225 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

197.239.13.225, I think that WP:BLP1E, WP:N and WP:RS are the matter here. Multiple sources about just one thing doesn't make it notable. — 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 16:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:01, 5 June 2025 review of submission by StrategicMaverick

edit

I had a draft in my sandbox that was declined re: Jeffrey Brian Oddo. I have revised under the original submission (also in my sandbox) and would appreciate some direction on how to resubmit for review. Thank you very much. StrategicMaverick (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @StrategicMaverick. I'm afraid that User:StrategicMaverick/sandbox looks nothing ike a Wikipedia article. I can see no evidence that it has ever been submitted and declined.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have c :chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else. In particular, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
First find the sources, remembering to exclude any thing written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates.
Then forget everything that you personally know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those independent reliable sources say.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:24, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea

edit

Just wanted to know if my article has been properly submitted for review and approval? Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history indicates no edits other than this one. If you created the draft before your account, you need to provide the full title(including the "Draft:" portion) so we can find it. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea.
I'm guessting that you are referring to the draft Draft:RIDER Litigation Finance, which was create by an IP user a couple of weeks ago.
The draft has not been submitted for review. You could do so by picking the blue button; but there is no point in doing so because the draft has zero chance of being accepted in its present form, as it cites no sources.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and very little else.
The draft appears to be your personal account of a company you founded.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Furthermore, you are discouraged (though not forbidden) from creating an article on a subject where you have a conflict of interest. (In fact, if you are the CEO, Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and the restriction are even tighter.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:36, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Lijil

edit
Since this is the wrong venue may I suggest this be continues the requestor's user talk page? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newbie AfC reviewer - didn't notice username was same as subject of entry I'm a brand new AfC reviewer and I just declined Draft:Ariel_Arellano as the subject's not notable. But I forgot to check the user name, and I see the user who created the draft has the same name as the person the profile is about. I know that's not OK, and I should have mentioned that in my reason for declining the page - but I don't see specific instructions about it in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions. What is the correct way to deal with this? Lijil (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lijil Not really the correct venue. WT:AFC is better.
It all hinges on notability. If notable and shown to be notable, accept and tag post acceptance as an autobiography.
If not notable it is polite to decline just in case the subject might be shown to be notable, but a couple of iterations down the line and no notability I tend to reject. WP:BITE we sometimes miss by accident. Try to leave a pleasant AFC comment of encouragement. Howevwer I will suggest speedy deletion as a blatant advert id it is a blatant advert
In either case I like to welcome the new editor with a suitable welcome message. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lijil I've left a comment on your talk page. Yes, I know you know that, but I thin any either discussion might continue there. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

22:59, 5 June 2025 review of submission by THEMATTHEWZACHARY

edit

Requesting expedited review – Matthew Zachary draft

edit

Hi there—I've submitted my sandbox draft of User:THEMATTHEWZACHARY/sandbox for review. The subject meets general notability guidelines with independent coverage in Newsweek, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CBS Evening News. The article has been written to match tone, structure, and sourcing requirements. Would appreciate a look when time allows. Thank you! THEMATTHEWZACHARY (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review and it is pending. As noted on the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,624 pending submissions waiting for review."
I might suggest that you read the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. A Wikipedia article isn't for the person to tell about themselves, it's to summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they are a notable person. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to guarantee a speedy review. Wikipedia has no deadlines, and is not bound by any deadlines its editors might be under. Aside from writing about yourself, what is your need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. To clarify: yes, I am Matthew Zachary.
I understand the guidelines regarding autobiographies. This draft was written with the intent of following Wikipedia's neutrality and notability standards. It is fully sourced with independent, reliable coverage in Newsweek, People, SurvivorNet, and CancerConnect—with significant depth and coverage of my work. I’ve also added supplemental references from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.
I’m not seeking any special treatment, only asking that someone review the draft on the merits of notability and sourcing, per WP:GNG and WP:BIO.
Happy to wait in the queue if needed. Just wanted to flag the updates and confirm that the latest version was compliant and worthy of reconsideration.
Thank you. THEMATTHEWZACHARY (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew THEMATTHEWZACHARY (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’ve updated my draft at User:THEMATTHEWZACHARY/sandbox with new references that show significant coverage in Newsweek, People, SurvivorNet, and CancerConnect, along with supporting mentions in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The subject is the founder of Stupid Cancer and a well-known patient advocate and podcast host.

Would appreciate a look when time allows. Thank you!

MZ THEMATTHEWZACHARY (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THEMATTHEWZACHARY Please edit this existing thread, instead of creating additional threads. Please clarify if you are Mr Zachary or a representative. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:52, 5 June 2025 review of submission by Empress-of-angels

edit

Why was this taken down Totally at a loss why this was removed John Turman (writer). It had an over a dozen citations including Variety & Hollywood Reporter and x-linked to other wiki articles. Ideally I would like to have it as a disambiguation and not (writer). Empress-of-angels (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Empress-of-angels I fixed your header so it did not link to an article called "Why was this taken down". The whole url is not needed when linking.
I'm not sure to what you are referring; the article has not been taken down. This page is to ask about drafts in the draft process; questions about articles should go to the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_June_5&oldid=1295146188"