Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nosebagbear (talk | contribs)
24,097 edits
Oliviasha (talk | contribs)
11 edits
No edit summary
Line 562: Line 562:


= December 23 =
= December 23 =

== 11:28:34, 23 December 2018 review of submission by Oliviasha ==
{{Lafc|username=Oliviasha|ts=11:28:34, 23 December 2018|declined=Draft:HandSkills}}

I disagree with the abolition of an article entitled HandSkills. Because this article contains information about a company that can be used as a reference for people when they want to study and conduct research on objects rather than articles titled HandSkills.
So please, consider the reasons for your removal again.
Thank you
[[User:Oliviasha|Oliviasha]] ([[User talk:Oliviasha|talk]]) 11:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:28, 23 December 2018

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


December 17

03:22:43, 17 December 2018 review of draft by Luther Aragones


Luther Aragones (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am writing to talk about this article that I have been creating for several months ... Mundo De Cristo. I understand that at the beginning I did not have all the references I needed, but over time, I added more, in total we have 16 references placed and I still can not understand why it does not meet the necessary references to be in Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I am the creator and director of this medium, all the information I have used in it, are totally real. Another point is that the last time we sent the application, several days later they put in a token, which is still ... saying the following: "An important contributor to this article seems to have a close connection with his subject." to this file, I was answering in the discussion section, requesting help and at the same time information to get to put our article on the platform. In addition to this we could see that the article, that person who is said to be an important contributor, improved certain information, and therefore I came to think that it would be available.

Concluding I just need to know what other information is missing from my article to be available and if I can have help from you to put it. I would appreciate it enough, I have tried it in different ways.

Thank you very much and I hope for your help. Luther Aragones (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:29:14, 17 December 2018 review of submission by NELSON VIJAY05


NELSON VIJAY05 (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


07:12:21, 17 December 2018 review of submission by Amekh


Hello, I built upon the list I submitted initially with 6 additional websites and 3 additional descriptors. Please provide advice on how I can improve the content further to get approval on wikipedia. The goal is to provide a list of data analysis tools for League of Legends players. Thank you. Amekh (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


09:58:45, 17 December 2018 review of draft by Kisscsi

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Could you please specify what's wrong with this article? It was written neutral pont of view, contains facts and lot's of sources. Hungarian version is already submitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MET_Group

Kisscsi (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:58, 17 December 2018 review of submission by MaciekKubiak


MaciekKubiak (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:20:02, 17 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 69.157.202.50


Hi,

My draft was rejected due to: "Draft lacks independent reliable source references." I have sited a Canadian government website as a reference which includes a description of the organisation and a link to the organisations website. I am confused as to how much more reliable a reference you are wanting. why is this not enough? Thanks,

69.157.202.50 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the standards used to demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia) of charitable organizations is, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." Citing one government webpage, which appears to contain information supplied by the organization, proves the organization exists. It comes nowhere near demonstrating significant coverage from a variety of independent reliable sources over a period of time. See Seacology as an example of the breadth of information and sources Wikipedia is seeking for a charity. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:18:35, 17 December 2018 review of draft by IAmTheNeil


Hi team,

I would greatly appreciate some additional advice on the creation of the DaVinci Resolve article, and ensuring it meets Wikipedia's quality standards.

I strongly feel that this software deserves its own article, given that:

  • It often used in conjunction with various applications which have their own articles (e.g. Media Composer, Adobe Premiere Pro) in the workflows of professional filmmakers.
  • Similar applications have their own articles (e.g. Nuke (software)).
  • Its current primary entry redirects to a company that hasn't owned the software since 2009.
  • Applications that are integrated directly into it as modules (e.g. Blackmagic_Fusion) have dedicated articles for their standalone versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmTheNeil (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is one of the industry-leading products for its field.

I have included multiple articles from established third-party publications to establish notability (a valid concern raised during the first submission); however, despite attempts to maintain a neutral tone, the remaining concerns are that it's too promotional.

Please advise what steps can be taken to increase the level of neutrality of the article to an acceptable level, without removing the articles which demonstrate its notability. I have already made the list of films & TV more concise, in response to concerns over coatrack creation.

Thank you.

IAmTheNeil (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:56:59, 17 December 2018 review of draft by Tyler Durd


I need help for creating new sections for the filmography of the company REAL by FAKE which the company wiki page draft is pending review. I want to create something similar to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNEG

Tyler Durd (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyler Durd Welcome to Article for Creation help desk. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article to familiar yourself what is needed to create an article. Once you have done that then go to Article_wizard - Here] and start drafting. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

04:46:42, 18 December 2018 review of draft by Deerlaos


Deerlaos (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deerlaos: - this draft was rejected as it says - because it had no content. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:29:20, 18 December 2018 review of submission by Doman tudu


Doman tudu (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doman tudu - Your autobiography is an autobiography, has no references, and does not make a credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:26:27, 18 December 2018 review of submission by Malek404


Malek404 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Malek404: - while I can't answer if Frayae's rejection was legitimate, I do agree with the previous (and still correct) reviews - this draft looks sources that actually cover the subject in depth - three only have a couple of lines mention and even the first source has only a large paragraph's worth. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:58, 18 December 2018 review of submission by Clive sweeting


Importance of the subject undeniable. Check with Greek Wikipedia. Bishops are deemed notable and Meliton certainly was. Subject needs a more open discussion open to all who wish to judge it.

Clive sweeting (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clive sweeting Different wikipedia spaces (Such as the German, or Greek wikipedias) have different criteria for notability. The English is probably the most stringent. There's nothing I can do for this article, except forward to an admin, as the article is I believe WP:SALTed; which stops regular user such as myself from moving them. I believe Legacypac has already done this, however. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Clive sweeting, User:Lee Vilenski - On the one hand, it is true that Orthodox bishops are considered notable. On the other hand, this draft has problems with verifiability and with tone, and repeated re-creations may have caused it to be created-protected (salted). I suggest Deletion Review. Some achievements or distinctions, such as being a bishop or being a Senator or performing in the Olympics, are considered ipso facto notable, but that achievement or distinction must be verified, and the article must be neutral. If you want a "more open discussion", go to Deletion Review, but first be sure that your draft is verifiable and satisfies neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:36, 18 December 2018 review of submission by Vrgamer


Hi sufficient coverage and proof of exposure and notability internationally has been presented. Notability being very subjective it would be best to provide specific reason or improvements needed to accomplish the minimum required. Vrgamer (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vrgamer - sadly, notability (at least in wikipedia's sense) isn't subjective. They require Reliable sources to comment on the subject in-depth and they must be WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject. Please read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion on the subject. I don't think this software meets these guidelines. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:31, 18 December 2018 review of submission by Translationservicessingapore


I'm new to wikipedia. I would like to give some details of translation services in Singapore in wikipedia. There are lots of users enquire about translation services and guidance on the process of getting their documents translated. I would appreciate if you could give me some advice on how to publish on wikipedia. thank you. Translationservicessingapore (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Nothing worth seeing.

16:14:53, 18 December 2018 review of submission by Nithin Rock


Nithin Rock (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


16:15:20, 18 December 2018 review of submission by Nithin Rock


Nithin Rock (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am Karingala Nithin (Nithin Rock ). I am from Hyderabad. Nick name Shiva. To Become Actor. Wish me on 16 Feb.

OFFICIAL PAGE link here

Facebook: NITHINROCKOFFICIALPAGE

Instagram: Instagram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithin Rock (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NithinRock: review of submission by Template:NithinRock:REVISIONUSER


Nithin Rock (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Template:Nithin rock[reply]

Request on 17:39:21, 18 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Chris04550


I attempted to create a page on a musical instrument that is the successor to Roland_AX-7 and Roland_AX-Synth, similar instruments deemed notable enough to warrant wikipedia entries. I have no special interest in this instrument, so the reviewer's mention of WP:COI and WP:PROMO do not apply. I would just like guidance on how to create new articles. Chris04550 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris04550. Glad to hear that you don't have a conflict of interest. Whether an editor intends to promote something or not, the article they produce can still be promotional, particularly if it is based entirely on the company's website and press releases.
Don't assume that the existence of Roland AX-7 and Roland AX-Synth means that they're notable and should have separate Wikipedia articles. I've suggested at Talk:Roland AX-1#Merger proposal that, in accordance with the notability guideline, all of these models be merged into one article that covers the entire line of Roland keytars. If, after a week or so, a consensus has formed to do that, you can perform the merger by following the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:14:15, 18 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Zimbali Beyoncé



Zimbali Beyoncé (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:04:40, 18 December 2018 review of submission by Markcoomber


Hi, I need help. I'm trying to create an article for my home village of Widdrington. There is a housing project a few miles away from our village called Widdrington Station, which has an article. The reviewers of the article which I've been trying to create for Widdrington Village, keep stating that our village, and the housing project are one and the same village (they're really not), and that two articles are not required. Please help!!!! Markcoomber (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted per WP:GEOLAND, after modifications and with tags. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:21:07, 18 December 2018 review of submission by Bradleyagin


I am simply putting this here as a resource for research! please reconsider this bradleyagin 23:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Bradleyagin Your draft looks like a test edit, rather than suitible for wikipedia. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

03:42:58, 19 December 2018 review of submission by আশরাফুল হক সোলাইমান


আশরাফুল হক সোলাইমান (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:17:37, 19 December 2018 review of draft by Zulrah


This draft got declined second time with same two reasons: being based only on newspaper articles and not being notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Neither of those reasons are actually valid for declining this article, atleast now when I added new sources. This article is not based only on news reports. It has also other sources than just newspaper articles. Iltalehti was only newspaper source that article had. One of the 3 sources was FURORA (which is finnish organization for UFO-research and one of them was Yle, which is large media, that has TV, Radio, Internet features, it is not a newspaper. Yle is actually Finland's national public broadcasting company. Atleast two books and UFO documentary movies tell about this incident. I now added to my article new sources: one book and two documentary movies. And about not being notable enough for Wikipedia, this incident is only UFO-incident to be officially acknowledged by Finnish Air Force and one of the best officially verified UFO-cases in the world. It can be compared to Condon Report's Case 2 in Greenwich, which was one of the best cases in whole research to give real evidence about UFOs. Condon Report said in its conclusion for that atleast one real UFO was probably reported. That research called Condon Report was made by The Condon Committee, funded by the United States Airforce to have a scientific research on UFOs. This case being similar to this Case 2 and being one of the best cases to give real evidence for UFOs, and being also known elsewhere than Finland, and being mentioned also in books and movies and several publications, means that this article is in fact notable enough for being in Wikipedia. Finnish Air Force sighting can be already found in finnish Wikipedia as Porin seitsemän ilmapalloa and should be accepted also for english Wikipedia.

Zulrah (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:37, 19 December 2018 review of draft by Thedavidshow


The reviewer maintains that the subject of the article I've written, Draft:Richard Marshall (barber), is not notable... and though he is mentioned several times in primary and secondary sources such as The Guardian, the Telegraph, and several London and Travel sites, this mention is only a passing mention and that "Maybe the business is notable (no guarantees) but the owner is not". As there is only one owner of the business, and every reference deals with how Richard Marshall founded that business, my question is how Richard Marshall could not be notable if Pall Mall Barbers is notable?

My subject is also a living person and the article is the biography of a living person with at least nine independent sources. I seem to remember biographies of living persons being a protected class. Is this no longer the case?

Thedavidshow (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The business was founded in 1896 so he did not found it. I declined the page so I'll let others weigh in. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary... The Pall Mall Toilet Salon at Trafalgar square was founded in 1896. The Pall Mall Barbers chain of male grooming shops was founded in 2005 by Richard Marshall. As the founder, and sole owner, of this international chain of barbershops I would have to maintain that any source that refers directly to "Pall Mall Barbers" must also be making reference to Richard Marshall. There are currently nine such primary and secondary references, many of which refer to Richard Marshall and his founding of that business by name, and I have many more. See also Ray Kroc, Colonel Sanders, and Russell Solomon. Thedavidshow (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:51:08, 19 December 2018 review of draft by 2405:204:2187:29DA:BF85:BF3E:214C:613E


Hi, It has been more than 2 weeks since Draft:Shiva Texyarn Limited was not reviewed. I would like to know how long it would take to review any draft? Thanks. 2405:204:2187:29DA:BF85:BF3E:214C:613E (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@2405:204:2187:29DA:BF85:BF3E:214C:613E: LegacyPac has accepted your draft into an article. Usually, at the moment, it takes up to 4 weeks, so please don't ask before that point.

10:58:19, 19 December 2018 review of submission by 2405:204:1202:3159:9586:6ECC:DCF0:8194


2405:204:1202:3159:9586:6ECC:DCF0:8194 (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


How can improve it. please help.

11:08:22, 19 December 2018 review of submission by Puneetpal Singh Miglani


Puneetpal (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puneetpal - Your draft is blank. If you were trying to submit something for approval, you did not enter any text. You also have not entered any text here. Try typing something before pushing a Submit button. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:33:40, 19 December 2018 review of draft by Mirjalalishahram


Hello There , I started shahram mirjalali article and i added many sources of his album , interviews , link to places where his track releases are but still can't make it work. My English isn't so well so if you could please tell me specifically what exactly i am missing i could add to my article


Mirjalalishahram (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:43:46, 19 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Makemaya


Greetings!

Can you please help me in gathering appropriate reference. I am not a part of MakeMaya but I want user to read about them and acheivements.


Makemaya (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:56, 19 December 2018 review of submission by EAFJD


Hello, we are requesting a review of the submission, as we have greatly revised our sources and included multiple independent reliable ones. EAFJD (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EAFJD. Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. Do you have an undeclared connection to the organization European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User block requested. Promo Username and shared use. The organization may well be notable. I'd suggest others take a look. Legacypac (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:04, 19 December 2018 review of submission by Georgie1471471


What is wrong with the submission Georgie1471471 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:06:14, 19 December 2018 review of submission by ColeraineGS


Hello

I work for a school in Northern Ireland called Coleraine Grammar School. The school was created in 2015 by the amalgamation of two schools called Coleraine Academical Insitution and Coleraine High School. There are wikipedia articles about these 2 schools and I have created a short Wikipedia article on the new school.

I am aware that google's search engine uses information from wikipedia on its searches but it is linking to the old pages rather than the new page. Would somebody be able to rectify that for me please?

This is the wikipedia that google links to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleraine_Academical_Institution

but I want it to link to this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleraine_Grammar_School

If I can get the change made then I will put up more information on it.

Hope you can help.

Dave.

ColeraineGS (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:59:27, 19 December 2018 review of draft by Francis roxas


Francis roxas (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I was told to remove hyperlinks for the draft page of the Complex Wavelet SSIM that I worked on yesterday. I looked up what a hyperlink was here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink and I just wanted to get feedback on what constitutes as a hyperlink. I also wanted to know if I removed all of them. For instance, do references count as hyperlinks, do the Wikipedia pages linked via the "[[ ]]" count as hyperlinks, or do only links to external sites count as hyperlinks?

22:11:19, 19 December 2018 review of submission by Truthfunbug2


This is my first article. I did the whole article in the sandbox under my user name and then sent it for review. When the article was accepted, it was (appropriately) renamed "Nils Christensen (aviator)" but it is showing as a redirect from my user sandbox. How do I make the Nils Christensen article stand alone, and remove the link to my user sandbox?

Truthfunbug2 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, use this link and just remove all text in the sandbox. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


December 20

03:18:23, 20 December 2018 review of submission by Truthfunbug2


I just had my first article accepted. When I try to find the article on google, and type in "Nils Christensen" or "Nils Christensen (aviator)", it does NOT direct me to the wikipedia article. The only way I can find the article is if I go to wikipedia and search "Nils Christensen (aviator)". Otherwise it directs me to "Nils Christensen Ringnæs". Why am I not able to find the article in wikipedia by just searching on google (or other search engine)??

I just submitted a "Nils Christensen (disambiguation)" page. Will this solve the problem?


Truthfunbug2 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthfunbug2 Greeting to you and welcome to AfC help desk. The the article has been accepted in AfC, the page need to be accepted in new page review before Google is permitted to index the page. Wikipedia has no control how long Google would take to index the page, but usually it is within 72 hours after the page is accepted in NPP. I have just accept the page in NPP so just wait for a day or two and you should be able to find the page in Google search engine. Thank you very much for your contribution and happy happy New Year. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:25:31, 20 December 2018 review of submission by Eatcha


Eatcha (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Can any one please check my question at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Can_I_create_a_page_for_b374k_shell. I wanna create an Article on B374k Webshell.

05:54:36, 20 December 2018 review of draft by Sakura6977


When I click on view template, an 'empty' redlink opens up.

The template name reflecting is "Nizam" whereas, I want the template to be named as "Nizam of Hyderabad".

Something not right.Please help. Thank you.

Sakura6977 (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


06:15:24, 20 December 2018 review of submission by Ia.anunta



07:25:50, 20 December 2018 review of submission by MrMohammedJanjua


MrMohammedJanjua (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


07:46:26, 20 December 2018 review of submission by Meccoworld


Meccoworld (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


08:01:09, 20 December 2018 review of submission by Locallion


Locallion (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I think this article may need a major help in terms of finding more reliable sources that show his successful part and rearrange the article into paragraph style or bullet so, that can easy to read Locallion (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:04:30, 20 December 2018 review of submission by Raener Lewington


I am requesting a re-review of my page as I provided links to my books that I referenced on my page and kept the page simple but informative. I am unsure of what I can do to make the page sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia aside from what has been included. Any form of help or advice I could receive on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Raener Lewington (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I submitted this article and it was tagged for speedy deletion within one hour and two hours later it was deleted. I contested that speedy deletion on the talk page, but no one reacted. Now I am asking advice on how to proceed. I feel this article meets the notability guideline, but other(s) are not convinced. If possible I want to rewrite the article like other cryptocurrency articles, but having tried that I am asking for additional advice on what I could do to meet the Wikipedia standard. I am not paid or compensated to contribute to this article. I also was not asked to start this article. Information security and crypto are one of my favorite topics. So I created several related pages in the English Wikipedia and Dutch Wikipedia. In this case I wanted to start the former (deleted) article, but someone did it already. So I contributed to that (deleted) page. Before the page was deleted I already started an improvement in my sandbox, but never came around to it to actually do and publish a complete improvement. Now that the page was deleted, I have the chance to create/start a page to my liking. I asked the reddit comunity to contribute also and help with finding some quality content which meet Wikipedia standards. Even the Wikipedia admin David Gerard who moved 'my' newly created article to draft gave me/us some pointers on how to create a qualifying Wikipedia article. That was and is much apreaciated. Please advise on how to proceed.

FlippyFlink (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlippyFlink, checkY Accepted. I liked the draft version you had in your sandbox - I removed the 'Philosophy' and 'Third Generation' sections as I'm unsure they're encyclopedic. However, I felt your sources (Reuters/IBT) merited notability. Please feel free to continue improving it in articlespace -- it's now at Cardano (cryptocurrency). programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 21:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:26, 20 December 2018 review of draft by 2405:204:81:13D6:9EFF:E139:D17F:854B



Hello, This draft was submitted more than 3 weeks ago. I will really appreciate it if someone please comes up and reviews it for me. Thanks in advance.

2405:204:81:13D6:9EFF:E139:D17F:854B (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:44:11, 20 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Wanderguides


I am working on a company page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Visier_Inc. of which I've failed to pass the significant coverage guidelines. I have included more coverage for the company but want to ensure I don't fail the guidelines again. I've reviewed the WP:SIGCOV page and believe that a number of the articles included do pass the test, however the page continues to fail. Please help, I just want to get an understanding of what still isn't fitting the criteria, as the references have numerous independent sources from outlets like TechCrunch, Venture Beat, etc. that have a primary focus on the company and are not sponsored and totally independent.

Thanks!

Wanderguides (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:56:11, 20 December 2018 review of submission by KfrostTBC

Can you please let me know why my post was deleted when it was not a solicitation as it they were business facts supported by linked cites? KfrostTBC (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:17:25, 20 December 2018 review of submission by 104.173.214.74


Hello everyone,

I received a message that I should connect all the articles with the sources. I did already on my last change. What are you still asking for.

Pls review the page its all connected.

Thanks in advance 104.173.214.74 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

00:53:50, 21 December 2018 review of submission by Whiiiiims


Astro Black is as notable as a lot of the entries in his same category. He is internationally known and recognised in his field of music. The amount of touring that he does correlates this assertion. He plays some of the worlds biggest festivals and events including Fuji Rock Festival, the number four top festival in the world. Astro Black has been a part of award winning group and is known for his contributions to his field.

Whiiiiims (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


03:36:31, 21 December 2018 review of draft by Songuitar333


Songuitar333 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source about Geoff Levin. Would this help the article? http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/People_The_60s_rock_hitmakers_with_the_Larry_Norman_connection_/64361/p1/

09:58:45, 17 December 2018 review of draft by Kisscsi


Can I ask for This article that hoe do I Add Reference or Notabilty for the Article??

Thanks.

Telex80 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:27:15, 21 December 2018 review of submission by Pberson


Clearly, Wikipedia has an issue with this page. This company has developed an advanced algorithm to rank to doctors and intuitions throughout the world. The clearly have an interesting piece of technology. They have fully automated analyzing of medical publications, algorithmically extract the crucial information and interesting this into a database to help the patient find the best institutions and doctors. I have been asked to determine what it the issue and how might we resolved it. Thank you.

Pberson (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: this is one of Frayae's. programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 06:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pberson: - I'm inclined to agree with the previous reviews. There are 6 sources. 3 of them are the site itself, so obviously aren't independent. Neither the Biomedics's journal or the ABC News sources cover it in sufficient detail. I can't access the Patient's Playbook, but a medical-oriented article should have at least two-clear cut sources.
Pberson, to fix the issue, hunt down 2 sources that discuss Expertscape itself in detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ProgrammingGeek: - OK so if they were able to get to external sources that explain what they are doing then it would have merit? In this case how much detail do they have to divulge? What to say that person would just create a new site doing the same thing and maybe do it better? Or Maybe this is just not a place for them on Wikipedia. Can you explain how this Doximity Article is different? Is it cause the references? I think I now understand what you want. Please confirm if Expertscape was to get to external references to state what they doing you would be ok and Expertscape with be Notable. Am I on the right track??
Nosebagbear (talk) - Nosebagbear do you agree with my statments
@Pberson: - So there's no way the amount of detail that is necessary should reach anywhere near valuable information. Even more relevantly, for there to be the type of secondary-source coverage that is suitable (reliable and independent (which, as a side-note, rules out most interviews)) that information must already be available for people to see in the public. Effectively, wikipedia content should never reveal anything new to the public, just make it easier to access. Doximity has coverage from the Washington Post, the New York Times & U.S. News & World Report, as well as a couple of potentially suitable sources - very high quality sourcing. None of that information would be viewed as trade secrets.
Having not heard of Expertscape before now, all I can say is that the suitable sourcing and notability are functionally equivalent here (a NASDAQ company you could feel fairly confident that there is sourcing out there). I would suggest you have a read of WP:NCORP (which is the organisational notability rules, which are stricter than usual) and WP:CORPDEPTH - which excludes some types of "basic/regular/unhelpful" sources, even if from a good publisher. News articles that mainly talk about venture capitalism funding is a common example of this issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:21:57, 21 December 2018 review of submission by CPGLCONGO


Hello... I'm resqueting to another re-review of the page Amini Cishugi because I find Google articles about him. I was about to create this page, I find it all ready created. CPGLCONGO (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CPGLCONGO: - it doesn't get re-reviewed unless you resubmit it. I've done that now, so it should be reviewed some time within the next three weeks. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:27:47, 21 December 2018 review of draft by Botimus


Can you provide clarification on what additional information do you need. I have linked a Columbus Dispatch article which clearly defines the artist as relevant to the Columbus Ohio region. As compared to [Steadyfire] who also has limited references in their article with broken links? Why is one allowed on Wikipedia but not the other?

Botimus (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Botimus. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they have been in any way "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
To be accepted, Draft:Picasso's Dream would need to cite reliable, independent, secondary sources that demonstrate that the band is notable (satisfies the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia). The Dispatch article doesn't help do that because it's a primary source interview where the leader of the band talks about the band, with no independent analysis by the interviewer. Based on that article and on the draft's description of them, they appear to be far from notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:40:26, 21 December 2018 review of draft by ThunderheadMars


I Am an american Singer/Musician/Recording Artist by the name Thunderhead (Barry Andrew Madison) There are supposed to be umlats over the u but I don't know how to do this. I need to make a wiki page for my Music and Art and Writings and Film, But I am dumb. Please Help The Dumb Monkey

www.YouTube.com/thunderheadsun


ThunderheadMars (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:47, 21 December 2018 review of submission by Unarosaèunarosa


The review by AngusWOOF was

"Wikipedia is not for compiling lists of pop culture trivia: WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:POPCULTURE. If there are some notable cultural references they can be explained in the book's article."

The quotations from The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana are not pop culture trivia. (Pop culture!? Umberto Eco?)

Notable cultural references in the novel are not "some", but hundreds - literally hundreds.

Are these important/relevant/notable/encyclopedic? Yes, they are, for example Eugenio Scalfari, in his article on the novel, says, among other things, that Umberto Eco is an expert in his field, that he is an experimentalist, an innovator, and that in his novel he builds a multimedia film script by assembling songs, poems, quotations, pieces recovered from a common past, figurines, comic strips, which have made the history of communication of half a century.

Pages like this or this are obviously of great value.

I can add many references to the article, to do the same for Umberto Eco's novel. The question is if the community of Wikipedia wants it or not.

Unarosaèunarosa (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Divine Comedy has a number of books and papers that go into the detail as to the cultural references used in the book. List of cultural references in the Divine Comedy#References. The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana, a 2004 novel, does not even have a detailed analysis or reception section. If the novel is known for its vast amount of cultural references, then a paragraph / section can be written about it as with The Simpsons#Humor and Ready_Player_One_(film)#Cultural_references. this isn't Wikia or TV.com where every cultural reference from a chapter or episode can be catalogued as pointing to something. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there are notable cultural references, why not add them? They are cultural references from the work of one of the most prominent personality of our time to hundreds of prominent personalities of all time. Extraordinarily interesting for many reasons but, among other things, also because The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana is the most autobiographic of Eco's works - it actually speaks of his cultural background and connections, from his early education on - it is a small oasis of high-quality intertextuality lost in the vast network of near-meaningless connections of the information age. There are already published academic works on this.
I can't see the analogy with the Simpsons or a TV movie which are highly commercial products. However, if someone else wants to add a short paragraph/section to the main article, they can do that as well.
As I am contributing to this project, for the moment I will keep focusing on that.
Thank you for your time.
Unarosaèunarosa (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unarosaèunarosa You say there are already published academic works on this. Any addition to Wikipedia on the subject of intertextual allusions in Eco's novel would need to be based on such academic works: preferably, for each allusion listed you would give citations to one or more of these works and summarise what they say about it. That would (I hope) be accepted. In Wikipedia we seek to include topics that other writers have found noteworthy enough to comment upon in published writings, not what we Wikipedia editors may ourselves think is noteworthy: Noyster (talk), 16:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the records:
  • A quotation is a quotation and does not need an external source to confirm that, not even on Wikipedia, nowhere on Wikipedia this is true, or Wikipedia would not exist - you would need an external source Z to support the external source Y which supports the external source X which supports the external source W…
  • A quotation just needs the direct reference to the original author and work being quoted. You can find thousands and thousands of examples on Wikipedia where this is the case.
  • Quotations - to quote Eco - are known, common knowledge. In their published works, scholars do not report the author and work of the quotations because these are known, they are common knowledge, and if there is a rule that all follow is to keep unessential details to a minimum (unessential on a Journal article or essay, but not unessential to non-experts).
  • What scholars do say - and I can provide lots of references on this - is that Eco is using an entire universe of quotations to define the lost identity of the amnesiac character - who has, let's quote Eco again, a common past, a past common to many. That is why a list of quotations is relevant/notable in itself, that is why it is justified on an encyclopedia. And it can be legally done because those quotations are not property of Eco - nor Eco would have challenged that: he acknowledges most quotations by reporting them in italics (that was his entire point, wasn't it?).
  • What is obvious to experts and competent readers - author and work whence the quotation is extracted - is not necessarily obvious to others. That's why annotated lists are useful: to allow the 12 year young student who is up for a challenge, or the 18 year old young student who should have been ready long ago, to approach texts that would otherwise be prohibitive and obscure (only for experts, a bit like Finnegans Wake, in a sense).
  • On the other hand, selecting a few quotations from a work such as "The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana" would indeed be original research and, on an encyclopedia, it would also be disreputable, dishonest, as it would require an utterly arbitrary choice of what deserves and what does not deserve to be included. Furthermore it would give undue weight to the random opinion of the random scholar who would focus on one topic and ignore all the rest. In his work, Eco pushes the reader to accept that the random quotation from a poet like Rafael Alberti, completely irrelevant to most, completely unknown to most (but not to scholars), is indeed important to define an era that is common to many and matters, or should matter, to them too.
  • No intention of convincing you at all - as I see that this is a discussion which, like many a question of philosophy, or literature, or something else, might be prolonged six centuries.
Thank you for your attention and let's leave it at that.
Unarosaèunarosa (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

07:12:58, 22 December 2018 review of submission by Sujatasureshnair


Sujatasureshnair (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


08:48:48, 22 December 2018 review of submission by Malek404


Malek404 (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Malek404: See previous answers to your identical posting on Nov. 29, on Dec. 10, and on Dec. 18. If you have anything constructive to say, you're welcome to do so, but continuing to post the same empty inquiry here may be interpreted as "I didn't hear that", a form of tendentious editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:34:18, 22 December 2018 review of submission by MrAflatoon


Many people search about Ramkishan Suthar on the internet. But full information is not available. He is gradually becoming fame, so it is important to write the correct information about it. So that people could get the right information about him. Many times the article was written about him by the people but it was not written correctly, then it was rejected. That's why our duty is to bring the information to the public about it. I will try to improve the article. Thank-you.

MrAflatoon (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:26, 22 December 2018 review of submission by Lurain11


Lurain11 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Help. I don't understand what I am to do to get my article approved. Is there a way I can speak to someone about that?[reply]

Hi Lurain11. You're in the right place to discuss that with experienced Wikipedians. The "Submission declined" notice and comments on Draft:The Empowerment Center link to many pages that generally help editors improve their drafts. But please understand that you should not write about an organization with which you have a close connection, and that most organizations are not suitable topics for encyclopedia articles. So there may be nothing you can do to get the draft accepted. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:07:40, 22 December 2018 review of submission by CSharp21


DeSmume is one of the most famous Nintendo DS emulators availible (search google if you don't beleive.Also page of this emulator is present in wikipedia of other languages too,Thus I strongly beleive that this article should be posted. CSharp21 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: this draft is currently going through a deletion process with a request for it to be Salted, as that would be its third deletion.) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:27:57, 22 December 2018 review of submission by Whiiiiims


Whiiiiims (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiiiiims: - the reviewer feels that not only does this article lack sufficient references to satisfy the music notability rules, but that it is not capable of doing so (i.e. there aren't sufficient sources out there to find). While it is possible to prove them wrong, I'd suggest looking at some high quality articles on better-known DJs, and see the quality of sourcing they have (particularly in terms of quality and depth, not just quantity).
The draft is also rather advertorial in nature - "gained a reputation early as being able to rock a Party" is not a neutral statement, and wouldn't be in a suitable tone in any case. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 23

11:28:34, 23 December 2018 review of submission by Oliviasha


I disagree with the abolition of an article entitled HandSkills. Because this article contains information about a company that can be used as a reference for people when they want to study and conduct research on objects rather than articles titled HandSkills. So please, consider the reasons for your removal again. Thank you Oliviasha (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=875048500"