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
No edit summary
Line 807: Line 807:
[[User:Tommycarstensen|Tommycarstensen]] ([[User talk:Tommycarstensen|talk]]) 14:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Tommycarstensen|Tommycarstensen]] ([[User talk:Tommycarstensen|talk]]) 14:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
:Please do not duplicate posts. The draft still fails [[WP:NCORP]]. '''―[[User:Abelmoschus Esculentus#s|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">Abelmoschus Esculentus</span>]]''' ('''[[User talk:Abelmoschus Esculentus#s|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:orange">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contribs/Abelmoschus Esculentus|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:red">contribs</span>]]''') 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
:Please do not duplicate posts. The draft still fails [[WP:NCORP]]. '''―[[User:Abelmoschus Esculentus#s|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">Abelmoschus Esculentus</span>]]''' ('''[[User talk:Abelmoschus Esculentus#s|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:orange">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contribs/Abelmoschus Esculentus|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:red">contribs</span>]]''') 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

== 15:17:46, 11 January 2019 review of draft by 64.28.140.228 ==
{{Lafc|username=64.28.140.228|ts=15:17:46, 11 January 2019|draft=Draft:Buy_Nothing_Project}}


Specific details as to exactly where the non-neutral parts exist would be helpful to improve the following draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Buy_Nothing_Project

Also, is there a minimum number of independent, reliable, published sources that needs to be cited for the article to be considered "pass worthy"? Is so, that number would be useful to know or at the very least, indicate which citations in the draft are considered non-independent or unreliable.
Thank you.

[[Special:Contributions/64.28.140.228|64.28.140.228]] ([[User talk:64.28.140.228|talk]]) 15:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:17, 11 January 2019

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, 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


January 5

01:41:29, 5 January 2019 review of draft by Lengau


Hi,

I'm trying to understand one of the comments on my [Draft:Pixel Slate|Article for Creation draft], about notability. I don't understand what is meant by the sources not appearing to be independent - I intentionally used third-party sources rather than Google's own product marketing in certain areas in order to hopefully prevent neutrality issues - while some of the sources used are primarily about Google products (e.g. 9to5Google, which I used heavily due to their fantastic breakdown of the specs), I don't see this as being any different from using a 9to5Mac or Cult of Mac article in citations about an Apple-related page. I modeled the page on the Surface Pro 6 page, though I left out the Reviews section so far as I haven't yet had time to collect sufficient reviews. (I also didn't want to create a section with no citations whatsoever like the Reception section of the Surface Pro 6 page.)

Additionally, how do I formally declare that I don't have any financial connection with Google (and my only real connection with the Pixel Slate is owning one), and that I'm not being paid to make the article? To be entirely honest in my motivations, the primary reason I created the article was because I wanted a Wikipedia Infobox for the Pixel Slate because I was sick of having to search for the answers I wanted from a gazillion sources, so I figured I might as well add that. Given the sheer size of the infobox, I decided it would be better as a page.

Thanks,


Lengau (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lengau pls read WP:PRODUCT and consider add/merge the info into [[Google Pixel]. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CASSIOPEIA, I read that page before deciding to create the page as opposed to adding it to the Google Pixel page. It's unclear to me why the Pixel Slate is less notable than many other products that have their own pages, including the iPad (2018), Surface Pro 6, and other specific instances of both of those product lines. I'm concerned that adding all the relevant information about the Pixel Slate to the main Google Pixel page would also make it rather unwieldy, especially as that page seems to shy away from providing too much detail about each individual product, instead providing a "Main article" link below each product's subheading. Thanks. Lengau (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AfC reviewers, kindly comments or review the page if you have different opinions/findings that of mine. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, I have added just the infobox to the Google Pixel page (direct link to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Google_Pixel&oldid=876901765), and it pretty soundly breaks the flow of that page, moving the photo of the Chromebook Pixel down next to the references section. Lengau (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to defer to the judgment of other reviewers if other reviewers think that product notability indicates that a separate article should be accepted. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to understand what makes this less notable than other, similar pages such as the Surface Pro 6 which, under my reading of Robert McClenon's description and the notability guidelines would be better suited to include into the main Surface Pro page. Should we be merging the Surface Pro pages like the iPad Pro? If not, can someone please explain why, as this seems like an arbitrary and inconsistent application of the rules. Lengau (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:32:44, 5 January 2019 review of submission by ObscureF9


I have added and amended the sources as suggested. I thank you for your time in reviewing and woukd appreciate any suggestions. ObscureF9 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


03:05:20, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Ethan Gaming05


Ethan Gaming05 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


03:13:05, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Ethan Gaming05


I would like to know how the box at the top of the page that reads "This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" and contains an image of a stop sign. I would like to know this since i have fixed what it is that needs to be fixed to be Wikipedia approved (i hope!). Thanks a bunch! Ethan Gaming05 (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


03:58:03, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Ethan Gaming05


I am asking how to get rid of the "Draft:" in front of my article title. Thank you! :D Ethan Gaming05 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ethan Gaming05 - Well, first, please use one inquiry rather than three about one draft. You are spamming the Help Desk with multiple queries. Second, how you get rid of Draft in front of the title is to have the draft accepted. However, the draft has been rejected by User:SemiHypercube. I wouldn't have said that it was contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, but I think that it is contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines on lists, and I would have declined or rejected it for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:53:39, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Divyansh Srivastava


Divyansh Srivastava (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:58:30, 5 January 2019 review of submission by DavidSFly

May I know why my resources are not reliable? And if this is not acceptable, what type of resources can I look for given name articles? Thanks. DavidSFly (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DavidSFly, Greetings to you. Please click on the "blue highlighted texts" on the grey panel on top of the draft page and they will lead to pages which details the info of your questions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:54, 5 January 2019 review of submission by 2605:E000:214B:E700:C3:6FAF:3B6:3B44


2605:E000:214B:E700:C3:6FAF:3B6:3B44 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:11, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Waeltely


The artist is a playback singer who is now associated with the malayalam film industry. He is now featured on IMDb for his work with a well known feature film as well - please refer the links provided and reconsider. This page will be updated as and when updates are made available.

Waeltely (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can be "featured" on IMDb,it confers no notability whatsoever, and Facebook is not a reliable source either I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:56:18, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Ijduncan


I have made the suggested changes.

Ijduncan (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ijduncan: - you need to resubmit it to AfC. Once you've done that it should be reviewed within three weeks. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but how do i do that? There not a big resubmit to AFC button. All I can do is publish the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijduncan (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:42:49, 5 January 2019 review of submission by Asarjima


please advice how can I improve the article. Asarjima (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:07:21, 5 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mattshea409


I don't know how to make it look professional


Mattshea409 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattshea409: To achieve the professional Wikipedia "look", follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ReactiveUI Wikipedia Entry

23:51:40, 5 January 2019 review of draft by Gpriaulx


Good Morning,

I have been working on trying to get a Wikipedia presence for ReactiveUI. ReactiveUI is a software library ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ReactiveUI ). So far, this has been formed with the input of a number of people, as discussed here, and in the Reactivex slack group ( https://github.com/reactiveui/ReactiveUI/issues/1521 ). This is a technical topic, and the library and concepts themselves, in their own domain has a steep learning curve, so we have kept the current format general to some degree. For the sake of understanding, it is comparable to React ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library) ), but on the Windows platform, rather than web based. This has been rejected a number of times, which I believe is due to quality references. I don't believe many further references exist on the internet; however in this domain I don't see how better references could really exist than those we have put forward.

Maybe I am missing something, or need to make better use of the references I do have to support this entry. I am having trouble unpacking the feedback in the context of this article; hence why I am here today.

At this point I would like to also refer to Reactive Extensions, the parent technology enabling ReactiveUI. Reactive Extenions Wikipedia presence ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_extensions ) only references primary sources; more specifically, one primary source ( http://reactivex.io/ ).

The references include: - An interview with the creator of ReactiveUI (Paul Betts), about ReactiveUI, with Jesse Liberty - a published author (actually both are) on Reactive Extensions, the parent technology. - Hanselminutes Podcast and blog entries from Scott Hanselman - a Microsoft Employee with a an independent blog/publication; one of the most credible independent sources on Microsoft tools and technologies in this industry. - Videos from Channel 9 about what ReactiveUI is and how to use it. Channel 9 is a Microsoft Technology disclosure and training site that is run by Microsoft. - Various articles and examples from Xamarin related sources. ReactiveUI is very popular in the Xamarin community.

Just to be clear, ReactiveUI is not a Microsoft project or product. It is built on their technologies and as such is discussed within Microsoft related technical circles. I do have one more important source up my sleeve which I haven't used yet, which is a book by Kent Boogart called 'You, I, and ReactiveUI', which is more or less seen as the gold standard documentation for ReactiveUI. I have been hesitant to use it so far however because I don't feel it clearly states anywhere throughout "ReactiveUI is THIS, created by GROUP on DATE to solve PROBLEM" which really seems to be the scope of a Wikipedia presence.

So far I have gotten what I consider to be nonconstructive feedback; particularly regarding technical software subjects. If training material by Microsoft (who otherwise have no involvement in the development of the product), entirely about the subject, isn't a notable source - I don't understand what IS. There isn't going to be articles in newspapers about many(any?) software products coming to market nor simply existing, let alone sub-components of software products. Technical books are seldom written about independent software libraries anymore due to the nature of the industry, although one does exist about ReactiveUI. Useful printed media in this domain is largely out of date before completion. Because of this, the examples given in the responses don't really offer any direction. I feel our references are largely inline with that of React ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library) ) and with more depth than Reactive Extensions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_extensions ) which both have been published and are relevant to ReactiveUI - I don't understand what I am missing or doing wrong here, nor where the expectation actually is.

Any advice on how to lift the standard of this article, satisfy the rejection concerns, or better use the references I have would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Gui

Gpriaulx (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first off, remember: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - in other words, just because some articles about similarly technical topics presently exist, doesn't mean their existence serves as an argument for the creation of a new article. It could be that none of these topics is notable enough, as we define it, to justify having an encyclopedia article about it. If you can't find articles in known, reliable sources that discuss this specific topic, it could be that it just is too obscure and undocumented. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

01:57:45, 6 January 2019 review of draft by Jelliott4


Is there an easy way to copy the references when you create an article by translating an existing article into English? In this case, the German-language article that I translated even cites English-language sources. I swear I've seen a template or something for this in the past, but I can't find it anywhere. (So now I have to contend with unhelpful editors trying to delete my draft every six months--if only people would be so enthusiastic about porting over the references from the German version!) Jelliott4 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jelliott4 Welcome to Article for creation. You can use Wikipedia:VisualEditor by pasting the URL on the field of the Visual Editor box and click "generate" and it will automatic fill the necessary fields for you except the "author name" of the source article. thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CASSIOPEIA. Thanks for your help, but I'm still confused. I eventually figured out how to enable VisualEditor, but I don't see any field into which I can paste the URL of the source article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_Steam_Wagon) as you described. Thanks again. Jelliott4 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jelliott4 Good day. I am not sure VisualEditor works in De (German) Wikipedia. Try on English (EN) Wikipedia and see if click "cite" on the top menu, a window is poped out of not where there are a field you could paste the URL. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jelliott4. The citation form used in the German article is a complicated one so I did it for you. Please note the repair I performed to the page history to provide copyright attributiomn for your translation. The next time you translate an article please be sure to do this. Copyright attribution is mandatory. See Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects for instructions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:33:29, 6 January 2019 review of draft by IssyHam


I'm confused about two notes I just received from a reviewer and want to do my best to correct these, but need clarification.

1) Cited sources. They're noted as not being reliable, but sources are from notable entertainment publications like Variety, Playbill, and Broadway World, as well as other notable political sources (for better or for worse) like Observer and NowThis News. I'm just confused about this note because these are key places where people turn for information on the topics in the AfC.

2) Reading like an advertisement. I will do my best to change the wording, but I studied a lot of existing articles about similar people and modeled the tone and information off of those. I'm not clear on what is "sales-y" about the AfC.

IssyHam (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources were properly formatted as footnotes, it would be easier for us to evaluate them. Instead, this draft includes dozens of external links, floating there like turds in a punchbowl. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orangemike Haha got it, I was not aware of that. Thank you. Will correct!

IssyHam (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:29, 6 January 2019 review of draft by Dolly442


I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but need assistance in redirecting (and then merging) an earlier page, "Shape theory of olfaction" to a new page I just created, "Docking theory of olfaction". Redirection is based on the agreement in two different review articles that the newer naming is more accurate and preferred. Ideally what I would like to do is rename the older page through a redirect and then replace just the first section of the merged article with the new material. Once this has been accomplished the I will go through the now merged article and modify as necessary. Also I was under the impression that since I have already authored and edited numerous Wiki articles that I could write and publish articles myself without going through the review process. However I cannot figure out how to publish by myself without having the Wizard force my aticles to first be reviewed. How do I get around the review step? Thanks very much for your kind assistance. Dolly442 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dolly442 Good day. There are 2 ways to get the article published (1) for new editor via Article for Creation (using Wizard) and there other is go through new page. To create an article via new page, you could just click on the "significant glass" top right corner, which it will lead you to a search page. Type the name of the title on the search field, if there is not such name matches the title (in read ink), that means there is not such article existed in English Wikipedia. All you need to do is to click on the red in text (the name of the article you want to create) and it will lead you to an empty page with the title of your article and you would start writing. However, pls run through the names (in blue ink) on the search page and see if any article in slightly different but similar content/subject have been created. If they already existed, you that is no point for you to create the article, but just add additional sourced info into it. Either an article goes through Article for Creation (AfC) or New Page process, they still need to go through review. The different is there is a process where by the reviewer would provide feedback/comment either via automated message or personalized comments or both of why the draft article is declined, what are needed to turn the draft page into an article in Wikipedia main page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:13, 6 January 2019 review of submission by Chandru Manickavasagam


Chandru Manickavasagam (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Chandru Manickavasagam[reply]

Wish to create a page on my profile. Yet to update more. Since there is no option found to save, i clicked publish change. Please let me know the positive ways to took part in ur esteemed WikipediA

Wikipedia does not have profiles. It has articles on notable topics. Wikipedia strongly discourages the submission of autobiographies. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:04, 6 January 2019 review of draft by FHF01


I'm trying to get my article reviewed, but can't figure out why it's not being reviewed

FHF01 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FHF01: You can expect it to be reviewed within the next four weeks or so. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:33:27, 6 January 2019 review of draft by Zipship544


How do I attach the newspaper article from the 1970s as a reference? The article is from the News Tribune. Not all information is on the internet. It was pulled from the newspaper achieve. Thank you


Zipship544 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zipship544: You are on the right track with the current citation, which includes the author's name, the date, the name of the newspaper, and where it was published. Add the title of the article and the page number on which it was printed. Help:Referencing for beginners contains further guidance. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:12:24, 6 January 2019 review of submission by Potatowrite


Hi, I'm requesting this be re-reviewed. I have edited the text to remove the corporate speak and excessive corporate linking. I have tried to verify the notability of the company via multiple sources and have linked the page with various existing pages that demonstrate notability.

~

January 7

05:11:09, 7 January 2019 review of submission by Eliasm920


Eliasm920 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, thank you for your review. When you say the article is " not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" do you mean there is not enough reference coverage out there for Michael Elias? thank you

@Eliasm920: That is correct. The sources cited that are independent and reliable (People, Variety, Playbill) do not contain a significant depth of information about Elias, so he doesn't meet the criteria for an encyclopedia article. You may wish to explore alternative outlets for what you've written, such as FamilySearch, which has different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you ... will research and apply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasm920 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:30:03, 7 January 2019 review of submission by Kirtigup


Kirtigup (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:14:00, 7 January 2019 review of submission by GarethHancock


Hey guys! Thanks for taking the time to review my drafted page and for the feedback. The page was rejected for lack of notability (I think). I'm wondering how and if I can go about improving the quality of the page to bring it to a level worthy of publication. Thanks for your help!

GarethHancock (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides notability, the reviewer also left a comment:

Please also see WP:PROMO.

I strongly encourage you to read it since your article is not written in a neutral point of view and seemed to be promoting a subject. More instructions left on your talk page. You may also read WP:YFA / WP:WBA for how to write better articles. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:07, 7 January 2019 review of submission by Chrismacrae


Chrismacrae (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand this whoke [process i am at chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk - if you wish to explain what is wrong with my piece on Digital-Cooperation please do- otherwise i will see how to make sure people at appropriate levels of un and wikipedia talk to each other as i dont want to waste anyone's time mine included

@Chrismacrae: The problems with your article are fully explained here. It sounds as though you have not grasped the basics of Wikipedia as yet, possibly because you've had such a long gap in editing. If you don't understand the process, you need to read the guidelines. Deb (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:45:46, 7 January 2019 review of submission by Sailod

I created my first page after making updates to a few others. I updated the Pearson Yachts page to add all the models and I wanted to create a new page for a model that does not have a page. It was rejected - I made three references to the information, one is written documentation from the defunct builder (company is long gone but the documentation has been scanned) and the other is written documentation which has been scanned in from the deceased designer. You can't get much more valid source of information than the builder and designer of the boat. The third reference is from an independent specifications site that is used on many other sailboat wikipedia pages. I do not have a lot of time to become a wikipedia expert but I would like to be able to make contributions as I like the philosophy and I have a good background in computer data. But if the site does not want my contributions I have plenty of other websites waiting. Sailod (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sailod. The draft cites valid sources of information; that isn't the trouble. The draft doesn't show evidence of significant coverage of the model in independent, secondary sources (the builder and designer are not independent of their product). Without such coverage, the product does not clear the bar of notability, so Wikipedia should not have a separate article on the model. Some information about the model could be included in Pearson Yachts. At the very least, the three sources you mention could be cited there. If sufficient independent sources are found later, then the topic can be spun out to into its own article. Meanwhile, there are many substandard articles that you could improve. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I think I have a better understanding regarding independent sources. I have added three more independent references. Sailod (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references to "forum" data and I understand they are not reliable sources so I removed them. I am about to give up on being a Wikipedia donor but... one last point I am confused on. The feedback on my new page says that we do not need a separate article on this model and that the page for Pearson Yachts is good enough. That seems to miss the whole point of this new page - that each model of Pearson Sailboat has its own unique rig specifications -- which is the encyclopedic type of information that I am trying to document. That is why there is not much text to this page - most of the content is specifications in a format used by Wikipedia for boat specs. Each model has its own rig specifications - hence its own wiki page. So that begs the question - why do we need "more coverage" to document rig specs for each model? (See examples of all the models of C&C Yachts). They are defined by the manufacturer and we have verifiable references on it from both (1) the manufacturer and (2) an independent source: Pearson Yachts documentation and sailboatdata.com. Perhaps I should be communicating with someone from WikiProject Sailing??? Sailod (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:50:23, 7 January 2019 review of draft by Heidi Helen


I don’t know how to reply to the reviewer in the article, so I am requesting help here. The reviewer doesn't find the individual to be of notable interest, but a leading role in a significant documentary known by the tech community and the public is quite notable. The references I have included back up that Ish ShaBazz was in the movie App: The Human Story.

The guide states "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable", which I have done with numerous third-party sources.

Additionally, "Significant coverage… does not need to be the main topic of the source material”, but you’ll find the references I provided actually correspond to the points made in my draft.

Also, the guidelines say “There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected” - I have provided plenty of sources, although the reviewer states, ”Not enough references to indicate this person is notable.”

I have also included links to various news sites that have mentioned the work of Ish ShaBazz and that he was in the movie, as his career is significant to a bio about him. I just added a link to Tech Insider too, where Ish's opinion was called upon, and his opinion was also called upon by The Verge in their Circuit Breaker video, which shows that he's a source often called on by the media for his expertise as an app developer and a tech commentator as well. Ish is very well known in the tech community and is of notable interest on Wikipedia.

A similar page to this one is that of Marco Arment, who is also a software engineer and a peer in the industry.

Heidi Helen (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heidi Helen. No, being one of the subjects of a documentary does not meet the basic or additional criteria for notability of an app developer. Nor does having his opinion called upon. The reviewer correctly assessed the draft as failing to demonstrate notability (and containing information unsupported by reliable sources). The cited sources are a mix of trivial mentions and primary source interviews, none of which help to show notability. That you haven't realized this, is just one of the reasons that conflict of interest editing is a really terrible idea. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Worldbruce
Hey, be nice. Yes, when I created the page, I discovered I had to give disclosure I am close to the subject, which I did. However, I linked to independent sources for every point that was made. I am not sure why passing references are not allowed to be used as a source to reference someone is an iOS developer, for instance. If the article says he is an iOS developer, why can’t that be used as a reference that he is an iOS developer? What would it take for the subject to be considered notable? Is it more secondary sources that are not primary interviews? --Heidi Helen 13:12, 9 January 2019 (GMT+10:30) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.82.101 (talk)
To be notable, they would need to meet the criteria of WP:BIO, which they do not. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

00:36:36, 8 January 2019 review of draft by Oughy71


I need this published Trapped in my mind. song by kid cudi. Oughy71 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Oughy71 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oughy71. The draft doesn't show that the song is notable (suitable for a stand alone article in Wikipedia. In other words, it doesn't show that Wikipedia needs this published. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:32:36, 8 January 2019 review of submission by Leah Kiwanuka


To who it may concern,

My creation was reject due to Conflict of interest I would like you to please reconsider this decision. Due to my last name it may seem that I might be related to Hemdee Kiwanuka, but that is far from the truth, I am just a fan of anyone with the name Kiwanuka. As a Ugandan, the name Kiwanuka means so much, it identify what tribe and clan you belong to, but it doesn't mean that I am related Hemdee Kiwanuka. Below are other Kiwanukas that I am not related too, but as I was searching on Rachel Kiwanuka rachel k singer and Halima Namakula Halima Namakula, I realized that Hemdee Kiwanuka doesn't have a page so I read/researched and created one for him as a fan of the Kiwanuka family.

There is also the singer Michael Kiwanuka, business woman Kiwanuka, Maria and football player Mathias Kiwanuka... I reference all this people with the same last name as mine, not to undermine your opinion, but to show you that we are not so many Ugandans highlighted, so when a few makes it, the entire country gets to know about it, so we follow each other very closely.

Instead of rejecting my article, I humbly request you to please help me get it better so I can also continue creating articles here. Could you please Re-Review the article... It was declined due to Notability of Hemdee Kiwanuka's credentials as an actor/producer and concert promoter, so I deleted the acting and concert credentials and only kept Film and Television Producer because Hemdee Kiwanuka had more articles written about him.

Leah Kiwanuka (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you continue improving the article in draft space and then have another try at submitting it. Concentrate on finding independent references - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Deb (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:40:41, 8 January 2019 review of submission by Leon V12

See below. Duplicate post ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


The reason the article was declined ws ":undifined" what does that mean? Thanks Leon V12 (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:45:18, 8 January 2019 review of submission by Leon V12

What is the reason for article to be rejected? It states that the reason is ":undefined" Leon V12 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leon V12, it looks like you somehow managed to delete the reviewer's explanation at the top of the page. I have restored it so that you can access it and follow relevant links, including the reviewer's "signature" if you wish to contact him/her directly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:54:58, 8 January 2019 review of draft by 68.103.78.155


Can you fix the reference I made please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Janaury → January Worldbruce (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:57:55, 8 January 2019 review of submission by Remsleep42


Remsleep42 (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to create a new page for Andy Liu, one of the first American Go Association professionals -- I am new to wikipedia editing, so may have made some fundamental mistake -- however, I believe the AGA professionals should have wiki pages.... Please help me understand where I went wrong... My article for Andy Liu was rejected.... Please help me understand how I can correct my article...

Hi Remsleep42. I've left a basket of links on your talk page that may help you regroup. Informal guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Go say that professional 4-dans (4P) and above are notable. Andy Liu is 1P, so he is not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article at this time. If you're interested in go, there are many related articles that could use improvement. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:50, 8 January 2019 review of submission by Leon V12


The Athlete I made an article about, has placed in respectable competitions. I have sourced to the websites that state the competitions he has competed in. I have corrected the article according to the changes suggested by the reviewer.

Leon V12 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leon V12. There are no subject-specific notability guidelines for non-Olympic snowboarders. So accomplishments (winning such-and-such competition) cannot demonstrate notability. The only way to show notability would be with multiple, independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of him (think magazine and newspaper articles or books about him). Webpages that merely record statistics do not help prove notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:28:32, 8 January 2019 review of submission by Leon V12


There are no subject-specific notability guidelines for non-Olympic snowboarders. So accomplishments (winning such-and-such competition) cannot demonstrate notability. Therefore I backed the results with Magazine articles and National TV interviews. Leon V12 (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:53, 8 January 2019 review of submission by The Great Yan


I would like you to review this one because both of them share same name but different career. The Great Yan (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC) @The Great Yan:, that may well be true, but you have not given any evidence of Wikipedia:Notability and that's why your submission was declined. Deb (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:51, 8 January 2019 review of submission by Sigute from InkAgency


Afer my article was reviewed, it was declined since it was not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, all the references that were added were relevant and informative, but most of them were in Lithuanian and not in English. Was this the main reason why the article was declined?

Sigute from InkAgency (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked undisclosed paid editing. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:01:15, 8 January 2019 review of submission by Magali Rottiers


I don't see why the article doesn't get accepted for publication. I've added the right references ...

Greetings, Magali Rottiers

Magali Rottiers (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:37:02, 8 January 2019 review of draft by KatieGPO


I am trying to create a page for our company Pimlico Opera. Most of the information is coming from us and our CEO so its deifficult to back this information up other than from our website. Can you help? KatieGPO (talk)

KatieGPO (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you have a conflict of interest which you will need to declare on your user page. Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by reliable sources so that information can be verified.

We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject.If there are no such sources then we cannot have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:14, 8 January 2019 review of submission by WilliamKavinsky1993


Hello, please could you advise on your rejection of this page. It has been referenced accordingly and I have removed the bias (from 'luxury' etc.). Please let me know your feedback.


WilliamKavinsky1993 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issues seems to be fixed. Place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page if you wish to resubmit. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:35, 8 January 2019 review of submission by Lwazilwenkosi Mpofu

My draft was rejected on basis that the person about whom the article is written (Brian Nhira) is, "not independently notable from the Voice" (AngusWOOF, 2018). I would love to know if it is inappropriate for me to use The Voice as one of the sources because Brian Nhira was part of the Voice contestants for season 10. Thank you for your kind response. Lwazilwenkosi Mpofu (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not inappropriate, but the reviewer feels you should have additional sources to show that he is well known for things other than The Voice. Deb (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:48:02, 8 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Kawahauler


I need to get my article started. Then I will be able to start making edits. I have made the references to my current article. Kawahauler (talk) Kawahauler (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission fails WP:ANYBIO. Needs significant coverage by independent, secondary sources. More information left on your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:18, 8 January 2019 review of submission by 2405:204:A60F:7F3B:0:0:162B:E0B0


2405:204:A60F:7F3B:0:0:162B:E0B0 (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EVADE. Please stop editing or else your IP will be blocked as well. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:01:02, 8 January 2019 review of submission by Amgray19


This is very frustrating. I have worked very hard to address *all* past advice given to me to cite available literature on this topic, including many hours of research and revision. I have referenced every possible literature source that is available. It's rather interesting that there is an allowed page for one of the exams referenced in the draft of this page (the CRA exam), but the actual body that created the exam is not allowed to be included as an article. I would love some feedback to help, if possible. There are certainly less "notable" topics than this on Wikipedia, and thousands of people have certified with these exams. Thank you for your time, I would appreciate any advice.

Amgray19 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It reads more like the organisation's website than an encyclopedia article. "The certifications carry numerous benefits to those who hold them" is rather promotional for instance and the "Board of Directors" section is pointless and not notable enough to mention. Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:14, 8 January 2019 review of draft by Nastasiak


I've created the page recently and for the last 3 days, it stays in drafts. Even though I press on publish, it is still registered under the unsubmitted drafts. I cannot understand what do a do wrong. My user name is Nastasiak

Nastasiak (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nastasiak: there was a problem in the markup of the draft. There was a comment tag <!-- with no matching --> and that meant that the AfC submission tag wasn't being recognised when it was added to the end of the article. I have fixed this for you now and submitted the draft for review on your behalf. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:21:03, 8 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by PetraPetraK


Hi! Would it be possible to get some specific feedback to improve this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:5050x2020 ?

I modelled the formatting of the article on articles about similar campaigns and hashtags that straddle the social media and irl worlds, and describe impactful international campaigns for social change (MeToo, the Ice Bucket Challenge, YesAllWomen etc).

The note says that articles “should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources”. The article contains 40+ references, sourced from leading media outlets (such as the New York Times, the LA Times, The Guardian, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter), and government agencies in several countries.

The note also mentions refraining from “peacock language”. Would you mind clarifying and specifying what should be edited? The article currently doesn’t contain any adjectives or descriptive terms (I’ve refrained from using terms such as “leading”, “major”, “renowned”, etc). It reports facts in a neutral tone, all backed up with independent, published sources.

Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks! Petra PetraPetraK (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC) PetraPetraK (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


January 9

02:51:06, 9 January 2019 review of submission by Banana19208


I need to advice for this article, MakeMusic is a music software company. Banana19208 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not copy anything in the Internet which is copyrighted and paste into your draft directly. This is copyright infringement. Details posted on your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:37:38, 9 January 2019 review of submission by Yvonnemin


Yvonnemin (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your article fails WP:ANYBIO. The company's website is a primary source and LinkedIn is not an acceptable or reliable independent source. The Bloomberg link is broken (but needs to be more that a mention in passing or establishing that he is the CEO of the company). ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:05:51, 9 January 2019 review of submission by Mouthodock


As Finnish wikipedia nor discogs are acceptable I have edited the cites which I now believe are reliable third party references. - birthyear from BBC music - description from www.musicfinland.com website. State granted music information bureau. - releases from MusicFinland, German state radio stations (WDR and NDR), YLE playlist (National Broadcasting Company of Finland) - member of U-Street All Stars refers to U-Street English wikipedia page. etc.


Mouthodock (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment left by the reviewer was

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Discogs is not an acceptable source. Neither is the Finnish Wikipedia.

Please also see WP:RS. More info left on your talk page ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:10:34, 9 January 2019 review of submission by Jirachibi


I was told that it was rejected due to the sources and such being from youtube links and the artist's own website, but the issue is the artist is a more obscure one and, thus, does very few interviews and very few articles are made about him in the news and on music related sites and such, so there are literally no other sources to use. Furthermore, i believe the sources are reliable since they are verified websites and youtube links from the musician themself and not some fan account or anything :)

Jirachibi (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source. Primary sources do not insert notability. You should include more independent, secondary, reliable sources. More info left on your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:10, 9 January 2019 review of submission by Neerajmadhuria72014


Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The submission is not supported by reliable sources to show notability. More info on your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:42:42, 9 January 2019 review of submission by Josephshlee


May I seek for advice to enhance this article in order for this page to be published? Thanks a lot Josephshlee (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not supported by independent, secondary reliable source. See your talk page for more info. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:46, 9 January 2019 review of submission by Magali Rottiers


Which part(s) do I need to rewrite?

Magali Rottiers (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have remove the copyrighted material. See WP:COPYVIO. Moreover, you need to add more sources to the article in order to insert notability. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:50, 9 January 2019 review of submission by Huntercorprecords


Please advise me what is wrong with this article. Huntercorprecords (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huntercorprecords: the reviewer, Dan arndt left you the following explanation: "Fails WP:NSINGLE - possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, hasn't charted as of yet." Wikipedia doesn't include articles about every single, just ones that meet the WP:SINGLE criteria. You'd need to be able to show how those criteria are met in this case. Also, since you appear to have a financial stake in the artist's success, please review WP:PAID and abide by those instructions before editing further. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:16:49, 9 January 2019 review of submission by Jules1234567822


it is real there is a good amount of info Jules1234567822 (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Jules gallet

Jules Gallet is a professional movie animator, he made his first movie (on IMBD) named"Garbage Street"in which he won many awards, he is also a movie rater for Britt awards.

Filmography

Year Title Number of Awards
2015 Garbage Street 5
2018 The bartender 2

Life and career

Jules gallet started his career as an animator for many different game trailers.

He now lives is Singapore and has stopped animating and he is now looking to be a film actor.

The whole article is unsourced, which violates one of the core policies - Verifiability. Please see your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:37:23, 9 January 2019 review of submission by Accessexpertise


Article was rejected on the basis of WP:NCORP, but has 12 sources, all from credible, reliable, third party sources. Additionally, business has three characteristics that make it inherently notable aside from its media coverage: - unicorn status ($1B valuation) - 20% market share across US and Canada - part of the American-Armenian commercial agreement.

When article was rejected, the reviewer also questioned whether I am a paid contributor - I am not (and my contributions reflect this), and am pursuing the publication of this article because it is a notable company in a large market that is making large economic impact in two major countries.

Accessexpertise (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Accessexpertise: please have a thorough read of WP:NCORP. References that are based on press releases don't count towards notability as they are not independent of the subject. No company is inherently notable on Wikipedia - see WP:ORGSIG. Please also read WP:BIGNUMBER. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:33, 9 January 2019 review of submission by MustaphaNG


Hi, i made lots of changes from the last article i wrote and added new sources for the subject. The sources are mostly from credible newspapers/blogs who all have a Wikipedia article. Could you take a look again? Thank you.

MustaphaNG (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was reviewed, and rejected, today by Buidhe for multiple notability failures. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest i do? And also there seems to be a restriction on the page now and i can't resubmit even if i work on it. MustaphaNG (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the draft alone and don't resubmit or move to mainspace. It appears that the article has been AfD'd before. See WP:G4 ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:35, 9 January 2019 review of draft by Gehill2031


I need to correct the name of the draft article/page to Geoffrey E. Hill. For some reason, the "E." does not show and I'm concerned since there is already a Geoffrey Hill. These are two separate people.

Gehill2031 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gehill2031: - articles can be moved names, either "Geoffrey E. Hill" or "Geoffrey Hill (scientist)" would be legitimate names. However drafts shouldn't be moved while in AfC as it can cause complications. I'll add a comment to make it clear - the reviewer can decide depending on what is most suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:01:40, 9 January 2019 review of draft by Egracee


Getting a notification that the Fontaines D.C. article doesn't have enough credible sources, but there are plenty of valid citations. Not sure how to fix it.

Egracee (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:39, 9 January 2019 review of submission by CoffeeCowboy


Hello, I'm just looking for help to get my first article up and posted. I feel as if I have met all guidelines what not. If someone could come help me that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance and I hope to become a valued member of this community. Much love

CoffeeCowboy (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CoffeeCowboy. The draft fails to show that the subject is notable. The only independent, reliable source with anything approaching significant coverage is Hypebeast. Throw away the other references, they poison the draft. Then find at least two more sources at least as good as Hypebeast. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has suggestions on where to look. You want at least several paragraphs about Jerry, not just a passing mention that credits him as producer.
If you can't find such in-depth sources, then it may be too soon for a Wikipedia biography. In that case all you could do would be to wait for more to be written, or choose a different topic to write about, because no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

01:05:04, 10 January 2019 review of submission by Black Swan Protector

Can you please clarify why my references are deemed insufficient? It would be good to know whether it is because they are not considered reliable, or not considered secondary or not independent or why? I have used publicly-available Council documents (including minutes of Council meetings, video records of Council meetings, development applications), television news videos, Gold Coast Bulletin (daily newspaper), Australian Broadcasting Commission documentary amongst others. Are you able to indicate why each reference is considered incorrect for Wikipedia? Many thanks indeed. Black Swan Protector (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Swan Protector Welcome to Article for Creation. First of all please read WP:Your First Article] to understand how to write an article in Wikipedia and what are required. Also pls visit HERE on sources/references info. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:53:54, 10 January 2019 review of submission by Vavers1


I would like input on why it would be rejected. This is about the host of a television show (Exploring America) that is the first American television show of this nature ever to be filmed in the US to be aired in East Africa like this. Do you have advice? Should I focus more on our history and then the show Exploring American in one article?

Thank you,

Scot

Vavers1 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AUTO. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:19:56, 10 January 2019 review of submission by Aphero


Aphero (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Your draft fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No reliable sources provided. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 08:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:57, 10 January 2019 review of submission by 37.211.59.99


37.211.59.99 (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer who rejected your draft left a comment:

She fails WP:NACTOR. Yeh Un Dinon Ki Baat Hai is a good prominent role, but other than that nothing. She was only nominated for an award once, WP:GNG also failed since it does not cover Ashi in detail (and interviews are primary sources, we look for secondary ones).

―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:55:50, 10 January 2019 review of submission by Ompatil502


Ompatil502 (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ompatil502: - films are usually not made into articles until they are released and, normally, covered in multiple reliable reviews. I'd suggest waiting until it was out, grabbing 3 high quality reviews (not blogs etc) and adding them - that should be sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:56, 10 January 2019 review of submission by JB157303


JB157303 (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have only one source which is not correctly formatted, we need significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:43, 10 January 2019 review of draft by Razzhyvin


Hi! Could you please help me With editing my first ARTICLE? I'm the Head of International Relations department of this University and I want to show some information using wikipedia. Unfortunately, English variant of Wikipedia is quite difficult than Russian or Ukrainian version. All texts was taken from official web-cite of University. So, please, could you kindly help me with the editing. Thank you for your help Razzhyvin (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. WP:COI says conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged. You also copied content from various pages of the school website, which is a copyright violation. Hope this helps. Regards, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:33, 10 January 2019 review of draft by XernonnE.L.

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -- Looking for some insight on getting article live-

XernonnE.L. (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:27, 10 January 2019 review of draft by Elrainia


Having looked at a number of comparable institutions (e.g. Northern Chamber Orchestra, Manchester Camerata), we're really struggling with the "More than passing mentions or routine coverage, reliable sources about this subject INDEPENDENT of it showing notability" requirement.

This is a little bit of a Catch-22 as one of the main reasons for getting the article published is to help increase the profile of Manchester Collective. Over the past two years, we have accrued a significant number of reviews in a range of publications (predominately online) - https://manchestercollective.co.uk/news/ - but the implication from the guidelines is that this material is not either "notable" or "independent".

It would be really helpful if you could provide a little more direction on the type of material that needs to be submitted in order to satisfy the Wikipedia publishing criteria.

Elrainia (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elrainia: if no reliable, independent publications have already written in depth about your orchestra then it is WP:TOOSOON for an article about it on Wikipedia. Trying to use Wikipedia to raise the profile of an organisation that hasn't already gained the attention of other publications is contrary to the objectives of Wikipedia. See WP:NOTPROMO. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:30:02, 10 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Damiancvp


Having trouble with my article being approved.. could anyone help me please


hrcreolenation 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Damiancvp: - the draft was declined for the reason in the comment - there are no references. Wikipedia articles require multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Large parts of the draft are written in a non-neutral advertorial tone "-Money is ready to rule his space in the rap game " etc. Have a look at referencing for beginners. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:18, 10 January 2019 review of submission by Damiancvp


hrcreolenation 15:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiancvp (talk • contribs)

@Damiancvp: - I'm not sure if what I can see on your userpage is al there is to this draft, but if it is there are quite a number of reasons. Significantly more content is needed, backed by the reliable sources I mentioned above. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a professional editor to hire Any suggestions?

@Damiancvp: - Wikipedia really is not a fan of paid editing. I would advise you to read Paid Contribution Disclosure and Paid editing on Wikipedia before taking another step. Since it can be allowed I imagine someone can probably point you towards an editor, but I will not do so. Do be aware that scamming is an issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:31, 10 January 2019 review of submission by Damiancvp

Duplicate of above ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Need help with my article. Can someone please help! Thanks

hrcreolenation 15:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


Duplicate of the request 2 messages above Nosebagbear (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:30:07, 10 January 2019 review of submission by Damiancvp


Looking for a professional editor to help me write a few articles that I have in mind

hrcreolenation 16:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Damiancvp: You won't find any professional editors here. I don't think anyone here will help you find one, either. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, including you. Start here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:24, 10 January 2019 review of submission by Jacob mcdill


I am requesting a re review because of the fact that I am confused on how this violates the guidelines of wiki if there could be a clarification or if there was a way that I could improve it in the future to get it published. Jacob mcdill (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob mcdill: You've not added any sources to the draft, so it is impossible to verify anything that you've written. please read WP:V and WP:NHOAX. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

02:48:06, 11 January 2019 review of submission by DanGBE


I have added new references from the school's own website and a couple of external websites, after reviewing other school pages there are not much different then this one! It would be appreciated if you can provide anymore advice of edits that can be done to help publish this page?

DanGBE (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft fails WP:NSCHOOL. It requires significant coverage of independent, secondary sources. The school's official website is a primary source and is not a reliable source. More info left on your talk page ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:17:03, 11 January 2019 review of draft by Warren.williams


Hi, I'm new at creating pages in Wikipedia, and just want to make sure I'm approaching this the right way. I noticed that John Salter recently died, and that he doesn't have a Wikipedia page. He was a key figure during the civil rights era in the southern US. He is in one of the iconic photographs from that era, the sit-in at the Woolworth's lunch counter in Jackson, Mississippi in 1963, and his name appears in several exhibits in the new Mississippi Civil Rights Museum.

Anyhow, two questions:

(1) as I create the page and make changes, Wikipedia is saving each of those changes as an update. Is there a better way to go about the initial creation and tweaking of the page without piling up a bunch of versions in the history?

(2) the photo, taken by Jackson Daily News photographer Fred Blackwell in 1963, is pretty widely used on the web, but I can't seem to find the photo in Wikimedia Commons. Do you have any suggestions for adding that photo? (i.e. either obtaining permission, or determining whether it is "fair use" or public domain at this point?)

Warren.williams (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:53:38, 11 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ryozzo


Hi I'd like some assistance on this article. Every single part of the article is supported by the citations.

But the reviewer wrote "Large sections remain unreferenced."

Can you help me understand. I put the citation at the end of the table or paragraphs. Am I to duplicate the citation on every paragraph or sentence?

Also there are seven citations from the New York Times. Can you help me understand what else is needed?

Also there are citations from the New York Senate official law text. This is an article about tax laws that affect millions of people which is why I cite the New York Senate official law text but make it more understandable with words and examples.

I believe, it is also notable because it is in the New York Times and affects millions of people. Ryozzo (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Ryozzo (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:09:32, 11 January 2019 review of draft by Michael E Nolan


Hi, I'm trying to add geographic coordinates at the top of the page and I don't understand how to it. I tried 18°9′N 99°22′W / 18.150°N 99.367°W / 18.150; -99.367 Since this is decimal, should I write 18°54′N 99°13′W / 18.9°N 99.22°W / 18.9; -99.22? Exactly where do I put this on the page? Thanks.


Michael E Nolan (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael E Nolan See Template:Coord/doc. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:43:37, 11 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by SwarandeepSingh


Please help me to create article. I have already created same articles 2-3 times but it always go speedy deletion in the end. SwarandeepSingh (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:PROMO. Although I do not have the administrator toolset to view your deleted articles, it is certainly promotional that it falls under WP:G11. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:01:18, 11 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ishvani television


i am trying to create a page for my organization , but i am poor in writing the content

Ishvani television (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No please. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Follow the instructions on your talk page. Thanks. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 08:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:31, 11 January 2019 review of submission by Ishvani television

Duplicate post with promotional material ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



For so the Lord has commanded us saying, `I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, so that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth’ [Acts 13:47] The command of the Lord to spread the Word of God and to bring salvation to each and every soul is the mission of Ishvani Television. Realizing the power of television, as the world’s most powerful medium of communication, and also a key part of the society The Diocese of Ujjain cultivated a dream of giving wings to the Media and Communication Ministry of the Diocese Navdarshan Sanchar Kendra and initiated its television ministry. The humble evangelization effort sprouted with a 30 minute program and name given was Vachan Sudha, which was telecasted through Siti Cable. The program basically included sermons by the priests. Enthusiastic with the positive response the program was receiving and also understanding the need of the faithful The Diocese of Ujjain decided to convert the small effort into a 24x7 hour channel so that it can shed Light of the Lord where there is dark, ignorance and hatred. But with this decision the need for a studio was greatly felt as for a channel there was need of series of copious programs. The Studio received approval from Rev Bishop Mar.Sabestian Vadakel and the channel was Christened Ishvani Television. The newly constructed studio was inaugurated on July 16, 2015 and Rev Bishop handed the command of Ishvani Television to Rev Father Vineesh Mathew. The dedication of the director Rev Father Vineesh Mathew and the staff bore fruit and the first shooting in studio was done on July 29 2015 marking the advent of new era of evangelization through mass media. The first program was educational interactive program shot with teachers and students of St Paul’s Convent school , Ujjain. The challenge was evermore increasing as the channel if telecasted 24x7 required lot of programs. The director along with the staff chalked the strategy and made the outline of new programs which webbed the interest of the people along with the strong message to spread the Word of God. A series of new programs were launched by Ishvani Television. The 24x7 hour channel started on The Feast Day of Mother Mary December 8th 2015 and this blossomed the only Hindi Christian Devotional channel in North India. The non commercial channel with the sole motive of bringing the salvation through Lord to every person irrespective of caste, creed and sect was expanding and thus the need for expansion of the building was also felt. At every step there were challenges and at every step Lord and Mother Mary in whose hands Ishvani Television dwells supported and took Ishvani Television to new heights. The Ishvani Television was soon telecasted in the states of Madhya Pradesh , Chattisgarh, Rajasthan and NCR through Siti Cable network. A series of programs including Vachan Sudha, Divine Symphony, Jesus kids, Tere Liye, Bible Frames, Voice of Youth were telecasted. Releasing the power of radio Ishvani Television soon chalked out the launching of Ishvani Radio and the Radio Ministry successfully started on August 8 , 2017. But the vision of the Director and the commitment was to reach to the hearts of thousands crossing the limit of states and telecasting. The persistent efforts yielded result and Ishvani Television was soon available to the people at just click of a button through Ishvani Television mobile App launched on February 1, 2018. At present the expansion of Ishvani Television with its ministries including Radio Ministry, Prayer Ministry is under the pipeline. Also the plan to kick start Ishvani Magazine and efforts to make Ishvani Television a satellite channel are under progress.

Ishvani television (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:42:43, 11 January 2019 review of submission by LA-KNOWS-THINGS-2


Hello and thank you for this review. There are two *completely different* Ellen Reid's... two different human beings deserving of two separate entries. The person I'm trying to make an entry for is Ellen Reid– the AMERICAN composer. The American Ellen Reid is one of the most exciting composers of her generation. She is the only female composer to have her works performed at all three major opera venues in Los Angeles. Since I first submitted her entry, she's received even more press for her latest opera PRISM. https://www.wsj.com/articles/portraits-of-pain-at-the-prototype-festival-11547070607 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/arts/music/classical-music-in-nyc-this-week.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/at-the-prototype-festival-opera-for-our-dark-time/2019/01/07/d9c0d2f2-12b1-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.677ae7407ee3 There are very few female composers and it's incredibly important that we give them credit. LA-KNOWS-THINGS-2 (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:05:43, 11 January 2019 review of submission by Vanessa.koenig


Hello, I'm having great difficulty adding a wikipedia page for the organisation that I work for the European Corporate Governance Institute(ECGI). We had a wikipedia page before for years, but after I added some new material to it, it was deleted for copyright reasons. Following this I set up a draft page for ECGI. I rewrote and reworded the information from our website in order to surpass these copyright rules. However the draft version was rejected and I have been given a warning that if I submit a page again with copied material I will be suspended. Can you please advise how I should go about setting up a wiki page for ECGI? We have been without one for over a year now, and I have tried hard to rewrite the information contained on our website. However as I'm sure you will understand there are only so many ways to describe what we do. I'm extremely frustrated with this process and would appreciate any help you may be able to offer me. Thanks.

Vanessa.koenig (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not care what the ECGI has to say about itself. We want to know what other, reliable sources without a conflict of interest have to say about the ECGI. What does academe say about you? What does Europe's financial press say about you? If nobody else has written about them, then maybe they are too obscure to appear here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:58, 11 January 2019 review of submission by David Appleyard


We have been researching Frank A. Russell for a long time and would like to bring him to the attention of the world. We have a lot of newspaper documents and photographs but very few are published online. Only the ones presented via the given links.

We feel that his links to the hoax's of the 1950's and the development of a belief in UFO phenomena is relevant.

How can we improve the document please>?


David Appleyard (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"???? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
**are ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:28:39, 11 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Kisscsi


Hi, I have recreated the article MET Group. Could you please check it? Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kisscsi/MET_Group If it's correct how can I publish it? Thank you

Kisscsi (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:44:45, 11 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tommycarstensen


How can I have my article on the S&P Europe 350 Dividend Aristocrats approved? Why is it not notable enough?


Tommycarstensen (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment left by the reviewer was:

Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found.

RS means reliable sources. I suggest you to take some time clicking into the link and understanding what is notability. It requires significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. More info posted on your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:21, 11 January 2019 review of submission by Tommycarstensen


I have expanded the text and added references. Can you review? Thanks!

Tommycarstensen (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not duplicate posts. The draft still fails WP:NCORP. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:17:46, 11 January 2019 review of draft by 64.28.140.228


Specific details as to exactly where the non-neutral parts exist would be helpful to improve the following draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Buy_Nothing_Project

Also, is there a minimum number of independent, reliable, published sources that needs to be cited for the article to be considered "pass worthy"? Is so, that number would be useful to know or at the very least, indicate which citations in the draft are considered non-independent or unreliable. Thank you.

64.28.140.228 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=877889452"