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
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 475: Line 475:


[[User:HITHESH POOJARI|HITHESH POOJARI]] ([[User talk:HITHESH POOJARI|talk]]) 12:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
[[User:HITHESH POOJARI|HITHESH POOJARI]] ([[User talk:HITHESH POOJARI|talk]]) 12:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


== 13:20:32, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Eagen1991 ==
{{Lafc|username=Eagen1991|ts=13:20:32, 4 March 2019|declined=Draft:Vype}}


[[User:Eagen1991|Eagen1991]] ([[User talk:Eagen1991|talk]]) 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:20, 4 March 2019

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


February 26

08:27:38, 26 February 2019 review of submission by Rathfelder

I did not produce this draft. I found it when I was about to start a new article to take the place of the article about its predecessor article. I do not agree that it reads like an advert and I would like to contest that idea. There are 6 independent sources cited, one quite critical, and given that the new organisation has not been around long it's unrealistic to expect more. This is a very significant organisation in the British housing sector and lack of this article impairs our coverage. Please reconsider this decision. If you still think it is like an advert please tell me exactly which section you are referring to. It appears to me the the content is factual, although I can see that the Services section reads like a brochure. I cant see another way of handling that. Rathfelder (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Rathfelder (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources because new suggests not notable. Brocure like material suggests promo. Your post suggests a WP:COI. I'll look at the page and may have further comments. Legacypac (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a notable topic which I approved. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:55:10, 26 February 2019 review of submission by OlaniyiMoses2008


@OlaniyiMoses2008: - hi there. If you think you've improved the article enough since the decline then you need to resubmit it (like you did after the first decline) - then it will be looked at again in time. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Nosebagbear and Nosebagbear: - I wanted to resubmit but could not find the button again on my article page Draft:InterswitchSPAK

OlaniyiMoses2008 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]



16:22:05, 26 February 2019 review of submission by FIAnational

I changed the name of my organization's page last week from PICO National Network to Faith In Action. I now need to change it to Faith in Action but fpr some reason I have not been able to change it back. Help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. FIAnational (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:42, 26 February 2019 review of submission by Mickmonaghan343


I have tried to the best of my ability to prove that points that all the admins have mentioned and after doing what one has said someone else has rejected it for another reason, i believe he deserves inclusion on wikipedia for the below reasons, but ill edit my normal draft remove any parts that cant be cited and add in the two points under section 2 and 8 of wp music but see all my points if you want a longer read.

Also i cant seem to publish this for review even tho i have now done the above edits and would like it to be reviewed. can you suggest how i do this?


1 Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, Djs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: - Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] -Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. - Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

Luca has been on the cover of Chitarra Acustica in Italy, Akustikgitarre in Germany, Varese Mese in Italy. He was also featured on Guitar Acoustic in Germany and on Luca on College of Fine Arts and Communications (East Carolina University) https://artscomm.ecu.edu/international-guitar-night/ Luca at University of Victoria https://www.uvic.ca/farquhar/events/farquhar-presents/index-012719-IGN.php


2Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

“What if?” album reached position #49 in Spain on 24 Oct 2018 http://www.itunescharts.net/esp/artists/music/luca-stricagnoli/ http://www.itunescharts.net/esp/artists/music/luca-stricagnoli/albums/what-if/ “Thunderstruck” reached position #50 in the folk chart in France http://applemusiccharts.com/fr/1289-folk/ “Thunderstruck” reached position #20 in the folk chart in the USA http://applemusiccharts.com/us/1289-folk/ “The Last of the Mohicans” reached position #21 in the folk chart in the USA http://applemusiccharts.com/us/1289-folk/


4 Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Luca on La Repubblica (Italian National News) https://www.repubblica.it/spettacoli/musica/2017/11/11/news/luca_stricagnoli-180550669/?refresh_ce Luca appears on the website of countless theaters and philharmonics all over the world. Do we need to provide these websites? How many?


5 Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). Luca has released two albums with Candyrat Records, the most important fingerstyle acoustic guitar label in the world, responsible for showing to over a hundred million people new techniques of guitar playing. Candyrat includes Andy McKee, Mike Dawes, Preston Reed and many more. https://www.candyrat.com/artists/

6 Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5]This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.) Luca has not only been part of International Guitar Night in 2017 but in 2019 he is even the host of the event (https://internationalguitarnight.com/ ). Notable players that performed with IGN have been: Martin Taylor (https://hughsroomlive.com/event/international-guitar-night-brian-gore-martin-taylor-guinga-and-solorazaf/), Chelso Machado, (https://artistworks.com/blog/international-guitar-night-comes-napa), Ralph Towner, Andrew York, Pierre Bensusan, Guinga, (https://www.discogs.com/Pierre-Bensusan-Andrew-York-Guinga-Brian-Gore-International-Guitar-Night/release/9474274), Marco Pereira. Alex DeGrassi, Gerardo Nunez (http://www.adamwerner.com/Artists.html , Quique Sinesi (https://dcmetrotheaterarts.com/2014/01/18/international-guitar-night) and many more. For more information about it it´s enough to Google it and hundreds of websites talk about it.

7 Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Deutsche Welle describes Luca as one of Italy´s finest acoustic guitarists. https://www.dw.com/en/guitar-maestro-luca-stricagnoli/av-46314907

NME says: “When it comes to crazy acousic skills, Luca Stricagnoli is one of the absolute best” https://www.nme.com/blogs/every-part-feel-good-inc-one-guitar-2150875


8 Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable.

Luca on London One Radio: http://www.londononeradio.com/4412-2/

Luca on TV Kultura (Russian National TV) http://tvkultura.ru/article/show/article_id/200585/

Luca on LTV (Latvian TV) https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/kultura/muzika/spikeros-muzices-gitaras-virtuozs-luka-strikanjoli.a259112/

Luca on Rai 1 (Italian National TV) https://www.facebook.com/lucastricagnoliguitar/videos/vb.100004073565525/872671286211982/?type=3

Luca on Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/video/luca-stricagnoli-spielt-auf-einer-dreihals-gitarre-video-1814818.html

Luca on SWR1 https://www.swr.de/swr1/bw/termine/uplugged-swr1-luca-stricagnoli-begnadeter-gitarrist/-/id=446400/did=18591732/nid=446400/c72x9p/index.html

Luca at Kaffee oder Tee https://programm.ard.de/?sendung=28231776852046

Luca on Deutsche Welle https://www.dw.com/en/guitar-maestro-luca-stricagnoli/av-46314907 https://www.dw.com/de/youtube-star-mit-gitarre-luca-stricagnoli/av-46314541 https://www.dw.com/es/la-guitarra-de-luca-stricagnoli/av-46318512

Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your page was rejected so it is harder to resubmit. You are not required to use AfC process. You can move the page yourself to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:38:15, 26 February 2019 review of submission by SLW 2019


SLW 2019 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC) I searched for my name and a misspelled version of my name came up; is there anyway to correct what's in your records that wiull allow me to have my nbame properly recorded? Thank you. Steve L. Wintner, AIA Emeritus[reply]

Anyone can edit Wikipedia so go forth and fix it. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

00:55:24, 27 February 2019 review of draft by 122.57.181.43


122.57.181.43 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--I am confused, when I asked for review of my article someone called Hell in a Bucket told me to make it more neutral, so I did and re-submitted it for review again. He never mentioned anything about the sources I used. But now, somebody called I dream of horses, rejected it saying its : "Not very well-sourced". At this time these are the best sources I have, I hope to find more. The article is very short and it is sourced according to the Wikepedia guidelines. Please advise. With kind regards.

Nebarolini (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nebarolini I'm sorry you are having trouble. Most reviewers decline a page over the first fatal problem they find. If I find a page reads like an Ad I decline it - even speedy delete it if it is really bad - without evaluating the sources. We have such a big backlog we can't take the time to identify all the problems a new editor may have on a page. This is why I believe editors should get experience with established articles before attempting to create new pages, one of the hardest skills at Wikipedia. The second message means the sources given were judged to be enough to show the topic is Notable (acceptable). The reviewer feels the page would likely be deleted if sent to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:26, 27 February 2019 review of draft by ANTONIOEMOSES


ANTONIOEMOSES (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No question but I've given some advice on the draft and fixed the title Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:36, 27 February 2019 review of draft by Sabine retina


I am not sure if I am supposed to do anything to ensure review for approval and posting of this draft? The content of this to-be-created page can be veryfied in numerous independent www.-pages and multiple press releases and in all of Botond Roska's peer-reviewed publications which are also available on PubMed. I edited the draft page, as requested by the first reviewer, a person supposed to be called Sam Holt. I am definetely not trying to 'promote' Botond Roska and/or the IOB (www.iob.ch), beause this is simply not necessary, he is very renowned worldwide as a scientif expert in neurology and particularly for retinal diseases. As many media people and the public have asked why Botond Roska is still not listed on wikipedia, I am now working to try to change this. Again: no promotion, no commercial or financial interest, whatsoever. IOB is a Swiss Foundation, and B Roska is also Professor of the Medical Faculty of Basel University, next to his many other academic roles.

Sabine retina (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:16:23, 27 February 2019 review of draft by Gidoneli


I do not understand how coverage in Three large news organizations (CNBC, Ha'aretz, Yediot Aharonot) won't account as sufficient coverage? I am looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syneron_Medical and this submission has the same if not less coverage by the same types of outlets. Can I have an example of "sufficient coverage"? Thanks Gidoneli (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Draft. If User:DGG says it is not shown to be notable it is not. He is one of our most experienced Admims. Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My judgments on notability are not always correct: my estimate is that I make about 2% errors, and for those that are challenged, about 10% of the time the consensus takes a different view. When requested, I will look at something again. In this instance, I looked again, and it confirmed my opinion that the references are mere notices . See WP:NCORP for what constitutes acceptable sources for notability. Two other good reviewers said just the same.
In years when standards were lower, Wikipedia accepted many articles that were promotional or non-notable, that we would not nowadays accept. It will be many years until we get all of them fixed or removed. In the meantime, the least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:30, 27 February 2019 review of submission by Arman Aryamehr


Arman Aryamehr (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arman Aryamehr: - hi there. This is far off the sufficient notability required - you need reliable, independent (which rules out interviews), in-depth secondary sources. Usually newspapers, books etc are best for this. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:29:43, 27 February 2019 review of submission by 707 HBC


707 HBC (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

because I deserve a second chance at life plz accept mu submission plz it is for the people and for the better of wikipedia

Block requested for this account Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:15, 27 February 2019 review of submission by Wikimocap


Wikimocap (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-submitted an article for the company Noitom Ltd. Article was declined due to "read more like an advertisement" and "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed". I disagree with both of these points. All of the sources (article links) are reliable, credible publications of which none have been produced by the company itself. They are all legitimate write-ups from independent sources. Is there a way to get this reviewed again? And if not, what more can I do to get this published? I am at a loss. The company is 100% legitimate as are the facts listed in the page.

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Wikimocap#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to user's posting on my talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

13:11:01, 28 February 2019 review of draft by BING DA DA DING DIG DNG DUNG DING


What more does this need? It's more noteworthy than dozens of galleries that have their own page - the Jack The Ripper museum two streets down, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper_Museum BING DA DA DING DIG DNG DUNG DING (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BING DA DA DING DIG DNG DUNG DING, I notice it was just established last month, so thee may not be many sources yet. The two sources you did list do not really count as reliable sources for the purpose of notability--reviews in appropriate art magazines or major newspapers would do it. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft (basically the same thing DGG, Theroadislong, and Bkissin said). --Worldbruce (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:38, 28 February 2019 review of submission by OlaniyiMoses2008

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Please, I need to resubmit an article Draft:InterswitchSPAK after disapproved 2 times. But I could not find the submit button again. I have improved on notability of the article. Please, tell me what I must do submit again.

Best Regards.

Thank you

OlaniyiMoses2008 (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC) {{SAFESUBST:Void|[reply]

14:10:36, 28 February 2019 review of submission by Diggerty


I came across this draft article that had been rejected a few weeks ago and think that it is excellent and feel that a lot of people in the UK will learn something from it (as I have) and I feel it is unfair that it has been censured by somebody who is obviously living in the USA and has no knowledge or interest in the subject and is now stopping people from reading it. He has not even made constructive comments on how it can be improved to make it acceptable to him. I worked very hard on this revision, editing it into a neutral article and making it easier to read. In my opinion having studied many published Wikipedia pages on this subject and many others it does not offer any more unsubstantiated views than many others do. Also all the so called 'views' mentioned are merely interpretations of the facts that have been established by the authorities cited and as such ARE substantiated. Wikipedia states that the rules are not supposed to be 'made in stone' but in my mind rules are being unfairly bent in this instance in rejecting this article in this fashion. I know a lot of people who would want to have the opportunity to read this article and it should be freely available for them to do so on Wikipedia which is supposed to be for everybody and this article very much has a place on it. Diggerty (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the "somebody who is obviously living in the USA" I would like to respond to Diggerty. The draft in question purports to be about a movement within the UK to achieve Brexit on certain terms. As a draft about an organization, one would expect it to define the organization: its founding, its history, its leadership and membership, and its achievements. However, the draft in question is an expression of the group's manifesto with none of that other material that one would expect in an article about the organization. I rejected the draft on those terms (as a violation of neutrality). Others are free to re-review the work and see if their mileage varies. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:10, 28 February 2019 review of submission by Arzumio


Arzumio (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I didn't put any sources because me and Lil Chang himself made this because there is nothing talking about him.

@Arzumio: If there's "nothing talking about him" then we won't either. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:57, 28 February 2019 review of submission by 89.216.104.134


Hi! This article is not at all about the football player. This is about totally different Stefan Marinković, a legendary release manager, ie. software engineer responsible for new code releases in many major companies in Italy, Serbia and Malta. Stefari is so famous and well known that many fun clubs (closed membership though, private clubs) dedicated to praise his work exist. Stefari is so huge.

89.216.104.134 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

89.216.104.134, are there publicly avail sources for him, substantial 3rd party independent published reliable sources? If all the information is private, it may not be possible to make an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:38:19, 28 February 2019 review of draft by Theprophetdavid


where can i put a link to the website as a reference?

Theprophetdavid (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 1

01:14:28, 1 March 2019 review of draft by WRain


Hi, so I have referenced a (promotional) concert poster on a draft that I have sourced from a fansite. Is this acceptable practice? And if it is, then how should it be referenced? WRain (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WRain. It is permissible to cite ephemera such as a concert poster. You can use the cite web template for one that is online. A fan site is not an ideal source. Editors are likely to be concerned about: whether the content is submitted by users, the site's editorial oversight, and whether they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. A better source would be an archive at a university, museum, or historical society, something run by librarians or curators.
You can ask for advice about a source at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Opinions there will depend on what article text you want to support with the poster. They may point out that a concert poster only shows a scheduled event, not that the event took place as planned. They're likely to say that there must be a more reliable source than a fan site, such as a newspaper article or even a newspaper advertisement. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:24:14, 1 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by TAHayward


I re edited this article to comply with Music Notability guidelines. I used reliable secondary sources to show source of information about the subject. I corrected the tone of the writing to reflect neutrality. I was advised by the last editor who worked with me on the article of these changes. They replied that if I found a source which reviewed the Netflix Gypsy soundtrack he would mainspace the article. I communicated with them in the talk space. I have carefully attributed all knowledge to reliable secondary sources as you can see in the draft article. I would like to have this article moved to Wikipedia. Is this something that I do or does an editor in the community do that? I researched the subject extensively also reviewing journalist podcasts interviewing him in New York. I believe that I meet all of the Music Notability guidelines - all information is sources, Oli Chang is the subject of multiple, non trivial published works, such as newspaper articles, online print media, podcasts, subject has received coverage of live performance, subject is also published in previous music group High Highs on Wikipedia, has released two or more albums, subject has worked with well known artists e.g.: Nomi Ruiz, has performed music for Netflix Gypsy TV series, has been placed in rotation of JJJ national Australian radio. Please advise me whether the article can be published after this writing and editing? TAHayward (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TAHayward. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. If a reviewer accepts it, it will be published as an article. There are still problems with the draft, which I have detailed there. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:01:53, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Meta in MA


I've spent a lot of thoughtful time rewriting this article with some support from from reviewers who have now left Wikipedia. While I'm waiting for review, I thought I'd ask someone to give me some tips on how to improve it so that when it does get reviewed, it might stand a better chance of getting accepted.

Note that I'd like to document the entire New Age music genre, but I'm hesitant to write anymore because I've had such a problem getting this article accepted. If someone could give me tips on this article, I might write a few more while I'm waiting for this to get reviewed.

All-in-all, the process has been frustrating since the reviewers have left Wikipedia and so much time has lapsed, but I remain positive and hopeful that I can actually get into the flow of contributing.

Meta in MA (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:11:53, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Bryanlim.sdp


Hi, I am Bryan Lim Boon Heng- the Wikipedia subject himself. I understood from my colleague, Clarence that the first draft has been rejected. I have removed the "non-neutral bits" but I don't know what else is required. I am not a techie person so I will really appreciate if your technical team can guide me through on how to get this Wikipedia page up & running as the General Elections in Singapore are expected to be called at the end of this year.

Bryanlim.sdp (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarence.sdp and Bryanlim.sdp: Greetings. See below (also click on the blue highlighted text in the grey pane and the comments in the draft page and below for details info)
  1. conflict of interst As Clarence is the colleague of the subject, this means they have COI and a paid editor (PAID). Wikipedia discourage editor with COI to write about the subject as it is difficult to write the article in neutral point of view (NPOV). I just have a quick read, the article still not free of NPOV. Clarence needs to declare his COI in (1) the article talk page and (2) in Clarence user page. Pls follow the instruction to disclose PAID as posted in Clarence'stalk page. (re-read the instruction as disclosure tag is done incorrectly).
  2. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY - Wikipedia strong discourage Byran Lim to edit his own article in Wikipedia and would request other editors to edit the affected page.
  3. WP:NPOV neutral point of view - pls note at the content should be written in plain, fact format and content should support by independent, reliable sources and avoid writing the article like an essay after all this is an article.
  4. WP:PROMOTION - Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion where by political candidate could use Wikipedia as a channel where info of the subject would be found An article is accepted only if the subject is notable - see WP:NPOL (notability for politician) and the significant coverage of independent, reliable sources (such as from major newspapers) is written about the subject in length and in depth and not only passing mentioned. Note sources can be in any languages.
  5. Examples - check out Hina Rabbani Khar and Newt Gingrich on how a good article looks like. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:59:06, 1 March 2019 review of submission by Adkbay


I guess at this point I don't understand how this entry is not "notable." While ResetEra was formed as a splinter site from NeoGAF after the scandal that happened there, NeoGAF has dropped in prominence by damn near 100%, to the point where game developers and journalists are now congregating on ResetEra rather than the forum that started all of this, NeoGAF. It's been this way for over a year, yet NeoGAF still maintains a Wikipedia entry because there was a scandal that makes it more "notable." ResetEra, at least according to Alexa rankings, hovers around the 3K mark (global), while NeoGAF has fallen all the way down to the 14K mark. The articles cited in the Wiki entry show that the site is used as a source in many gaming publications. If they are not "notable" publications, then why do they have Wikipedia entries?

Let me clear something up. I do not work for ResetEra. I am not receiving any payment from ResetEra. I do have an account as a user on the site, but that only allows me to post and nothing else. I am quite sure that Nintendo fans and the like are free to edit the page for Nintendo, as an example. I saw that the original entry was removed and attempted to improve it, and yet the run-around for fixing this article is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in my lifetime, even while in academia.

If there is something SPECIFIC that I need to add here to make it "notable," please let me know, because I have yet to see any feedback that actually gives information on what "notability" entails for something such as this, in the gaming space, where you do not tend to have academic journals or news broadcasts discussing the topic. If that is the metric for "notability," then I believe you have a much larger decision regarding anything gaming-related on Wikipedia to discuss.

I ask you to reconsider this decision. Thank you. Adkbay (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adkbay Greetings. Reviewers have left messages on the draft page, all you have to do is to click on the blue highlighted texts and they will bring you to anther page where details info could be found. see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResetEra and [[1]]. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:04:49, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Zuvaruvi


I've started a new article, Webeaucracy, have posted about as much as I dare without input. References need to be cleaned up and I lack sufficient expertise. Additionally, I am the author of the original work Webeaucracy: The Collaborative Revolution and want to ensure I have as much oversight on this as possible before it is accepted for publication on Wikipedia.

Thanks!

Zuvaruvi (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zuvaruvi (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:33, 1 March 2019 review of submission by Azzata,G


I have received multiple rejections because of reference. Those references are the only reliable references. Since Mongolian companies are yet to well known to worldwide business market. Could you please help me to solve this reference problem. Your help is greatly appreciated! Thank you.

Azzata,G (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Azzata,G. The reference problem is insurmountable. The reason you give, that Mongolian companies are not well known worldwide, is the reason that Wikipedia should not have an article about this company. Wikipedia articles only cover notable topics—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Write about something else, or try an alternative outlet with different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:30:50, 1 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Annahua

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


Hi everyone, this is my first time asking for help so pardon the lack of protocol. I have been working on an article to help improve one of Taiwan's famous architects visibility. We are a small island but I think this architect deserves a little recognition. He has won quite a few awards the past few years so I believe he passes the notability test. That being said, I am at a loss for how to pass the approval process. I have made changes as they were said by reviewers but the most recent suggestion of removing "peacock" language is lost on me. I read through the article once more and it is my belief that there is no more peacock language. Secondly that this does read like an encyclopedia. I remember reading Britannica back in the day and while I am not 100% encyclopedic. I think I am pretty close. Any help would be much appreciated.


Annahua (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:47:13, 1 March 2019 review of submission by Floyd1965

Hello,

Upon the initial decline of the draft, I sought help at the ‘live help’ channel and the helper who reviewed had commented on the feedback accordingly. Apparently, only inline citations were missing, which I had appropriately incorporated. The resubmission of the draft has been pending for nearly 7 weeks. Request you to please consider and suggest further course of action. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floyd1965 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Floyd1965. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 8 weeks, so you shouldn't have too long to wait. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:32:30, 1 March 2019 review of submission by Whenow


Whenow (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:50:29, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Kh.brian.min


Hello! I thought I made a new article called Kim Ransa on English Wikipedia, but then I realized it was on Korean Wikipedia. I now created a new one in English Wikipedia and I am waiting for it to go under review. I am now wondering what I should do with article (that is written in English) on Korean Wikipedia. Could I go ahead and delete that one since I didn't mean to put it on Korean Wikipedia? If so, how should I go about it?

Thank you, and I would greatly appreciate your assistance. Have a fantastic day!

Brian

Kh.brian.min (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kh.brian.min: Unfortunately, that is out of our jurisdiction. I did some digging and found ko:틀:삭제_제안, which is essentially the Korea Wikipedia's articles for deletion template. If you explain your error (in Korean, of course) in the right parameter and put the template at the top of ko:Kim Ransa, you should be all set. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:17, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Vovagig


Vovagig (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed references, pleas review it is there any other issues that should be fixed.

Thank you

@Vovagig: You might want to check with WP:MMA for additional sources and stylization. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:58:30, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Ian.Kirkland76



Please tell me why the references to The List of Presidents of the Institution of Structural Engineers is not reliable. It is the definitive source surely - since they elect the Presidents in the first place? Ian.Kirkland76 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.Kirkland76 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian.Kirkland76. The key point lies in the reviewer's comment, rather than in the boilerplate language in the big pink box. It isn't a question of reliability. The only source that talks about the list members as a group is the institution of which they were the presidents. So it will be difficult to convince reviewers that the draft passes WP:LISTN and should be a stand alone list.
A better approach would be to embed the list in Institution of Structural Engineers. Few images are available, so omit that column. The image of the first president could illustrate the "History" section. If you can come up with a caption's worth of information about Blockley, that image could illustrate the new "List of presidents" section. Be judicious about linking. Don't link unless there's a reasonable expectation that an article can be written. A table is overkill, make them simple list entries. If you feel sortability is so essential that a table is necessary, then sort names more sensibly. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:18, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Mayuribn


Mayuribn (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:38, 1 March 2019 review of draft by 7urlu7u7u


7urlu7u7u (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made this draft (Draft:Herve_Tullet) today from a page in french Hervé Tullet. I did not use the translation tool offered by wikipedia because I couldn't make it work... But I'd still would love to liink this page to its french "big sister". How could I do that? Should I just wait until it is not a draft anymore?

TY

@7urlu7u7u: Thank you for your contribution. It has been accepted and linked via wikidata to the French article. Remember, because of your conflict of interest, not to edit the article directly. Instead, propose on Talk:Hervé Tullet any changes you believe should be made. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:08, 1 March 2019 review of submission by Jhamalhodari


Jhamalhodari (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 2

01:15:54, 2 March 2019 review of submission by Maqbool ahmed sifu


Maqbool ahmed sifu 01:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Maqbool ahmed sifu: - there is functionally no content in this draft, and is thus completely unsuitable for being a wiki article. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:18:30, 2 March 2019 review of draft by Mxra


Hello. I'm new to wikipedia, and I created two drafts a few minutes ago. The first one is called "Jack Gore", I made it for an American actor. However I discovered the page "Jack Gore" already exists (a deceased rugby player), so I created a new wikipedia draft called "Jack Gore (actor)". Is it possible to delete or fix the first one? Both pages are exactly the same, the title just differs. Thank you very much for your time. Mxra (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mxra Hi Welcome to AfC help desk. You could place {{Db-G7}} on top of 'Jack Gore' page and insert "request article to be deleted by creator" on the 'edit summary' prior saving/publishing the edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk)

03:39:45, 2 March 2019 review of submission by Jeyabalajitm


Hi, I reviewed your comments and added multiple reliable sources from Singapore government, Pubic media and other supporting sources. Please allow me to resubmit this article or please let me know if there any other changes that I have to do. Thanks.

Jeyabalajitm (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:23:44, 2 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by WmGaddy


What I submitted is a well researched account of an incident that happened to Jamestown colonist, Alice Lukin Page. There is an extensive article on her husband, John Page, but nothing about her. If I google his name, I get a Wicki article. If I google her name I get nothing. I feel that women who played a part in the founding of our country should be given at least some historical notice. Your editor claimed it appeared to be part of a story. Of course, it is a part of a story; all history is part of a story!


WmGaddy (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is so poorly written that it's difficult to tell what it's about, and please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you might consider expanding the page on her husband if there is not enough material to support a stand alone page. We can create a redirect for her name there. That is commonly done. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

14:18:23, 3 March 2019 review of draft by Cdogas


why isn't this article published? Cdogas (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:03, 3 March 2019 review of draft by Ajd


My submission of Draft:Gem Harvest was just rejected and I don't understand the reason. The rationale given was "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of Steven Universe episodes instead."

This of course is obviously untrue. The article List of Steven Universe episodes is a list of episodes, with about two sentences of plot summary for each and no room for any more information but some basic infobox data. But a handful of episodes (e.g., Mindful Education, Reunited) that are particularly notable for their production, impact, and/or critical response have articles of their own, so that their notable aspects can be discussed in more detail. I believe this episode is notable for its controversial subject matter, leading to substantial discussion and disagreement in secondary sources; the episode list does not provide space to include such information.

If the reason for rejection were that the draft doesn't establish that the episode meets the notability standard, I'd understand that—I'd disagree with it, but at least I'd understand it. But rejecting it on the grounds that Wikipedia already has an article on this subject just makes no sense, since it doesn't. There's no way to "resolve the issues", because there are no issues raised. The same argument would reject any of the 20 or so Steven Universe episode articles that already exist; it would reject any number of existing articles about episodes of other shows; heck, it would reject the article on New Hampshire because List of U.S. states exists.

Can you please clarify the rejection, and explain what is needed to bring the article to an acceptable standard? AJD (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AJD (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the reviewer, but I'm not sure the article is independently notable. You'd have to have more referencing from independent reliable sources to show that this episode is notable. I don't think it's all that far off though, as I can see other episodes are listed, and likely notable. I've pinged the reviewing editor who will most likely have a clearer view of the criteria here, but I think that's most likely the reason.
PS - The response isn't exactly wrong, as it does exist on Wikipedia, so I can see why they linked to it. It's a well written article, however, so worth a thorough check. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reject is correct on two levels. The topic is already covered on the list article. If you want to do a a bunch of spinoffs you should consult interested editors on the list page and/or the show's mainpage. Secondly the title already exists as a redirect so I can't move the draft to mainspace anyway unless I seek deletion of the redirect which I am not willing to do since I'm not convinced individual episodes are notable enough for a stand alone article. You could expamd the List of episodes info and get in much of the same material. You are not limited to two sentences. Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what it would take to convince you that an episode is notable enough for an article? The draft cites six distinct articles analyzing the episode, by five different authors, published on relatively high-profile media-analysis websites; that seems to clearly constitute significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. And I don't understand what you mean by "if you want to do a bunch of spinoffs". The existence of about 20 articles about individual episodes of Steven Universe is a fait accompli, all of which have been deemed notable enough for standalone articles; "Gem Harvest" is no less notable than most of those. Anyway I'll be happy to try to start a discussion about whether "Gem Harvest" is suitable for a standalone article at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes, but if consensus there is that "Gem Harvest" should have its own article I'm not sure what to do about it, since we'd still have to move it over the redirect. (Also, if AfC reviewers can't move articles to mainspace over redirects, I'm not sure why my move request was transferred to AfC in the first place.) AJD (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:03, 3 March 2019 review of submission by Maqbool ahmed sifu


Maqbool ahmed sifu 16:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maqbool ahmed sifu (talk • contribs)

Request on 16:20:01, 3 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Johnsung123


Hi my draft article on masjid omar salmah got rejected due to copyrighted text. However, I have mixed some reference texts and my own words together, making it confusing to identify which part does not fulfill the copyright requirements. (I have already added references to most paragraphs) Is there a way to find out which part of the article/texts does not fulfill the copyright requirements so that I can edit accordingly? Also some of my images are not licensed properly yet... Is that another cause for rejection of the draft? Please advice, thank you! Johnsung123 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johnsung123 - It looks to me as though it's already been removed. You can see copyviolations with an external tool here. You should write your article in a similar way to other articles that are similar. You have wayy to many images on the article, and it's quite a promotional article. Please read WP:NPOV. The article itself isn't written like articles on wikipedia, so that would be your main point of change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:35, 3 March 2019 review of draft by Cdogas


I am requesting help because the article i submitted "dimitris kaligeris" has been rejected without a reasonable rationale...the reviewer stated that it lacked sufficient footnotes! This is an article of a few lines with 2 footnotes! The sources are Greek websites and perhaps the reviewer cannot read Greek!

Cdogas (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cdogas. If you believe the subject meets WP:NFOOTY, your best approach would be to explain on Draft talk:Dimitris Kaligeris how he meets the guideline, and then resubmit the draft. If you can find additional sources, those would also be helpful, but be sure to use reliable ones. Transfermark profiles and wikis are not reliable sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:49, 3 March 2019 review of submission by Perron olivier


I changed the references to refer to a book from another author. Perron olivier (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 4

00:02:37, 4 March 2019 review of submission by 77.173.90.33

On January 5th I submitted Draft:Jamie Broadnax. Two months have passed. What's going on? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:41:13, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Hsvenkatesh


Hsvenkatesh (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


02:08:30, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Docia49

I wrote the stub above, and it was denied, but I would like to know if the stub has different requirements than an article? How many references would I need in order for it to be approved as a stub? Thank you. Docia49 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:10:07, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Vorce


Vorce (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


02:36:34, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Azzata,G


I have added more of our company's websites. My latest request was about constantly getting declined due to unreliable references. I assumed that Mongolian companies are not so well known but as I did my research and reviewed other Mongolian companies, many of them had far too few references (1 or 2). Thus, I don't think that is the problem. Compare to some Mongolian companies on Wikipedia, our group company is one of the biggest company in our country. Not only in Mongolia, but we cooperate with many international companies. Lastly, my draft has rejected. Could you please help me? Creating an article about our company on Wikipedia means a lot to me and us. I hope you understand this. Thank you.

Azzata,G (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:45:35, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Singerkirankaur


Singerkirankaur (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:53:49, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Singerkirankaur


Singerkirankaur (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:32:55, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Hossam.ouda


Hossam.ouda (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:46:06, 4 March 2019 review of submission by HITHESH POOJARI


HITHESH POOJARI (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:20:32, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Eagen1991


Eagen1991 (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=886133355"