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 456: Line 456:


[[User:Egmputu2|Egmputu2]] ([[User talk:Egmputu2|talk]]) 09:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Egmputu2|Egmputu2]] ([[User talk:Egmputu2|talk]]) 09:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

== 10:08:52, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Marinkovukovojac ==
{{Lafc|username=Marinkovukovojac|ts=10:08:52, 5 April 2019|draft=Draft:Zalužnica_Soldiers_in_the_Austrian_Army_1746-1918}}


I would like to publish this page even though the detail is not yet complete. The detail comes from a detailed review of 1000s of images of Austrian army records and will take years to complete. However, I would like to provide interested persons with the details I have discovered so far. The page was removed to draft as I was told there were not enough citations. The nature of the page is that the detail, in the vast majority, is from Austrian Army records that were imaged by www.familysearch.org and available online although none has been transcribed. I have made improvements and hopeful the page now meets the citation requirements. Please advise. Thank you

[[User:Marinkovukovojac|Marinkovukovojac]] ([[User talk:Marinkovukovojac|talk]]) 10:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:08, 5 April 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


March 30

01:25:34, 30 March 2019 review of submission by 119.92.13.175


Hello, after my fail of my draft, I would like to know 5 reasons it has been declined. I wanted it accepted by my term just to share a review of the official gme. I want to know. 119.92.13.175 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for random game cruft. Topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sources are not reliable. Sources do not show significant coverage. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not particularly Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Theroadislong (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:37:10, 30 March 2019 review of submission by 2405:204:200B:DB8:4519:B0AE:AD3A:9526


2405:204:200B:DB8:4519:B0AE:AD3A:9526 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:27:31, 30 March 2019 review of submission by Heubergen

Hi, my very first article on the en_wikipedia was just declined as it appears to "read more like an advertisement". The review didn't go into details about which sentences or paraphrases need to be re-written so I'd like to have some help here. I tried to include different sources and make the article as neutral as possible. I didn't include any (negative) critics because I didn't really find one. As to my motivation for this article; I listen to her music and was looking for a Wikipedia article but didn't find one so I decided to start one. I contacted the management of her during the article process but ask them to not intervene with the article writing. Heubergen (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:10:29, 30 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Wmwgriffin


felt that the intent for creation of information on the von braun rotating space station had merit 
 and should be searchable on wiki..  open to responses on how to accomplish that ??? regards. and thanks in advance


Wmwgriffin (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is fragmented sentences and so is this question. Please learn to write coherently. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:05, 30 March 2019 review of submission by WikiWiki5678


WikiWiki5678 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Zee Keralam page has been rejected? Zee Keralam is a newly launched Malayalam language television channel in India. But in Wikipedia, no page are alloted for Zee Keralam. Kindly reconsider it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zee_Keralam

Needs to pass WP:BROADCAST Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:51, 30 March 2019 review of submission by X3Kemono


I believe that this band deserves more recognition for what they do. Also, I believe that people should be able to learn about the history of The Coils, along with learning about their origin and possibly having people discover a new type of music genre that they might love. Thank you in advance. X3Kemono (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence this band meets WP:NBAND Legacypac (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:48:08, 30 March 2019 review of submission by BletchleyPark


Would an article about Nataal web site and it's associated Magazine (circulation circa 3,000) be of interest / acceptable? The Web site has been published since early 2015, the magazine was first published a year ago and the second edition is due out in May this year. Nataal is concerned with Black fashion, music and culture and is primarily aimed at the Afro-American, sub-Saharan African and Afro-Caribbean reader. The Web site has nearly 600 articles spread across all 3 categories. Pages in the web site are cited 8 times in the reference sections of various Wikipedia articles.

I have 3 potential conflicts of interest

  • My daughter, Helen Jennings, is the editor and a major share holder.
  • I am a minor (5%) share holder.
  • I do not make contributions to the actual site contents, but I have been responsible for creating all of the pages from raw copy and images for the past 2 years and other technical matters.

If deemed suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, who should write the article? Obviously my daughter, as a journalist, could do a good job, but also obviously she has a major CoI.

BletchleyPark (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not suitable. Needs to have multiple reliable sources discuss the topic in detail. Don't write about stuff you are closely connected too. If some independent user determines the topic is notable they will write it up. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

05:15:40, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Tonyjaimy


Tonyjaimy (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:11:26, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Tonyjaimy


Tonyjaimy (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Stanicmi (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:13:58, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Stanicmi


Stanicmi (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:21:51, 31 March 2019 review of draft by BahrdozsBulafka


Hi there, can any admin/someone please review the recently submitted article here for approval. Thanks a lot! : - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rahul_Akerkar

BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BahrdozsBulafka. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed, which at the current rate is likely to happen within the next two months. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:35, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Salmanqureshi1967


Salmanqureshi1967 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Respected Sir,

I wrote an article that I think is notable for the world to know. You see I am in process of writing it and it has great significance to bringing tourism back to Pakistan. I have given the article my name but it does not mean that I am projecting my self. As the target is to tell the world that Pakistan is a wonderful place for tourism, this article relates to my work in the field of hospitality & tourism. Please reconsider it & allow my article to publish.

Hi Salmanqureshi1967. You are mistaken about the notability of the topic. The draft was correctly rejected as non-notable. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a platform for content intended to promote something, such as "to tell the world that Pakistan is a wonderful place for tourism" or "to bringing tourism back to Pakistan." --Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:25, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Aditya332

I have submitted my talk on "sequences those take other sequence terms as difference,ratio". It was declined and mentioned a suggestion to improve sequence page instead. I tried editing sequence page by adding some part of my above work. But the updates are not lasting long. Help me how to edit wikipedia as an author Aditya332 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aditya332. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page. They may help you understand the behavioral norms here and find the best way for you to contribute to Wikipedia. In general, I advise against creating new articles or making large changes to existing ones until you've built up some experience by making many smaller changes. A good way to find things that need doing is through Wikipedia:Community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:19:57, 31 March 2019 review of draft by ColorTheoryRGB


I am requesting help to add sources and re-publish this article because it has been noted by major news sources recently as a stand-alone single from the album. ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 19:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tell me

19:56:53, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Hazel2398454


Hazel2398454 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

16:33:25, 1 April 2019 review of submission by AnnSimoens


Dear friends at Wikipedia Thank you for having reviewed my article. I do feel really disappointed that it was rejected cause I spent days writing it, gathering all kinds of external references (as per Wiki's guidelines) but still: my article was rejected (for a second time) with reject reason: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Does not meet WP:NCORP."

Do you think there's a way to adjust my article in order to get it approved? Or is it simply not worth investing any more of my time in it? I am so disappointed cause I love Wikipedia so much (I even wired money to you in the last few years, which I normally only to for animal organizations, so I broke my own rule for Wikipedia :-)

There are companies providing similar services compared to the ones that SIGOS is offering, they're called Araxxe and Wedo technologies for example and they are on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araxxe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeDo_Technologies) so I don't understand why their articles got accepted and mine didn't.

I'm hoping you could give me some tips/tricks on how to improve my first own article (cause I'm still quite proud of it.)

Thank you in advance for your help. Ann


AnnSimoens (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnnSimoens this may be a borderline case of meeting WP:NCORP. I'll leave notes on the draft for you. Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

08:52:53, 2 April 2019 review of submission by 93.43.35.73


Dear @K.e.coffman

Before writing this page, I took the following page as an example: <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintiq<ref> .

Can you please let me know what can be done (added, removed, modified) in order to have this page respecting the rules of Wikipedia.

Thank you

93.43.35.73 (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the note on the draft, read the linksd policies. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:56, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Roxana Leonte


Hello. Saw that my request was rejected and I would really love to know why. When i did my research i did notice that nicknames are a part of Wikipedia’s archive. The same Gabriel Iglesias as this nickname and it can be found here. All I really want is for people to be able to know where the airplane got its name from as many people claim nowadays thta they called him like this. I am not breaking any rules of this page all i want is to inform people of the origins of the nickname Fluffy for the airplane A380. If i can change something about it, please let me know. Roxana Leonte (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a joke - which is vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:16:17, 2 April 2019 review of submission by D574h


This article was declined for a comment stating that not enough sourcing was provided. The article links several sources from South Bend, Indiana's Municipal Code, in addition to a link to the official .gov website for the flag of South Bend, Indiana with identical information. This article and the official website were created in tandem, which is why information sourced is from the Municipal Code, not just "local papers".D574h (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC) D574h (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:30:02, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Igor Kachevskyi


Kindly review the article. I added more information and some references. Thanks Igor Kachevskyi (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:37:27, 2 April 2019 review of submission by MarionPB

{{Lafc|username=MarionPB|ts=12:37:27, 2 April 2019|page=

MarionPB (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors,

I am a professional author, technical writer, and feature writer. So far I have no clear direction about an entry I have created on Peter G Demers. The subject has made notable contributions to the field of sports medicine and professional hockey. My approach and sourcing have been criticized and yet my submission meets and exceeds the approach and caliber of other pages on Wikipedia. Moreover, an image I have full copyrights to continues to be deleted.

I am appealing these changes, and requesting that the page on Peter G Demers be published, along with the image. I am glad to continue editing as needed but there has been zero clarity on what is expected. In addition, this page is modeled after existing Wikipedia pages and meets or exceeds that model.

Thank you,

MarionPB (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarionPB: I can refer you to WP:NHL, the ice hockey WikiProject, for sourcing and formatting advice, but I disagree with your claim that it "meets or exceeds" the page model; the section about his time with the Kings in particular seems quite WP:PUFFy. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I described the subject's experience as one would expect in a Wikipedia article. The person who is the subject of this article has contributed to hockey and to sports medicine in a notable way. I would like this page to successfully be published, and am willing to take the necessary steps to do so. The requirements seem to change however and the editors are condescending. I am a professional.

I also would like to know how to un-delete the photo I submitted. I have all copyright permission to the image and the pictured certificate contents. Yet the image continues to be deleted.

Do you have any women editors and writers? So far I haven't seen evidence of any.

Thanks. MarionPB (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarionPB. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are constantly changing, but the phenomenon you're experiencing is something different, what it's like to write for thousands of editors. Each reviewer may focus on something different.
What leaps out at me is the draft's heavy reliance on frozenroyalty.net as a source. It's self-published, a blog written and published by Gann Matsuda. Wikipedia policy says, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." You could replace frozenroyalty.net with a reliable source, remove all the content sourced from it, or wait until Pete Demers is dead. Without frozenroyalty.net, the draft has only two sources of any depth, Mass Live and Fox Sports. The latter is a primary source interview. To the extent that it's Demers talking about Demers, it may lack sufficient independence to help establish notability.
I recommend setting aside for now the question of the photo. The presence or absence of a photo will have no effect on whether the draft is accepted for publication.
Editors who choose to self-identify as female can be found in Category:Female Wikipedians, but given the anonymous nature of editing, many editors choose not to disclose personal information. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:27, 2 April 2019 review of draft by ACPMPRF


Should we add more detail to our article, e.g., History, Mission, Goals, Research Grants Awarded, Images, etc.? Do we have enough external/reliable links? Any other advice to improve our article is appreciated!

ACPMPRF (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ACPMPRF. Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:04, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Mpame


I have revised my article to remove any element(s) of business advertising Mpame (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


April 3

00:37:05, 3 April 2019 review of submission by Ole2128silver


Ole2128silver (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ole2128silver: - as was said, I'm afraid there clearly is no notability (or even a claim of something that would make you notable) established. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:48:51, 3 April 2019 review of submission by 96.233.42.226


O'NEIL REAL ATHLETE HE KO'D DIV1A SCHOLARSHIP ATHLETE WHO WAS 26 1/47 VARSITY HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL PLAYERS RECIEVED THAT SCHOLARSHIP. USA BOXING BEST ACCREDITOR 96.233.42.226 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


MATTHEW EUGENE O'NEIL (BORN MARCH 7,1976 IN NEWTON, MASSACHUSETTS) IS AN ATHLETE, UNIVERSITY GRADUATE, AND EX-POLITICAL CANDIDATE.HE COMPETED IN TWO USA BOXING ACCREDITED MATCHES WINNING BOTH BY STOPPAGE. HE KNOCKED OUT JEFFREY NAQUIN IN 1998 FOR A TEN COUNT. NAQUIN WAS ON THE 1991 AND 1993 LSU NATIONAL BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM. O'NEIL TKO'D ALL ARMY SUPERHEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION PRESTON HARTZOG IN 1999. HARTZOG WAS IN THE WORLD CLASS ATHLETE PROGRAM ON FORT CARSON.

THE POSITIVE RESULTS OF THE NAQUIN AND HARTZOG BOUTS WERE BROUGHT BACK TO THE NATIONAL SOCCER LEAGUE THAT O'NEIL COMPETED IN AS A YOUTH. IN 2013 AND 2014 PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS RECIEVED ITS FIRST DIV1 A BASEBALL SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THEIR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM. O'NEIL WAS SELECTED FOR THE AIR FORCE MARTIAL ARTS PROGRAM ON SCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE IN 1997 AND HE USED THE FACILITY FOR THREE YEARS MAKING A POSITIVE PRODUCTION RESULT BACK TO THE TOWN HE WAS RECRUITED FROM. O'NEIL RAN FOR CLARK COUNTY COMMISSION IN NEVADA IN 2006 AGAINST RORY REID.HE WORKED FOR HARVARD UNIVERSITY AT THE AGE OF TWENTY FIVE IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT OFFICE.HE GRADUATED FROM COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY WITH A B.S.IN 2001 AND FROM REGIS UNIVERSITY IN 2004 WITH A MBA. HE DID AGENCY ACQUISITION FOR NATIONWIDE INSURANCE IN 2017 AND 2018.

EXTERNAL LINKS http://www.maxboxing.com/news/promo-lead/you-only-live-once-just-ask-matthew-oneil http://www.newslocker.com/en-ng/sport/nigeria-boxing/you-only-live-once-just-ask-matthew-oneil/view/ https://lasvegassun.com/news/2006/oct/22/giunchigliani-rory-reid-election-opponents-said-to/

When editing in talk pages, the use of all caps is perceived as "shouting". Please do not write in all caps. Being a "real athlete" is not a reason for there to be an encyclopedia article about him. To be accepted for publication, the draft would need to show that he is a notable boxer or that he is notable in some other way. He does't appear to be, so is not a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:59:33, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Kallidai Ramesh Narayana


Any help on what changes I need to make to the draft to get it published will be greatly appreciated. If you cannot, but can send a link to some guidelines, that will also be helpful.

Kallidai Ramesh Narayana (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kallidai Ramesh Narayana. I left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that you may find useful.
Most of the sources that the draft cites are of extremely low quality: ibiblio.org, threadreaderapp, swamydesika.tripod.com, allaboutshoes.ca, ramanuja.org, indiadivine.org, fampeople.com, and anudinam.org. To have any hope of the draft being accepted, remove all of them and any content that came from them. For a topic of this nature there ought to be scholarly sources - books by academics published by university presses and articles by acadmics published in peer reviewed journals. Those are the kinds of sources to use. If you aren't sure where to start looking, try finding the topic in a printed encyclopedia and see what sources they cite. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:26, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Manacla


Hi, you said that the article does not have enough sources, but all the content of the page is taken from the two external link shown at the bottom of the page. What else should I add?

Manacla (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:49:06, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Lou Renwick


I would like an independant listing for Cragend FArm and Cragend Silo please. Cragside Estate do not own these buildings. This is not promotion but fact. I do not know how else to prove what I am writing.


Lou Renwick (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lou Renwick. The reviewer of Draft:Cragend Farm left you good advice on the draft and on your talk page (where there are also useful links left by another editor when you were editing Cragside estate in January). You need to prove what you're writing by citing reliable sources. I've added a source to Draft:Cragend Silo as an example. If you need help finding sources, a local library or historical society would be a good place to start. You don't need many sources, 2-3 would be enough for a draft to be accepted, provided that they are high-quality sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:45, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Lightsourcer


Lightsourcer (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:46, 3 April 2019 review of submission by Author Who


You wrote that the Article is not sufficiently notable. The Ballroomdancer Luca Baricchi is for Ballroomdance like Michael Barischnikov for ballet. He developed Ballroomdance in his Career to the modern Form we see in this days. There is an article about him on Wikipedia with his ex-wife ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_and_Loraine_Baricchi ) and an article for his ex-wife ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine_Barry ). The new Article is more detailed than the old one and show his career for a longer Periode of time. Author Who (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Author Who. The way to prove the reviewer wrong is to cite multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Luca Baricchi. The draft cites only one source, dancesportinfo.net, and that only for selected awards between 1993 and 2001. None of the prose in the draft cites a source. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:11, 3 April 2019 review of submission by Another irate man


How do I make this notable? It's just a number. If 42 has a wikipedia page about it, 91000000 deserves one Another irate man (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking right? Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes I'm sorry for using such a bad argument I shouldn't have said thatAnother irate man (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:37, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Gedgmoss


I'm new to publishing, have a number of (scanned) old school photos I purchase (pre-internet) and looking for advice on how to share via Wiki. What's the best approach? I've tried to contact the original photographer without success.

Gedgmoss (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gedgmoss. If by "old" you mean taken before 1924, then they are in the public domain and you may upload them to Wikimedia Commons. If they are newer than that, you probably can't legally share them online (there are a few exceptions, but they are complicated, and you would need to know a lot about the history of the image - when it was taken, when it was published, whether it was registered, whether it was renewed, who took it, when they died, etc.) The presence or absence of photos will have no effect on whether the draft is accepted or not, so I recommend that you forget about images for now and concentrate on the text. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:21:13, 3 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Michael0658


My potential article about Jodi Ann Arias was rejected: 

    "The reason left by Theroadislong was: This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."

Do you reject all articles about famous prisoners or just mine?

Do you have any objective or impartial authors?

I used to be able to trust Wikipedia, however it has disappointed me too many times with faulty information and opinions posted as verified facts. Now, it replies with a patently absurd claim about an article it should have encouraged and posted long ago.

Wikipedia, please don't keep asking me to contribute. I've already corrected the defective writing of many of your authors (like the one that reviewed my article proposal) already. I will never contribute until the above decision changes.

Michael John Strickland (not an anonymous coward like the user that reviewed my proposed article.)


Michael0658 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Michael0658 Good day. First of all there is a Wikipedia policy of civility, thus kindly refrain name calling such as "calling another editor "coward", for whether to use one's real name as the Wikipedia username is subjective to an editor's choice as long as the username meets Wikipedia Wikipedia:Username policy. I am one of the reviewers of AfC in Wikipedia and I share the same view with @Theroadislong: who reviewed your submission. The content is not an article but a declaration of your views / thoughts. Secondly, Wikipedia reconigses the original creators of the articles but anyone can edits any Wikipedia pages under Wikipedia's guidelines and no editors (including the original creator of the page) own any content of any articles in Wikipedia. Most editors are volunteer and if you do not want to contribute for whatever reasons, you are feel free to do so.
The requirements for a subject to be merited a page in Wikipedia main space if the subject is notable, the content is verifiable by multiple, independent, reliable sources. I do suggest you to read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and WP:Your First Article to familiar yourself on how to write an article in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected the draft because it was only a proposal, if you would care to create an actual draft with correctly sourced content, then I will happily accept it. Theroadislong (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

Request on 02:43:31, 4 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nicolonour


I'm trying to create an entry for Efficient Power Conversion Corporation, which is a world leader in energy efficiency, but am having trouble. This is the text I want to include which comes from Bloomberg.

Efficient Power Conversion Corporation provides enhancement mode gallium nitride based power management devices. The company provides eGaN FETs, which provide designers employing various power conversion topology; full bridge, half bridge, buck converter, boost converter, PFC, flyback converter, forward converter, or LLC converter to attain performance enhancements compared with silicon power MOSFETs; eGaN Drivers that allow realization of the disruptive gains in high frequency and low duty cycle power conversion; EPC9083, a GaN-based differential mode development board for wireless power applications; demo and development boards; and wireless power demonstration kits. Its products are used in various applications, such as server and computer DC-DC converters, power over Ethernet, isolated brick converters, point-of-load converters, LED lighting, cell phones, RF transmission, solar micro-inverters, class-D audio amplifiers, and envelope tracking. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in El Segundo, California.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=99399790

Nicolonour (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:17:33, 4 April 2019 review of submission by 140Macpherson


Hi,

We have submitted new materials and would like a review or advice on how to make the article better. thank you.

140Macpherson (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@140Macpherson: Can you clarify who you are referring to when you say "we"? JTP (talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:59:15, 4 April 2019 review of draft by 2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F5:11BA:9DD3:4B6E


I posed a couple of questions to the declining editor at Draft talk:Harry Gideonse, but he never responded. I really don't understand what I pointed out.

I had similar issues at Draft talk:Francis Kilcoyne. There, the same editor seemed to be saying that names of people and institutions - unchanged - were copyright violations. 

2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F5:11BA:9DD3:4B6E (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:40, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Sonnenalle44


As I understand it, this page is being rejected based on the idea I am involved in one way or another with S.Crasneanscki. I have denied this on my page. Now, I'm not in a strong position to edit so perhaps an editor might see the significance of this page and edit it themselves to make it whatever they deem suitable for publication. All the information needed is there.

Sonnenalle44 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10:30:04, 4 April 2019 review of submission by PilotSuggs


I am asking for a review of this article as the person is notable in the media for his adventures and a list of accomplishments has been added, explaining the achievements further. (Apologies, this should have been added from the outset). I appreciate the time taken to re-review this.

Thanks

PilotSuggs (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:28:38, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Ricochet198

{{Lafc|username=Ricochet198|ts=11:28:38, 4 April 2019|page=

Ricochet198 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:55, 4 April 2019 review of submission by HotSquash London


HotSquash London (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I am requiring assistance as my article has been rejected and I am unsure why, the reason is that it isn't suitable fir Wikipedia but why? I have seen many fashion limited companies listed on Wikipedia. Please let me know why our page has been rejected.

There are three main reasons the draft was rejected. It wasn't "notable", which in Wikipedia terms, means there weren't sufficient "in-depth, independent, reliable secondary sources" (Newspapers, books etc). As a company you'll need at least 3 or 4 high quality sources. Lots of poor quality sources is not equivalent to a few good ones.
The second is that it is promotional - we dislike people linked to a company writing it, because they are generally unable of doing so in the neutral way we require.
The third issue is that your username indicates more than one person editing - if usernames have to be individual - edit it to be something like "Cool Guy1 at HotSquash London" (beginning can be whatever you want).
As a side note, I suspect you are an employee of the company. If so, please say, as there are additional requirements you need to follow to avoid being blocked again.
However - it's not worth doing that until you've found enough good secondary sources to indicate you can support an article on the company. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:09, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Another irate man


I made a lot of new changes to my article. I added more sources and made the number more notable, in contrast to the earlier revision that only had one fact about the number. I don't know what I was thinking, but I got the help of User:StaringAtTheStars, and he helped find articles with the number 91,000,000 in them, and I now have 19 references. Another irate man (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:03:46, 4 April 2019 review of draft by Thedavidshow


I have a couple of questions. First of all I believe... even in the very first draft of this article that I've written, it met all of the notability requirements for a chain of shops. If you look up ANY chain of shops... all but the largest of them are lucky to have anything more than a notice in the local paper of when one or more of the stores opened. Take The Gadget Shop, for example. Two sources. One of them a rather questionable online source. But nobody should expect a five page article in the New York Times from a gadget store. Or this one: MicroWarehouse ONE source... repeated. And they're out of business. (So I doubt there will be future sources). Or Bally Shoe ... Again, I'm not knocking their notability, they are shops that either exist or have existed and someone thought enough of them to write articles about them.

I wanted to write about this chain or barbershops. I think I provided a dozen sources from the very beginning. Then I was drinking my tea one morning and noticed that Prince William of England visited the shop and so I added People Magazine, ABC News, and the Daily Mail to the list of sources. I've written a few articles over the years (on my old account from years ago that I no longer remember or have access to) so I'm well familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and practices.

I guess my question is: When is this article going to be approved? (It's been well beyond two months since it was submitted in January. And it absolutely meets and exceeds the notability requirement.)

Thedavidshow (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:09:08, 4 April 2019 review of draft by DondeEstaElBurro?


DondeEstaElBurro? (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth did you tell me that my article's topic (2019 Paris apartment fire) wasn't significant enough, when Wikipedia published someone else's 3 sentence stub (February 2019 Paris fire) ABOUT THE EXACT SAME FIRE!?

Hi Template:DondeEstaElBurro? good day. I have noticed you have added some content from your draft article into February 2019 Paris fire page and we thank you for that. Reviewer Legacypac declined the draft under Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT where by the subject "might not be notable" Additional development / aftermath /wider implications of the fire would secure the notability of the subject. Even the February 2019 Paris fire page / or any articles that are in Wikipedia main space, they would still be subjected to be nominated for "article for deletion" if editors think the notability of the articles are in questions. Do note articles in Wikipedia are always in "working in progress" status. I hope I have answered your question and thank you for your contribution. cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:35:49, 4 April 2019 review of draft by Ejpastor


Thank you for your guidance already! I am making this Wiki about a very notorious local artist and am working on expanding the references. I am sure he meets the criteria described in WP:NARTIST but proving it is another issue. I have reached out to arts festivals and fairs to find proof he won awards (he had, but it may not have been published somewhere). The Robert E. Wood Legacy Committee was formed immediately after his 2012 death, but information from the Committee is not considered a secondary source. Would newspaper articles about the Legacy Committee or Memorial exhibitions be considered as secondary sources to prove his notability? Thank you! Ejpastor (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Ejpastor (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Ejpasto Hi good day. We are after independent, reliable sources (secondary reliable sources) whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and in length. If the newspaper mention about Robert Wood with majority of the content in any article that would be sufficed. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 5:37 pm, Today (UTC+8)

April 5

01:35:34, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Jgcolcord


Looking for an update on the status of my article. There are no copyright issues. Anything quoted is now public domain. I am still fairly new to all of this, so I apologize if is this is not the place to inquire. I just don’t want this article deleted without cause, and I’m not sure where to turn. Jgcolcord (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:14, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Ernesto Dionisio, Jr.


Ernesto Dionisio, Jr. (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:14:08, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Egmputu2


My submission name "CSS CORP" has been pending from more than two months. Please let me know how long it will take to get reviewed?

Egmputu2 (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:52, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Marinkovukovojac


I would like to publish this page even though the detail is not yet complete. The detail comes from a detailed review of 1000s of images of Austrian army records and will take years to complete. However, I would like to provide interested persons with the details I have discovered so far. The page was removed to draft as I was told there were not enough citations. The nature of the page is that the detail, in the vast majority, is from Austrian Army records that were imaged by www.familysearch.org and available online although none has been transcribed. I have made improvements and hopeful the page now meets the citation requirements. Please advise. Thank you

Marinkovukovojac (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=891052915"