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
Scsbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
239,891 edits
edited by robot: adding date header(s)
No edit summary
Line 748: Line 748:
I'm trying to update the new album for the group, Avalon. I am part of their street team. I have included a second reference to the new album that is releasing this fall.
I'm trying to update the new album for the group, Avalon. I am part of their street team. I have included a second reference to the new album that is releasing this fall.
[[User:Tidushuyin|Tidushuyin]] ([[User talk:Tidushuyin|talk]]) 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Tidushuyin|Tidushuyin]] ([[User talk:Tidushuyin|talk]]) 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

== 05:51:30, 16 July 2019 review of submission by 2.247.250.134 ==
{{Lafc|username=2.247.250.134|ts=05:51:30, 16 July 2019|page=
Draft:Tourlane
}}
Some time ago, we submitted a Wikipedia article about our company for independent community review. I know we have to be patient, but I wanted to ask about the status of the process. Is there anything we can do to speed up the review? There was a scam targeting us. While we have reported it to the Arbitration Committee, I was worried this might have slowed down the whole thing.
[[Special:Contributions/2.247.250.134|2.247.250.134]] ([[User talk:2.247.250.134|talk]]) 05:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:51, 16 July 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


July 9

02:04:45, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Andrew nyr

I have cited mutiple secondary sources. the only criticism Andrew nyr (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:01:56, 9 July 2019 review of draft by Emsport2000


I submitted my article over three months ago, and it still hasn't been reviewed. When should I expect it to be reviewed? Thank you

Emsport2000 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emsport2000: - I've reviewed and accepted the article. While max time is currently 15 weeks, I suspect this one was in the queue for the while as a bit of an anomaly with two excellent sources and a real dearth of others findable/present. In any case, I felt it passed WP:GNG, though a new page patroller will also take a look at it. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:24:22, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Theaveragezach


Hello there! :) Would like to understand what went wrong with the submission or this :D Your experience, expertise and advise in this would greatly help! Theaveragezach (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theaveragezach. Most business aren't notable (aren't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:21:19, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Timjarvis59


Timjarvis59 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:22:15, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Timjarvis59


Timjarvis59 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


07:38:17, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Manishsinghon


Manishsinghon (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:06:41, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Sindysparkles

First, thank you @Nosebagbear for all your help and suggestions. Second, I think the article is almost ready and would really like review if possible :) Many thanks in advance. Sindysparkles (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sindysparkles: your draft is in the pool of drafts awaiting review for 3 hours. The current backlog is about 4 months... Please be patient. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you sorry! Was just asking for advice :) thanks again

10:19:36, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Stermotich


Hello, my article as the follow was declined, can you tell me why?

SES - Solo Extreme Swimming

It is a new discipline of solo long-distance swimming where the swimmer does not receive any support from outside and do not supply the route earlier. The idea is to enjoy in long-distance swim and permanence in water by following the coastline.

The solo extreme swimmer carries all necessary attached to his body (hip bag, backpack or similar). It is not allowed to pull or push the equipment. The swimmer can use swimming goggles, diving mask and/or snorkel. It is prohibited to use swimming gloves or similar, swimming or diving fins and any other swimming gadgets.

When a solo extreme swimmer establishes SES record, it is prohibited for him to exit from the water or relax on any floating object. Drinking and eating should occur into the water without touching the river, lake or sea bed.

Solo Extreme Swimming is most demanding long-distance swimming activities due to bad hydrodynamics, low speed, refraction waves near the coastline and no support at all.

By the actual law in most countries, there is no limitation on swimming close the coastline, but there is a limitation to swim on open shore without boat support due to the risk of being killed. Solo Extreme Swimming had his birth in Istria / Croatia in 2019.

Stermotich (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stermotich: - it was rejected because it didn't have any sources to show notability, and additionally there did not appear to be any suitable secondary sources visible on the internet.
If you can find 1 or 2 sources, I'd suggest adding a section to the Long distance swimming article. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:22:34, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Stermotich

If I put a way SES?... Is ok to you to publish somewhere else the description on the web? What reference do you need?

Stermotich (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stermotich: Sources being used to show notability should be: In-depth (c. 8+ lines), independent (no reason to be biased, and also rules out interviews/press released), reliable (generally accurate source) and secondary (newspaper, book, etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:43, 9 July 2019 review of submission by 2605:A000:140D:4903:C8A1:1355:754F:21F8

I add more links 2605:A000:140D:4903:C8A1:1355:754F:21F8 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:37:32, 9 July 2019 review of draft by Stiflegold67


I'm having trouble understanding how much cited content is needed for Commissioner Chuck Eaton. It has been rejected twice. It's a statewide elected position in GA.

It's common for PSC Commissioners, across the country to have Wikipedia pages, and they have less content than Eaton's proposed page. Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks in advance for your help. See below of examples:

Brandon Presley of MS Tim Echols of GA Jeremy Oden of AL


Stiflegold67 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stiflegold67. Have you tried discussing the decline with the reviewer on their talk page? That's the best place to start when you have questions about a specific review. The existence of articles doesn't mean they should exist, so it would be better to base your argument on the WP:POLITICIAN guideline than on examples.
If you don't get an answer that satisfies you, there are other options available. If you have a conflict of interest, then you should go through the Articles for creation (AfC) process, but if you do not have one, then the process is optional. If you believe the draft meets the guidelines and you aren't getting useful feedback from AfC, you may WP:MOVE the draft from the Draft space to (Article) space yourself, where it will sink or swim on its merits. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

19:02:35, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Romeonew

There is considerable resource in this article, due to which it comes in the Notable category of Wikipedia.--Romeonew (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Romeonew. You are mistaken, at this point in his career he is not notable. The draft cites a few reliable sources, such as The Times of India, Dainik Jagran, and Dainik Bhaskar, but they either don't mention Thakur at all, or mention his name only in a long list of credits. They are not significant coverage of him. Download sites like Netflix, Amazon, and YouTube don't demonstrate notability (Netflix doesn't even mention him). The remaining cited sources are not reliable. I recommend that you stick to the reliable ones listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources until you have gained more experience in evaluating sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:39:48, 9 July 2019 review of submission by 2601:81:4000:6215:587A:68F:FC9E:669B


2601:81:4000:6215:587A:68F:FC9E:669B (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


22:53:14, 9 July 2019 review of draft by Aproudlock2010


Aproudlock2010 (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:53:14, 9 July 2019 review of submission by Aproudlock2010


I am looking for help to edit/ change the name of my draft for my client. I wish for it to be changed to Alexander Proudlock

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Aproudlock2010#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aproudlock2010: Thank you for your disclosure. It would be best to place it ("I’m a family member of Alexander Proudlock") on your user page along with a brief statement that you understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and intend to follow them.
You can change the name of a draft by moving it to a new name. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

05:10:28, 10 July 2019 review of submission by Kingsbangkok2020


Kingsbangkok2020 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:21:53, 10 July 2019 review of submission by SanjayGogia

I want to publish a Wikipedia page for Sanjay Gogia, who has received many scholarships, had been a politician, is a lawyer & has written books on the same. If I am missing out something or has overpraised the subject or has violated any guideless, kindly help me with precise information. SanjayGogia (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SanjayGogia: What you are failing to understand is that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Experienced volunteers have explained this repeatedly. No amount of editing will make the topic acceptable. Editors who refuse to accept a consensus may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline. That can lead to loss of editing privileges, and potentially other sanctions. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:38:14, 10 July 2019 review of submission by Bobbysinghnow


Bobbysinghnow (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've submitted the article for Speedy Deletion - it's an unambiguous advert. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:00:01, 10 July 2019 review of draft by Rathiiikhushi01


Rathiiikhushi01 (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:56:07, 10 July 2019 review of submission by Mccloughlin


I have updated the article completely and conformed to your requirements.

Mccloughlin (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccloughlin: From what the reviewer has written, I believe they may not have intended their review to be the final word. Therefore, I've changed their reject (which doesn't give you the option of resubmitting) into a less drastic decline (which does allow you to resubmit). Before you resubmit, please address the inadequate context in the lead and the absence of references within the description of his technique. Tell the reader in the first sentence what his profession or field was, and give a few words of explanation of 'Anklostomum'. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:02, 10 July 2019 review of draft by Presdec


I have been asked by the chef to create this page, she is a personal friend. I want to ensure that i've adhered to the disclosure rules appropriately.

I also am trying to keep to the spirit of other chef's wiki pages and have heavily borrowed both structure and formating from other famous chefs. I want to ensure that what I propose as a final page is an appropriate wikipedia page. Presdec (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is stuffed full off totally inappropriate non neutral, trumpery and puffery "Celebrity fans like Jean Paul Gauthier, Carla Bruni and Pierce Brosnan dine alongside the Greek power set and globetrotters" "worldwide known advertising agency," "gastronomical prowess" " audience and fans around the globe" "gastronomic journey" "pioneering authentic Greek gastronomy" "unconditionally answers the call to humanitarianism" "over a dozen best-selling cookbooks" "boasting record ratings" "prestigious Greek cooking school" for example. Theroadislong (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. Understood, i'll edit accordingly and let you know. My aim is to make this a proper wiki page not advertise/promote etc. Presdec (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to make a re-write of the page, I would apreciate some input. Presdec (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:45, 10 July 2019 review of draft by Sameerbhosle9


Sameerbhosle9 (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request you to delete any one page and publish the changes. We will follow the that page thereafter.

Hi Sameerbhosle9. If you have created two drafts about a topic and now wish to delete one, add {{Db-g7}} to the top of the one you want deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:20:23, 10 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Laurenlewis


I submitted an article (American Political Thought: A Journal of Ideas, Institutions, and Culture), for creation. American Political Thought is a new, major peer-reviewed journal of political science, which, like other similar journals, should have a Wikipedia article describing it. However, I received notification that the submitted article was rejected for reason: "undefined." What does that mean? Why was the article rejected?


Laurenlewis (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laurenlewis. See the reviewer's comment below the pink box at the top of the draft. You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide helpful. The WikiProject also has an essay about the notability of journals. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:41:49, 10 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by MarcoLaudato


Hello :)

My article submission has been rejected. May I have more information about what was wrong with my article? In which way can I improve it to make it acceptable for Wikipedia standards?

Thanks for your help.

Kind regards, Marco

MarcoLaudato (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcoLaudato: - currently (nearly) all your sources are primary or otherwise non-independent. Sources need to both not be from the organisation but also not inclined to give non-neutral coverage about it by any connection. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:37, 10 July 2019 review of submission by MarcoLaudato


The previous version of the article has been rejected due to "Fails WP:NCOMPANY requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. The organization's websites are primary sources and not acceptable reference."

I apologize for the inconvenience. In this new version, which I kindly ask to be re-reviewed, I have added further independent references. In particular, I have added as main reference the L'Aquila University web page dedicated to the center. Moreover, regarding the center scientific journal, I have added also the reference to its SCOPUS page.

I believe that in this new version the article is acceptable for the Wikipedia standard.

Thanks for your attention.

Kind regards, Marco

MarcoLaudato (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate - please don't repeat any query until 48 hours have passed to give us a chance to answer them

17:31:40, 10 July 2019 review of submission by Kzmba212


Kzmba212 (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:45:26, 10 July 2019 review of submission by Kzmba212


Kzmba212 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

I have written an article about the first online magazine dealing specifically with Afro-Latin rhythms (kizomba, semba, kuduro, etc). Until now there has never been a magazine on this subject and I found it interesting to write about it, however, the user Dan arndt has rejected my article, the reason he has given is "undefined", I don´t know what it means. I would like to improve my article and I would love it will be published at Wikipedia, What do you advise me to do?. Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Agora_Kizomba_Magazine Thanks

--Kzmba212 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to second inquiry below. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:43, 10 July 2019 review of submission by Jnthibeault


So I didn't get any feedback on the initial review. I think it was just punted to deletion because of the perceived copyright violation (which was erroneous). I would really like to get some constructive feedback on the article to know if I can submit it for formal publication or if I need to tweak it in whatever manner. Thanks!

Jnthibeault (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:53:53, 10 July 2019 review of draft by JSpice85

Hi I would like to know why the actors in the film The Creatress are credited in the film in Wikipedia but when clicking the link in their pages, the page doesn't exists or doesn't show properly? Can you approve the page so actors can be properly credited? Thank you!

JSpice85 (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JSpice85: The links show up in red because no one has written an article on that person yet. If that page will be created by anyone, the software behind Wikipedia will make it blue. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:38:29, 10 July 2019 review of draft by Shoethorn7685


This is my first submission. It is fully proofed and revised, and ready to go. How do I submit it for review? I thought that I hit "Submit for Review", but cannot tell the status.

Shoethorn7685 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoethorn7685: You submit your draft for review by adding {{subst:submit}} Anywhere on the page and hitting the normal save button you already know. If you copy the code from here, copy it when viewing the page to make things work as intended. Note on file: the current backlog is about 4 months, so please be patient. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:05:10, 10 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Roachmin


My article got declined and I'd like to know why. If it is too short I can work on it some more with my colleagues but I was expecting it to be open to the public first.


Roachmin (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roachmin: - it got rejected because no suitable sources were used, as explained by the reviewer - twitch/Imgur aren't suitable.
You need sources that are reliable, independent (usually excluding interviews), in-depth and secondary Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:56:31, 10 July 2019 review of submission by Chrisjaymes2

More sources have been added Chrisjaymes2 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


July 11

04:31:32, 11 July 2019 review of submission by Forallerrors

Hello. I dont understand why they are saying the topic is not relevant enough. Star Alex was suggested to be written about on wikipedia multiple times. I have followed Star's work since her gifboom days (when she was in middle school she was famous already) Now she has become famous on another application (instagram) and is making huge changes in the modeling industry as a petite model. She is changing the standards of beauty and just because her name is Star, means that all of the information about her online is getting hidden behind irrelevant searches. Star Alex is a notable person and should already be included in wikipedia, which is why I submitted an article on her. I am really dissapointed. The article was a lot of hard work, and effort, and Star deserves to have her information on wikipedia considering she is notable enough for me to have found countless accounts of people pretending to be her, or fan accounts for her. Please let me know if we can fix this and give fashion model Star Alex her first wikipedia page. Forallerrors (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Forallerrors: - firstly, Wikipedia "notability" isn't the same as relevance (which would be unbelievably hard to objectively judge - we'd never agree on it).
Multiple dummy accounts or fan accounts can be used to reliability verify facets or even be used as a good indicator of notability (a person could duplicate these things to push a person in if we used that as a criterion).
Instead, you need some sources that are reliable, independent secondary sources. The current included sources (those that cover her in depth) generally aren't independent (they have reason to not be neutral about Star Alex)
I fully get that her name makes her extremely tricky to search "google unfriendly" - I suggest using "Star Alex" and then adding key words always associated with her, which should pare it down. Looking in google news will also help filter to the types of sources we're looking for. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:08, 11 July 2019 review of submission by Gerard-Odonovan


I am requesting a review with the article or biography i made with Gerard O'donovan. I made some changes and i was hoping this was right. Please help me. thank you Gerard-Odonovan (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerard-Odonovan: - while it is much less promotional, improvements in the editing can't fix a lack of notability. All the sources remain non-independent (and they need to also be reliable, in-depth and secondary). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:55:51, 11 July 2019 review of draft by Franceslk


How do you edit a citation that i used the template to create?

Franceslk (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Franceslk: - hi there. I don't know if you're using Visual Editor (looks a little like Word) or Source (lots of {{ }} everywhere)
In Source, go to edit, and in each source you need an additional specification. Add "|title=Appropriate Title A" [Exclude " "] within each template, changing the title as appropriate. If you aren't wanting to add a title, you can just change the specifications as you wish.
In Visual, click on the blue number, click "Edit" in the sources box, and add/change the appropriate info.
If you give a specific case (and editing style) I can tailor my answer Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:03:28, 11 July 2019 review of submission by Aliso4ka2013

11:03:28, 11 July 2019 review of draft by Aliso4ka2013


Hello! For the third time I've been trying to get an approval for my article to get published. Users who made a review left a message that the article references doesn't show significant coverage. But I added 23 references including Associated Press interview and Reuters article. I think it's proven resources with not just a mentions and I don't understand why my article declined. What can I do? Thank you! Aliso4ka2013 (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aliso4ka2013. In cases such as this, just adding references is rarely the solution. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic. What is needed is quality, not quantity. If there aren't 3 solid sources, having 23 poor ones won't get the draft accepted, and if there are 3 solid sources, having 20 other weak ones will only obscure that fact.
Examining five of the cited sources at random:
  • The information on goldnews.com.cy ("FXTM drives itself forward with its core values firmly in tow ...") appears to have been supplied by Dashin's company rather than being the product of independent reporting.
  • The AP piece is a primary source interview in which Dashin talks about Dashin with zero analysis by AP. It is neither independent nor secondary.
  • Reuters contains only three sentences about Dashin.
  • RBK Group is a good source about Alpari Charitable Fund, but hardly says anything about Dashin.
  • RIA Novosti is a press release. Wikipedia is not very interested in awards covered only by press releases from the awarding entity or the recipient.
Keep Reuters and RBK Group if you can't find other independent, reliable sources that are deeper. Throw the other three away. Perform the same analysis and culling on the draft's 18 other sources. Aim for 6-8 sources total.
An example of significant coverage of a businessman in an independent, reliable, secondary sources is this article about Freedman. If you can't find significant coverage of Dashin, he may not be as noteworthy as you think he is. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:26, 11 July 2019 review of draft by Tproveau


Tproveau (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got this message: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

There aren't any references per say (this page is just an explanation of the e-library) but I have a few links to external sites that are reliable (like the World Health Organization). Please advise.

Thanks!

Hi Tproveau. Thank you for your contributions. On Wikipedia, notbility is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic warrants an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia aims to have articles about topics that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by significant coverage from reliable, arms length sources.
The draft references no such sources (the World Health Organization is reliable, but not independent because it established and owns the library), so the draft fails to demonstrate that the topic should be included in Wikipedia as a stand alone article. To continue with the topic, you'll need to come up with some independent, reliable, secondary sources that cover the library in some detail. The bulk of any article should be based on such sources, rather than on non-independent sources.
If you can solve the above problem, there are additional problems to fix. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual, so the entire "Users Guide" section should be removed. It also is not a place to promote or advocate something. An organization's vision or mission statement is usually regarded as promotional, so use care when discussing its purpose and target audience. Don't state something as fact in Wikipedia's voice if it's an assertion by the organization. Instead attribute the statement to the organization inline. Finally, external links, those that take the reader away from Wikipedia, are not allowed in the body of an article. A limited number are usually allowed in an "External links" section at the very end. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tproveau I have tagged your draft as a copyright infringement, it has been copied and pasted from https://www.vsc-library.org/guidelines/ and https://www.vsc-library.org/about/ Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:13, 11 July 2019 review of draft by Maviveloso

N needing help to develop the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mavi_Veloso Hi It's been awhile we're trying to create the page . The wikipedia seems to be a very complex thing to do though. After some time trying and not succeeding and being rejected it seems i'm not actually able to develop this page. Is there another way we could do it? how can i collaborate to someone more experienced to help develop this page about the artist Mavi Veloso?

Maviveloso (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maviveloso. There is a requested article service that might be able to help, but it only works if you are able to identify at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject. Performatus is a good start. What media outlets commonly review the arts in the cities where she has worked? If Folha de S.Paulo and Le Soir, say, had each published a full-length review of her work, you would have three good sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:25, 11 July 2019 review of draft by Redmercw


Hello -- can you please provide an estimate of when W. Patrick Murphy draft page will be reviewed? It has been pending for 10 months, and I really need someone's help with getting it approved. Please help! We have revised this page countless times.

Thank you very much.

Christian Redmer

Redmercw (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- can you please provide an estimate of when W. Patrick Murphy draft page will be reviewed? It has been pending for 10 months, and I really need someone's help with getting it approved. Please help! We have revised this page countless times.

Thank you very much.

Christian Redmer

Hi Redmercw. It was submitted for review 8 days ago. The current backlog is 4 months. Your interests ("I really need ... it approved") may not align with Wikipedia's goals. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:03:42, 11 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by GBBEK


Hello! I am curious as to my draft for Skuxs.ca was rejected as no reason was provided. I want to make sure that when I re-submit, the article is done correctly!

GBBEK (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GBBEK: - hi, the reason is next to the yellow ! at the top of the page.
In short, companies require multiple high quality sources - sources that are in-depth, reliable, independent (which rules out many interviews) and secondary (newspapers, books etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:26:27, 11 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Kzmba212


My article has been rejected by the user DAN ARNDT because he thinks that there is not significant coverage. There are few external references because Afro-Latin rhythms are not very popular in northern European countries yet, hence there is not much coverage.


--Kzmba212 (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Kzmba212. If there is so little coverage (it can be anywhere in the world) that you cannot cite at least three independent (not from the magazine and its principals), reliable (not self-published blogs, for example), secondary sources (not primary source interviews) containing significant coverage of the magazine, then I advise you to set the topic aside for a few years, it is not currently notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

08:57:20, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Maria Sitkina

I changed the text according to editors recommendations. Please, check it. Thank you. Maria Sitkina (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:22:15, 12 July 2019 review of draft by Klichnerska

Hello. I need help editing this article. The term crowdshipping is now widely used by scholars and commercial enterprises. A collaboration between CIRREALT Interuniversity Research Center, Université Laval, and Canada Research Chair in Interconnected Business Engineering had created a research paper titled Crowdsourcing delivery. Also, crowdshipping is one of the main sub-topics, written by Alan McKinnon, professor of Logistics at Kuehne Logistics University. Such companies: Cargomatic, Jojo, Deliv have been in existence since 2012.

Klichnerska (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:32, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Cagatayd


All the information is changed. Categories added. More References shared.

Cagatayd (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It reads just like an advert. Theroadislong (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:09, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Cagatayd


More information gave about company and sector. 4 categories; Services, Interconnections, Events and References created. 8 new references added.

Cagatayd (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cagatayd: - the draft is extremely promotional, reading just as a company marketing pamphlet would. Additionally the sources provided aren't independent - they don't have reason to be content-neutral. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{SAFESUBST:#Daniel Unubi Ezekiel[1]:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by Daniel Unubi Ezekiel


Daniel Unubi Ezekiel (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:03, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Hrdina Impéria


Greetings. I have recently wanted to translate few articles in English to Slovak, as the topics seemed interesting and there wasnt any information in my language. Problem is that there is lack of sources in Slovak of said topic (for example, Gastraphetes). Is it acceptable to just straight up translate english article using the same sources (essentially copying them over) or should I just refrain from creating such new pages, for which I lack sources in relevant language? Hrdina Impéria (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrdina Impéria: - so long as the various important facets of translating articles is followed (citing/linking back to where you got it from, ensuring you aren't machine-translating etc) then it's generally fine to use the same sources (I don't know Slovak editing requirements, but there's no issue on our side). Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:32:07, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Ryozzo

Please if someone could review the state of this article. It was rejected Apr 2019 but then submitted for review by the person that rejected it.

I'd like to make sure that it is in the queue to be reviewed.

It has been three months and I just want to make sure it is in the proper state to be reviewed and not marked as rejected.

Thanks Ryozzo (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryozzo: I've took a look at the page and yes, it has been submitted correctly. However, the backlog is currently about 4 months, so you probably have to wait another month. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannik Schwaß: Thanks so much.

21:05:49, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Vicgerami


Vicgerami (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am pretty new to Wikipedia as the only completed profile I ever submitted was for trans activist, Ashlee Marie Preston. That process went pretty smoothly. Then I submitted a request for the most high-profile LGBTQ Civil Rights Attorney & Activist, Peter Perkowski. Last night I noticed from my phone that an editor with the username: Athaenara tagged my submission for deletion. I rushed home to respond from my laptop and wrote a note to them explaining why Peter's profile was worthy of a Wikipedia page. But my submission was deleted immediately with the reason that I was paid for creating the profile. This is not true and I explained that in my dispute post.

I am confused as why someone would and can make such a claim and it only takes a false accusation for my work to be deleted. Anyone who looks up Peter Perkowski will see the significance of his work as among other things, he is currently suing the Trump Administration in four class-action lawsuits on behalf of trans service-members.

I am not very good with Wikipedia's system and confused with all the steps. I don't know what I can do next in order to save Peter's profile. Please help as I appreciate it.

Thank you and kind regards, vic

Hi Vicgerami. You've also asked about Draft:Peter Perkowski at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, and received solid advice there. Please don't raise a matter in multiple venues simultaneously. Slow down and study the information you've already been given, which is dense with links to further reading.
The draft was speedily deleted because an experienced reviewer and another administrator agreed that it was unambiguous advertising. A draft usually has to be egregiously promotional to be deleted that way. Perhaps the most common cause of promotional writing is some kind of conflict of interest. People writing about themselves, their family, their friends, their employer, or for pay, often have trouble being objective. Athaenara left a note on your talk page to make sure you are aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines around conflicts of interest. Simple inexperience with the detached, formal style of writing needed for an encyclopedia can also result in promotional text, particularly if one has an opinion about the subject.
On your talk page, the last sentence of the deletion nomination notice tells you what to do if you want to retrieve the deleted material, contact the deleting administrator on their talk page. If you're interested in writing about LGBTQ rights, an even better approach would be to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Creating new articles from scratch is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a new editor can undertake. The LGBT project has a cleanup list of 7,892 existing articles that are tagged for improvement. If you spend a few months improving existing articles, you will be better equipped to create new ones. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:31:17, 12 July 2019 review of draft by 2RBonisson


Hello, It has been over a month since my re-submission and I am wondering if I need to do anything to get a response. I have made edits along the way. Do I need to stop editing in order to get a re_review. 2RBonisson (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2RBonisson: The current backlog is about 4 months. Please be patient, the reviewers do this in their free time. To your draft, I suggest that you remove the bold syntax from section headers, since the Software behind Wikipedia is already highlighting them so they don't need to be bold. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

03:59:07, 13 July 2019 review of submission by Philippineshd


Philippineshd (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:51:32, 13 July 2019 review of submission by Andrew nyr

This article fixed the mistakes and is ready for re review. Andrew nyr (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:57:50, 13 July 2019 review of draft by Falconite007


Hello, I submitted my draft again after some revisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Supernode_Proof_of_Stake It's been pending for about a month now. I'm just a bit confused since the last few times the reviews took about a week's time. Hope I did not make any mistake while submitting.

Falconite007 (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:49, 13 July 2019 review of submission by Resource2222


I have received a message about making changes to a page on Kalyn Ponga and a page on Article Creation. I did not make either of these edits. Resource2222 (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:43, 13 July 2019 review of submission by Daniel Unubi Ezekiel


Daniel Unubi Ezekiel (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:41:11, 13 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mizumakipswada


Trying to get an article published, added in quotes and properly cited the sources but no word on whether or not the page has been published as of yet.

Mizumakipswada (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted it for review yet, but before you do you will need to find a number of independent reliable sources, your draft Draft:Jean-Marie Haessle has none so far.

23:10:58, 13 July 2019 review of draft by GipsyG


GipsyG (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi. why so long to review this edition of the draft? thx.

Hi GipsyG. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for 7 weeks. The current backlog is 16 weeks. Reviewers are volunteers and are not required to go through drafts in any particular order. Some fish among the newest, perhaps looking for ones that can be quickly failed or accepted. That may explain why your first version was declined on the day it was submitted. Work on something else while you wait (Wikipedia:Community portal lists ways to help) and try to find solace in the fact that there is no deadline. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

00:31:41, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Kendoma


Kendoma (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


01:15:29, 14 July 2019 review of draft by Debraannclark


I'm assuming that I have met all the qualifications for getting this article approved. It has been MORE than 2 months now. I would appreciate an expedited approval/publishing of this article or a reason why it's taking so long. I understand you're backlogged, but this has been going on forever. Thank you!

--Debraannclark (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debraannclark (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined as hopelessly non-notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:19:02, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Carlis Rowe


Carlis Rowe (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)I am requesting a re-view to understand why the rejection in order to fix it.[reply]

Hi Carlis Rowe. You (if you are the Carlis Rowe you wrote about) are not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Rejection of the draft is meant to be final, to convey that you should stop, that no amount of editing can fix the problem. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for review

01:27:13, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Rumbidzainokutenda

Requesting for review , i have corrected errors which were highlighted . Please let me know if there are other parts i should add or correct . Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:15:35, 14 July 2019 review of submission by 183.83.78.82


183.83.78.82 (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:11, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Ayushssengar


Ayushssengar (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


07:51:34, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Harvestsparrow


Harvestsparrow (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Halle Sparrow Arbaugh has no reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:51, 14 July 2019 review of draft by Gyllila


Dear Madam/Sir,

Could you tell me how to find out who decided to redirect the search for “convertible money“ to “gold standard”? As much as I know, the two terms are related, but not the same, thus I decided to create a page for “convertible money”.

My submission has been declined twice, because the reviewing users thought that “convertible money” is not widely used and not of public interest. However, if it were so, then nobody would have created a redirection page for “convertible money“ in first place. I guess that’s because they are different users and thus differently well informed, therefore I’d like to directly contact the user or users who have created the redirection. Maybe they can create a page on their own or give me more references so that I can better create the page.

Can you tell me how to find them? Many thanks! Gyllila (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyllila: - hi there. Skysmith created the redirect...and impressive 11 years ago. Most editors of that era aren't around, but Skysmith does occasionally edit, but only rarely. Have you tried setting out the specific differences talking to the reviewers. The sources would need to set out a fairly substantive difference to make it a distinct article - but additional sections to the gold standard article might be an alternate possibility. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that - much better answer underneath! (please no duplicate questions) Nosebagbear (talk)

11:51:37, 14 July 2019 review of draft by Gyllila


Thank you for the reply. However, can you please be more clear about the reason? Is it declined because it only contains definition or is it declined because of lack of public coverage? For the first, it’s no problem to add the theory and modeling part, but to the latter, I don’t know how public is public enough for you. “Convertible money” is automatically redirected to “gold standard“ on your site, why did you create this redirection if it’s not of public interest? Maybe another user did that? Can you please tell me how to contact her? Because “convertible money” is only related to “gold standard “ but not the same, it would be misleading to cover them in the same page. In my previous research I never found any source which equates convertible money with gold standard, but I’m also open for different statements which fulfill the criteria you have mentioned to me.

Best regards Gyllila (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gyllila. If you click on Convertible Money you'll be redirected to article Gold standard, but in the upper left corner of the page, under the page title, will be the text (Redirected from Convertible Money). If you click that link, you'll go to the Convertible Money page without being redirected. You can investigate its history like any other page, by clicking the view history tab near the top, to right of centre. The page was created in November 2005‎ as a one sentence definition. This suggests, incidentally, that the expression may not have been first introduced in Guo (2018). The page was turned into a redirect in May 2006‎ by an editor who now edits infrequently. You may leave a message on their talk page, but it's unlikely that you'll receive a quick reply or that they will remember one edit made 13 years ago out of their 23,000 edits.
A redirect does not mean that "convertible money" is equivalent to "gold standard". It only means that Wikipedia doesn't have an article named "convertible money", but that some relevant information can be found in gold standard. Redirects are not deleted if it is plausible that someone might search for the term. People do search for it, but very rarely, only 50 times in the past six months, and there's no way to tell what they wanted information about, perhaps convertibility, perhaps gold standard, perhaps convertible money. One can't assume from the existence of the redirect that there's a public interest in having an encyclopedia article dedicated to the term.
You may continue with the draft, but it would need to cite more than the work of one economist to be accepted. It would also be good if the draft were more than a definition, although a definition might be accepted as a stub article as long as it is clear that the expression is not a neologism. According to Google Ngram Viewer, the expression first appeared in books in the 1870s, its peak usage was from about 1905 to 1910, it saw a modest resurgence from the mid-1930s to about 1960, and a blip of usage in the 1990s. Writing a new encyclopedia article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating things an editor new to Wikipedia can attempt. You would be more likely to succeed at it if you spent some time becoming familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, perhaps by editing existing articles in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, if that's your area of interest. You can always return to convertible money later. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:46, 14 July 2019 review of submission by 2605:E000:FEDB:2500:DD5C:E516:52BD:1A35


2605:E000:FEDB:2500:DD5C:E516:52BD:1A35 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)I am not sure what I am doing wrong. Should it be posted under a different Catagory?[reply]

Your submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is totally inappropriate in tone, it has no sources and appears to be autobiographical. Wikipedia only reports on what reliable sources have said. Theroadislong (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


July 15

00:13:48, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Mattcoopz

I have added more depth to the references including an international article on one of the founders. Is there enough detail in this article to get it published or am I needing a lot more to get the first publish approved?

Mattcoopz (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattcoopz. Rejection of the draft is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable, so you should stop. No amount of editing will make an article about it acceptable. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:08:28, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Plextority


HOMAY8N (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:22:49, 15 July 2019 review of submission by MANaina


MANaina (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:52:45, 15 July 2019 review of draft by Annalog95


Annalog95 (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello !

I would really need help to acknowledge that my article is a translation of a French existing article and change the French reference mark-up to English mark-up.

How could I do it ?

Thank you in advance for your help,

Regards,

Anna

Hi Annalog95. The copyright attribution has been done for you this time. If you translate material again, you can read more about the procedure for attribution at Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:34, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Softball beasts


Hi there. I'm trying to create an article for my softball club which has been declined due to unverifiable sources. The source I'm citing is the results printed on the website of the federal governing body for the sport in my country. I'm not sure what further source I can cite that would be more verifiable than this. Could you possibly help point me in the right direction? I was modelling my article based on another club in my town that has started this year and only cites news articles, yet their article for the club was accepted and published ( Basel Dragons AFC).

If you could help or suggest a route to investigate what sources are acceptable for a sports club it would be very much appreciated. Best regards, SB Softball beasts (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softball beasts, Since you are one of the member of the subject, you have a conflict of interest here. Please note that Wikipedia strongly discourage editor with COI to create or edit the affected page as it is hard to write the content in nuetral point of view. Pls declare your COI in the article talk page and your user page. The sources we need are independent, reliable such as from the newspapers, books or reliable journals. The sources you provided are not independent since they associated with the subject. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:21:42, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Choudharyg677


Choudharyg677 (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:21:16, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Benjamindavidharvey


Benjamindavidharvey (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:49:48, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Redmercw


Redmercw (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir/madam --

I recently asked for help in getting a timely review of a draft Wiki page that has been pending for over 10 months, and I received this "sharp" reply from "Worldbruce." Please note that my message below was drafted in an effort to solicit help, nothing else. "Worldbruce" did not explain if the review can be expedited given the fact that it has been rejected multiple times over the last 10 months. If nothing else, can you offer guidance re: whether the current draft will stand a chance of being accepted?


"Hello -- can you please provide an estimate of when W. Patrick Murphy draft page will be reviewed? It has been pending for 10 months, and I really need someone's help with getting it approved. Please help! We have revised this page countless times.

Thank you very much.

Christian Redmer

Hi Redmercw. It was submitted for review 8 days ago. The current backlog is 4 months. Your interests ("I really need ... it approved") may not align with Wikipedia's goals. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)"

14:39:09, 15 July 2019 review of submission by 105.189.206.149


105.189.206.149 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made an English page about this referee. I just translated all langages in English. Why this topic is not notable in wikipédia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.189.206.149 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:14, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Pmurray123

Hello. I am looking for specifics on why Draft:VS. System 2PCG was rejected and what I can do to make sure it is published in the future. Thank you! Pmurray123 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmurray123: - it was declined (not rejected, which is similar but indicates the reviewer thinks it's a permanent decision), on the grounds of notability.
In short, the sourcing you have isn't good enough - you need multiple sources that are secondary, reliable, independent and in-depth. Your sources don't meet all those conditions. The game may not be big enough to have generated that level of suitable coverage, I don't know. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:17, 15 July 2019 review of draft by Iattp


Hi there, thanks for taking the time to go over the article on Ljupčo Santov Gymnasium Kočani so quickly. Regarding the need to cite sources, I basically translated it all from the Macedonian page:

https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%A3_%E2%80%9E%D0%89%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%87%D0%BE_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%E2%80%9C_-_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8

I do work at the school, but only in the capacity as a Peace Corps volunteer. A lot of the Macedonian page was NOT included, as it was quite subjective and contained outdated and false information. Is there something in particular that needs citation? I could do some research and try to get information from the ministry, but it's very hard to get that kind of stuff out here in Macedonia.

Thanks,

Nick

Iattp (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:33, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Nanawo99

I just wanted to know the reason my page was rejected. Thank you for your time.

Nanawo99 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanawo99: - the reviewer's specific reason is next to the yellow ! under the red box. Your page had no sources, thus it was impossible for it to be accepted. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:15, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Liff182


Liff182 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:17:17, 15 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ryn 112


I have been advised that the detail I have placed on the wiki page that I have submitted for Mark Leake cannot be accepted as it infringes copyright regulations. The detail that has been written was taken from Mark's own university people page with his permission and run past him before placing on the webpage to ensure that he was happy with the content, is this not enough to allow it to be used? Thank you for your support

Ryn 112 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryn 112. The source page states "© University of York", so Leake doesn't have the power to grant a license to reuse it. There are mechanisms by which the University could "donate" copyrighted material (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials), but the effort probably isn't worth it. Material written for places other than Wikipedia was written for a different purpose, so it is rarely suitable for the encyclopedia. Such text almost always has to be rewritten anyway.
Also note that the bulk of any article should come from independent sources, so not from Leake or his employer. Furthermore, a draft should not be "run past him ... to ensure that he was happy" with it. It is not his article, but an article about him. If you're concerned about making him happy, you have a conflict of interest, and it would be a bad idea to write about him on Wikipedia at all. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:59:29, 15 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Fede-isr


 Hello, I do not understand why my article was not published. I do believe it contains sufficient references to credible and reputable sources. Furthermore, this persons role in the financial technology industry, particularly in its regional development in Latin America  merits an encyclopedia article. If in fact the neutrality of the entre is the reason why it was disapproved, please advice on how I can improve it. Thanks!

Fede-isr (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:24, 15 July 2019 review of submission by FpsJimbo


Resubmitting for approval, the first draft I made I lacked vital information, and was submitted with place holder templates, since then I have put every effort to make it a notable entry for Irish MMA fights and across the world over.

Kinda ask for your approval of this wiki page.

Regards, James

FpsJimbo (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 23:05:50, 15 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Koodre


I would like to review and publish Articles for creation: Andre Koo as it has been revised. Thank you!


Andre Koo Jr. (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


July 16

00:40:08, 16 July 2019 review of submission by AlfansoLeone

Not sure why my submission was rejected. Subject is mentioned on multiple 3rd party websites with impartial, factual information such as competition scores, athletic participation, and current occupation. Subject is credited with numerous feature films, television series', and commercials.

AlfansoLeone (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:24:26, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Tidushuyin

I'm trying to update the new album for the group, Avalon. I am part of their street team. I have included a second reference to the new album that is releasing this fall. Tidushuyin (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:51:30, 16 July 2019 review of submission by 2.247.250.134

Some time ago, we submitted a Wikipedia article about our company for independent community review. I know we have to be patient, but I wanted to ask about the status of the process. Is there anything we can do to speed up the review? There was a scam targeting us. While we have reported it to the Arbitration Committee, I was worried this might have slowed down the whole thing. 2.247.250.134 (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ ≈≈
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=906491302"