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
No edit summary
Line 540: Line 540:


[[User:Lethgawd|Lethgawd]] ([[User talk:Lethgawd|talk]]) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Lethgawd|Lethgawd]] ([[User talk:Lethgawd|talk]]) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


== 08:19:46, 29 July 2019 review of submission by Sarahsullivan2009 ==
{{Lafc|username=Sarahsullivan2009|ts=08:19:46, 29 July 2019|declined=Draft:Connexin_Limited}}

Hi, I am writing in regards to the request for 'Connexin Ltd.' page being denied. In Hull, the broadband industry is highly dominated by KCOM (who you have granted a page to) this is due to them buying and owning all the fibre lines in the city. It is not commonly known that there are other broadband providers available - after living in Hull myself for years I was shocked to find out I could receive broadband from a different company and when researching online it was evident that these companies were not publicised online. Connexin is a large company and is now more known to the public, I think it is fair that they should have a Wikipedia page like KCOM does. I have now been a customer of Connexin for a couple of years and I want to make sure that people are aware that there are other options available to them. I will also be contributing by creating a page for 'Pure Broadband' as they are the only other company, along with Connexin, that provides Broadband in Hull. I do not think it is fair or right that many people like me are not aware that we can pay significantly less for broadband in Hull - the only reason I was originally put off switching providers was because of the lack of publication online. It seems this has changed and now Connexin has had more coverage in general media - even holding their own events in Hull but Wikipedia is the only website that now does not cover them. I hope to see that the page is granted soon, and also hope this will be taken into consideration when I create 'Pure Broadband's page. Thank you!

Kind regards,
Sarah Sullivan

[[User:Sarahsullivan2009|Sarahsullivan2009]] ([[User talk:Sarahsullivan2009|talk]]) 08:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:19, 29 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 23

06:11:09, 23 July 2019 review of submission by Merlin Dizzy


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}}

Merlin Dizzy (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:12:00, 23 July 2019 review of submission by Merlin Dizzy


Merlin Dizzy (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:25:17, 23 July 2019 review of submission by Rubim Rebisha


Rubim Rebisha (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubim Rebisha: your (presumably autobiographical) draft was rejected for a complete failure to show notability. It both doesn't have any references (at all) but a check online doesn't show any suitable ones either. No amount of editing can fix that issue.
For future note, if you are writing about a different topic, You seem to have used a template to then fill out. That's fine, but you actually need to fill out all the paragraphs or delete the template text. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:18, 23 July 2019 review of draft by Barankeegnu


Barankeegnu (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for review for 2 months, I've added information after I get the decline reasons, and now I'm waiting for re-review for 3 months already( What should I do to make the process quicker? Thank you

@Barankeegnu: See Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers#Picking a topic, particularly the "Pick something notable" subsection. There are also nearly six million existing articles you may edit without waiting for any reviews. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:07, 23 July 2019 review of submission by Kathryn Bosi Monteath

I would like to know what is wrong with my article on Britti

Kathryn Bosi Monteath (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathryn Bosi Monteath: - as far as I can tell, this draft was never submitted for AfC review. I can do that for you if you'd like.
As a side note, it shouldn't be written with "we" etc - articles use the 3rd person. e.g. "It is likely that Britti was born around 1600" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:03:22, 23 July 2019 review of draft by 49.248.235.133


49.248.235.133 (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 4 weeks and the article is not yet reviewed. I would really appreciate it if anyone reviews it. Thanks.

@49.248.235.133: - as the yellow box indicates, there is a major backlog atm. Currently some drafts have been waiting for more than 14 weeks as we are receiving a massive rate of AfC submissions atm. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:43:40, 23 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Annfrankedit


All the problems mentioned about the article by the reviewer has been addressed. Please review and approve it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Athisayangalude_Venal

Annfrankedit (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Annfrankedit. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed since early May. The current backlog is 19 weeks, so the draft is likely to be reviewed by late September. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:53:16, 23 July 2019 review of submission by 43.241.130.134


43.241.130.134 (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:28:57, 23 July 2019 review of draft by Doctorether


I am looking to improve the wiki page for the podcast Darker Days Radio.

I created the page in response to the fact that if you search "darker days", the podcast is listed under disambiguation, having been listed by another user. I have taken that as a sign that further information was required to detail what the podcast is and the position it holds within the role play game community.

Further advice on improving the page is welcome.

Doctorether (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doctorether. Red links are discouraged on disambiguation pages, so the presence of one on Darker Days might be more indicative of the IP editor who place it there not knowing what they were doing than of the encyclopedia needing an article about the podcast Darker Days Radio.
Contrast the draft with Radiolab, one of Wikipedia's better articles about a podcast. See how the latter cites high quality sources like The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The New Yorker? Notice that it has won a Peabody Award? Those things show that Radiolab is notable. It may not be possible to show that Darker Days Radio is notable.
Creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating things a novice Wikipedian can attempt. If you're interested in podcasting and role-playing games, I suggest you spend some time improving existing articles in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting or Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games. The experience you gain will make it easier to create a new article. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:35, 23 July 2019 review of submission by Louisfx

Don't have any clue as to why it is rejected. Only thing I can gather is that the reviewer was too busy; didn't understand the content; or the content did not appeal to him. I gather if I can take the time to put it in... someone does give a damn on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisfx (talk • contribs) 12:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Louisfx: - Intish probably does meet our notability standards. However it was right to be declined (it might appear rejected, but it's actually declined) - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide (see points 1 & 6 here). Parts of the draft are already in good form, but major aspects are not. 3rd person language needs to be used throughout (e.g. don't say "so that we can have"). In short, you're saying what it is, rather than trying to teach people how to use it.
I'm also concerned by the extremely long parts of the book you've added to the article. I suspect you're in copyright breach, as there's a limit on how long quotes can be without breaching it, and you're well over.
It sounds like an interesting (albeit just reading it was enough to make me cringe - I don't think i'll be an advocate any time soon) topic, and not beyond turning into a proper draft.
It might be worth looking at some grammar rule articles and seeing how others have laid it out. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:28, 23 July 2019 review of submission by Arielr09


Arielr09 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:06, 23 July 2019 review of submission by Jonas84886

I do not know why the page regarding the Top 100 NFL Players of 2019 has been declined for being a Wikipedia article. Last year, when I saw the article of NFL Top 100 Players of 2018, the page was kept up, even WHEN the list was not completed. Plus, some of the players have made some accomplishments within the 2018 NFL season, while some players went on the list, but haven't done anything notable. Or, at least for what I know. Like, I feel like now, I should put Andrew Whitworth as part of the 2018 Built Ford Tough Offensive Line of the Year, but other than that, I don't know what some of the players who I have not listed in accomplishment, has done anything of note. And also, yes, the sources were messed up a little bit. I intend to add the YouTube videos of the Top 100 players instead of redirecting to the website of the Top 100. But anyhow, please let me know as to why the page was declined to be put up on Wikipedia. Jonas84886 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Top 100 Players of 2019 was moved back to article space by Rockchalk717. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:17:56, 23 July 2019 review of draft by Jake.compactcath


Hello! I recently submitted an article for publishing, but realized that the title of my article was missing. I unfortunately cannot go back and add the article title and resubmit for publishing, so I would highly appreciate information as to how I can add a title or remove my article from the submission process (this may reach to whoever is reading this after my article has been returned, so this may still apply) this is my first time publishing an article, and any feedback or further steps will be much appreciated! Thank you! Jake.compactcath (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake.compactcath: - I've moved it to Draft:CompactCath (as a note, as a matter of Wikipedia style, we miss "inc", "ltd" etc out of the names.
There are two, substantial, reasons for the decline.
  1. Sourcing - your sources fail to be independent and/or secondary. You need sources that are independent (no benefit in pushing the company), secondary, reliable & in-depth. And, as a company, you need multiple sources of this quality. 3 good sources is vastly better than 10 middling/mediocre ones.
  1. Advertising - this reads more like a product catalogue, setting out what you can buy from the company in great detail, along with how good the company and its items are. Have a look round at some other articles and model yours after the most neutral of those. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:44:36, 23 July 2019 review of draft by 70.170.75.210


The draft was declined on the basis that it reads like an advertisement. It isn't my intention to advertise the business. Rather, I tried to stay in line with what another large master-planned community in Las Vegas has done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin%2C_Nevada I believe the article is currently written from a neutral point of view, but will change any text which appears to the contrary - I just need it pointed out. I've read the article on spam but was unable to find anything that applied to this draft, specifically. Please advise.

70.170.75.210 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point-of-view of the draft is leaning towards the company. You should try to use more neutral words. "Affluent" and "complimentary" are not neutral words. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 03:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:48:06, 23 July 2019 review of draft by TJRobertson


The draft was declined on the basis that it reads like an advertisement. It isn't my intention to advertise the business. Rather, I tried to stay in line with what another large master-planned community in Las Vegas has done: [1] I believe the article is currently written from a neutral point of view, but will change any text which appears to the contrary - I just need it pointed out. I've read the article on spam but was unable to find anything that applied to this draft, specifically. Please advise. TJRobertson (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin%2C_Nevada

July 24

01:13:15, 24 July 2019 review of draft by JonathanDicko


Request for most notable sources this article is based on:

https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/australia/elana-withnall-283615 https://rocktape.com.au/meet-elana-withnall-heptathlete-and-rugby-7/ https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/sport/ryde-athlete-elana-withnall-wins-gold-for-australia-in-heptathlon/news-story/1f9457fa6a5d8aaa9f1ce030c30fd5ab https://www.starnow.com.au/elanawithnall

JonathanDicko (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JonathanDicko.
  • The Daily Telegraph is the best source: independent, reliable, and containing significant coverage of Withnall.
  • IAAF is independent and reliable, but indiscriminate. It attempts to list stats for every athlete in any IAAF competition. Athletes are presumed notabile if they have competed in one of eight specific IAAF meets, but the IAAF Oceania Athletics Championships is not one of them. (It's also puzzling that the IAAF stats don't reconcile with the newspaper article, but that's a side issue).
  • Rocktape.com is a commercial site rather than an academic or journalistic source. She's a brand ambassador for them, and it's a primary source interview with no independent analysis by the company. It is not an arms length source.
  • Starnow.com is a site where people trying to get work, like Withnall, post their profile. It is not indpendent.
Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their subject. You've listed one. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:52:12, 24 July 2019 review of draft by Supafun33


I'd like to know what's wrong with the references in my article. Or if there are specific ones that are causing problems and can be removed? Supafun33 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Supafun33: None of the references have any problem. You need to add in more for clarification. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 03:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:58:02, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Piperalbrecht

I am requesting are-review as I have updated a lot of the information and improved the smoothness of the article and its links. Piperalbrecht (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:28:02, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Yomego


Yomego (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:28:39, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Lekkala R Reddy


Hi :CNMall41, You've rejected my submission saying that contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I am unable to understand why this happen? Didn't you see Kundan Srivastava sources on Google & Google news?

I've contributed the article unintentionally by looking his references without any promotional things there. I wrote what he deserves and stated by reliable sources.

Kundan information is showing by google knowledge panel and the works featured by worldwide media. This is very new comment for me (contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia) ..Without purpose who will contribute? My purpose was simply to contribute to provide knowledge about some good people who have enough works and reliable sources.

Have done some changes. Please help me to improve this article ..if any issues. he has reliable sources, works and all ..so why this article is not eligible to be featured on Wikipedia?

Request for review please.

Regards, Lekkala

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lekkala R Reddy Has been deleted nine times Draft:Kundan Srivastava please stop.Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :Theroadislong, May his article was deleted 9 times before; but it doesn't means his articles is not eligible after some years. As per your last comments deleted articles can't be published forever? I have made changes. Please review once.

Really I am not able to understand, what is the issue with you guys, Why you keep rejecting this article, Kundan Srivastava is a noted human rights activist and working since many years from the young age, you can research as well. Secondly, on which ground article was actually rejected? he has handsome reliable sources of works. I have mentioned the reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient sourcing).

We believe that what Wikipedia all about need a notable person. I believe he should be included in Wikipedia directory.

So Please re-review it and do the correct thing.

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have done the correct thing. This article has been shoved down the throats of Wikipedia editors so many times that it likely will never be recreated. First, you will need to ask permission for the page to be created. At this point, we are unable to do so as only an administrator has the authority. That is why I left you the link and told you to check the protection log. You will see the name of the administrator and reach out to them directly. If you don't receive a favorable response, you can then ask for it to be overturned at a noticeboard. There is nothing else that Articles For Creation can do for you at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lekkala R Reddy: I agree with Theroadislong and CNMall41. You have re-created the draft more than ten times already. Please stop. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 03:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:06, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Lekkala R Reddy


Have done with some major changes. Please review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lekkala_R_Reddy/sandbox

Regards, Lekkala

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lekkala R Reddy: it has been rejected. Please stop making the same draft. Please look at the section above. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 03:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:39, 24 July 2019 review of submission by MiLu19


MiLu19 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I added references, please review again.[reply]

10:09:45, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Ndesai1992


My article had been rejected. I would like to further understand what I may do to have the issues rectified and publish the article successfully.

Ndesai1992 (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ndesai1992: - it may have been declined, rather than rejected, (the script we use is being a bit buggy), but that's a roughly similar effect to you.
It had no sources, so was immediately unable to be accepted. As well as finding some good sources (reliable, independent (no interviews), secondary), they need to be inline sources (see WP:REFBEGIN) - attached to specific facts not at the bottom. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:37:46, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Lekkala R Reddy


With due respect, I have simply one question for Wikipedia Editors/Administrators

On which ground article was actually rejected? He has now handsome reliable sources of works. I have mentioned the reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient sourcing).

Doesn't matter the article was deleted 9 times earlier and the contributor who created are unable to research sources.

How can you stop Kundan Srivastava to be included in Wikipedia directory? Google is showing his biography already https://g.co/kgs/6TLjbg It seems you people are getting paid to consider Wikipedia articles? Isn’t it? I’ve found many people biographies on wikipedia without any reliable sources? Should we go to the supreme power of Wikipedia? I bet if Kundan is not notable for Wikipedia then how some people profiles are having no sources are featured?

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lekkala R Reddy: - accusing editors of breaking the rules by using their reviewing tools for pay without evidence is against the rules. Please don't do it unless you actually acquire evidence of an AfC reviewer misuing tools in such a way.
I believe google is actually showing those biographical details because they were entered into wikidata (sort a wiki-database) when his photo was uploaded. They don't do anything to demonstrate that he's notable since it's coming from us.
While you can appeal to our "supreme power" if you want, I suspect you'd probably have more luck trying the following route. Ask the Admin who protected against the recreation of the article CactusWriter (on their talk page), if they could consider unsalting. Demonstrate why your draft should pass when others were declined.
Some profiles were made in the earlier days of wikipedia when we didn't vet new articles as closely. If you point them out they may well be nominated for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:32, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Sameerbhosle9

I am trying to get this page published. There was another page earlier of "Shweta Rohira" but it was deleted and hence I am requesting a review of this page. Please send me specific details of modifications if there are any as I am unaware of why the page keeps getting rejected multiple times. Sameerbhosle9 (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:15:17, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Ras2066


I have taken the recommendations/suggestions of the Wikipedia editors thus far and have eliminated a lot of the content that could be considered biased and/or promotional. I believe that with these adjustments, the article is suited to be approved a wikipedia article. Can you kindly please advise?

Ras2066 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:11, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Chalicelamp

My draft was rejected by BoothSift. Does this reviewer have final say on the topic? This reviewer said the band The Carpetbaggers is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I just feel certain this is erroneous and I would like a second opinion. This person said their discography was "not very impressive". What does this mean? They did not have enough recordings? There are numerous articles and reviews written about their work, however, nearly all were written prior to our digital age and the references are not available online. I could cite dozens more publications. They are probably best known for their tours with alt-country band, Son Volt. They played Jay Farrar's wedding. They opened for The Replacements, Young Fresh Fellows, Mojo Nixon, Alejandro Escovedo, Dick Dale, Alison Kraus, The Honeydogs, Jonathan Richman, and more. I'll keep working on the article as I wait to hear back. Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you. --Chalicelamp (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)ChaliceLamp Chalicelamp (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 15:50:47, 24 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Bethany m m


Hi, I submitted a page for company EnviroVent but it has been rejected. If I know which sections were not sufficient etc I can edit, please can you advise?

Bethany m m (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bethany m m: - the company can't show notability by sourcing itself (nor prove any controversial/disputable fact). The other sources are also generally non-independent/not reliable/don't discuss the actual company itself in sufficient detail.
It's promo because it's a glowingly positive piece about how good the products are, all the awards won, its greeness, its morality and rather irrelevant accreditations. Remove unneeded content and make it so that if I looked elsewhere on the web, I'd get a balanced summary. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:53:25, 24 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Angel7112114


Hello I need help on understanding why my article was declined, and how i can get help with getting it created. My draft is from a neutral standpoint and I belive it is a worthy subject, they were on national tv, national and international magazine publications as well as working with 2Pacs producer. I have urls and links for refencing. Also linked in interviews from The Hoosier Times newspaper. Please help thank you Angel7112114 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it looks like the article is refbombed, means that it has too many sources (One or two good sources should be enough). 85.199.71.120 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest following the rule of THREE. Nosebagbear (talk)

19:41:18, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Davidsaedi


Davidsaedi (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The company description, location and services are listed. There is no promotion. We use artificial intelligence to get results. Can someone help us understand any requit=red changes to our boilerplate? Many thanks.

@Davidsaedi: - we aren't a company listing platform. The instructions next to the yellow ! set out what you need to do (click on the blue text which will take you to the relevant pages) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:24, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Alan Colby

It is very notable. It has more sources than many other micronations. Its the first and only micronation in Switzerland, also covered by news, official land registry even shows landplots of this micronation. Wikipedia is made to store and share knowledge. This micronation is a given fact. How can it be not there ? Thanks for checking. Alan Colby (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Colby - not one of the sources used in the draft is reliable. Further, the claims in the draft are absurd prima facie. It's fine if "King Emperor Jonas" wants to create a fun little (off-WP) webpage for his fantasy kingdom and his "Imperial Guard", no one here has any problems with that. However, WP hosts articles about real things, not fairy tales. Micronations like the Conch Republic have articles because they've achieved WP:SIGCOV. Further, their articles describe the reality of their status and don't make patently absurd claims. Chetsford (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are pretty rude. You can talk like this becouse you dont show your real face or name. You akt not really like a wiki admin. I was there on the Land of this Micronation. Its pretty steep but its there i checked in the internet to know more about it. I did not see an article thats why i wanted to tell about it. If you think everything is a fantasy you are very wrong. Flags are hanging water is flowing there. You only read it you dont see it. I guess everything you dont feel as pain if not real for you. How do you explain the Land registry of the Government ? Is it also not reliable? You dont see that the lands are registred really on this „King Jonas“ ? Of course its not a real country its a Micronation. But its real. If you are not happy with it please contact an admin and delete the article. It will come up again from some other people if not from me. I will not contibute anymore then. But thanks...

20:17:37, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Anthony Bilardi


Anthony Bilardi (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Why am i not editing[reply]

20:18:47, 24 July 2019 review of submission by Sangson231


Sangson231 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:40, 24 July 2019 review of draft by Rmarovich


Rmarovich (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in March 2019 I revised and submitted a new draft of an entry for Stefanie Minatee and have yet to hear back whether it has been approved. How do I find out the status of the entry? Thank you, Bob Marovich

Accepted by Nosebagbear. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:11:02, 24 July 2019 review of submission by WikiWriter135

Hi there, I am struggling to understand why the page that I created is not being approved. I read the "Notability (sports)" page, but there are tons of Minor League baseball players that have Wikipedia pages. Can someone please further explain why my article does not meet the current standards? All of my sources are credible. Thank you. WikiWriter135 (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:40, 24 July 2019 review of submission by IronMan477

I have created the new 2020s armoured vehicle for the Iran War 2021-2027, it is designed to be a brand new military vehicle Commando 2 series are no longer retired.

IronMan477 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IronMan477: - the draft was correctly refused due to the lack of sources at all Nosebagbear (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

03:19:02, 25 July 2019 review of submission by YaJean

I've added 3 more reliable resources to enhance the notability.

YaJean (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YaJean None of the three sources you added does the slightest thing to demonstrate notability. The reason for the STOP sign on the draft is that rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:28:27, 25 July 2019 review of submission by Gabom Sunny Han


Hello, I think enough reliable sources (weblinks and scientific articles) are included in the contents. And also, the reviewer said the entire sections are unverified? What does this mean and what do I need to do to solve this issue? Am I obligated to change the lists into prose? because I think the lists are easier to comprehend.

Gabom Sunny Han (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2019 (KST)

@Gabom Sunny Han:
  • The draft cites no independent sources. It is essential that sources be reliable, but that is not sufficient.
  • No sources are cited within sections "EzBioCloud database" and "Naming convention", and in several subsections of "Analytics methods", so it is unclear where that information came from.
  • Lists are not forbidden, but are often regarded as a sign of an underdeveloped page. If the information is easiest to understand in a list, one should consider carefully whether it's the sort of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. In any case, the presence of lists should have no effect on whether the draft is accepted or not.
--Worldbruce (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:31, 25 July 2019 review of submission by Rubim Rebisha


Rubim Rebisha (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not notable and the draft is a copyright infringement, I have tagged it for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:05, 25 July 2019 review of submission by Happinesskey


I believe Jeff Rosenthal is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I'd like some help in formatting this page to fit better with Wikipedia's ruleset while still creating a page for a notable person. Happinesskey (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Happinesskey. Examining a random sample of the draft's sources:
  • Beyond Conflict is a capsule bio supplied by Rosenthal, it is not independent
  • 9 Innovators to Watch is an blog from an organization partnering with Rosenthal's Summit, so not arms length.
  • Chartable is a download site for a podcast hosted by Rosenthal, it does nothing to demonstrate notability.
  • GroupY is a capsule bio accompanying a primary source interview with Rosenthal. The language ("generational thought leader, connector, and instigator", "flagship global events gatherings that unite the leaders of today and tomorrow through environments and events designed to catalyze positive personal and collective growth", "drive positive disruptive innovation") suggests it was supplied by Rosenthal.
  • Wallpaper doesn't mention Rosenthal.
The combination of craptastic sources like these, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenthal (businessman) (2nd nomination), and a history of editors trying to use Wikipedia to promote Rosenthal, mean that you're unlikely to find volunteers to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:17, 25 July 2019 review of draft by BelisariusCawl


Hello,

I received notification this morning that my draft article "Panoply (Data warehouse)" was declined, but the editor's talk page noted that editor has retired. I'm trying to figure out how to improve the article--reviewer notes that "press releases and funding announcements are not independent coverage", but only one press release was included as a source. Other sources are third party, independent coverage of the subject--if I remove the press release as a source, will the article be sufficiently improved for publication?

Thanks!

BelisariusCawl

BelisariusCawl (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BelisariusCawl. The two TechCrunch pieces are "funding announcements", so the absolute minimum to address the reviewer's comment would be to remove prnewswire and TechCrunch. Globes is usually a good source, but this piece is just another regurgitation of a press release announcing a round of capital raising. Remove it, and the draft would be left with sources which, with the possible exception of SiliconANGLE, have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking: The New Stack, DATAVERSITY, and G2 Crowd.
The fundamental problem, explained in the big pink box on the draft, above the reviewer's comment, is that the cited sources don't show that the startup is notable. Because of the nature of the company, it's unlikely that any sources exist that could demonstrate that it is notable. If that's the case, no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. Throw it away and return to the topic in a few years, by which time more may have been written about the company in independent, reliable, secondary sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:04:26, 25 July 2019 review of submission by Justice? Aye right!


Justice? Aye right! (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Would you tell me why you cannot publish this? I was hoping to add information too.[reply]

Hi Justice? Aye right!. Volunteers at this help desk generally can't see what was deleted, so are not in a position to answer your question. You may find Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? and/or Help:My article got nominated for deletion! helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:33:51, 25 July 2019 review of draft by LowlanderToo


Prompted by comments from DGG I have made further changes to the proposed Buckland WP page. I could not find a relevant link for Chartered Statistician so deleted that item. I found a link for the PhD thesis so added that. My question is whether I need to provide a link showing that Buckland was born in Dorset: short of finding a link to his birth certificate or some published biography I am not sure how to provide such a link. Similarly for the universities he attended as an undergrad. Should I just delete reference to those two Universities? Then to be consistent delete the link to the secondary school? Aren't these items interesting even if missing links? It seems to me that Buckland does merit a WP page, given his latest prestigious award but the incremental nature of the advice I have been given carries some frustrations. Would I be better off deleting almost everything and just presenting name and awards? That begins to sound boring. Thanks for advice. LowlanderToo (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have published sources for things like his schools, by definition we don't make any assertions. If there is no published biographical material, then the case for his notability is pretty darned weak. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


July 26

00:30:17, 26 July 2019 review of submission by Vietcuongdao


Dear Wikipedians,

Regarding to my article 4000 Years of civilization, I would like to explain to Wiki readers that the figure of 4000 years is written and calculated through historic periods with concrete evidences. As most of readers talk much about 4000 years but do not know how it is developed and shaped [1]. Moreover, some readers have doubt on this figure (We have how many years of civilization?)[2].

The phrase of 4000 Years of civilization is true fact based on the historic development in East Asia countries.

Thank for your kind assistance,

Đào Việt Cường--vietcuongdao (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References:

References

  1. ^ Phan Huy Lê and 4000 Years of Vietnamese History - Le Minh Khai's... https://leminhkhai.word.express/.../phan-huy-le-and-4000-years-of-vienamese-history
  2. ^ Chúng ta có mấy ngàn năm văn hiến? - Chúng Ta.com https://www.chungta.com>Tư liệu nguôn & tra cứu


vietcuongdao (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:42:57, 26 July 2019 review of submission by Mikellysgri

I have edited this document to make it look less like advertising material. Prabhash is a pioneer in the Sri Lankan business world and an highly commended individual, i believe that he is a noteworthy businessmen who has achieved local and global success at a very young age. He is on several Board committees in leading organization and corporate around Sri Lanka, thereby adding value to all verticals of business, including leading Banks, Insurance Agencies, Government Organizations, Industry related Chambers. Prabhash has been invited to professionally addressed several local and international seminars, AGMs and conferences, thereby adding value to the marketplace. Mikellysgri (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 07:27:10, 26 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Vnarsimhan


This is a company which is more than 6 years in the Visual Effects industry (VFX) and highly recommend this company because it is contributing significantly to the industry with the latest technology. Let me know what else needed to get it accepted? Thammudu (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thammudu (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:02:09, 26 July 2019 review of draft by 72.132.28.246


72.132.28.246 (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Can I get help wit the article?

@72.132.28.246: - the article doesn't have multiple high quality sources about the individual. Reading about the style of article (the psILoveYou), it looks like the subject actually provides the content themselves. As such, this isn't much use as a source. Basic criteria set out the minimum needs for a biography Nosebagbear (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Page

14:56:37, 26 July 2019 review of submission by Davies717


Davies717 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Davies717, there's an empty heading above that says "Delete this page". Did you mean to add it as part of this entry? If so, it will not be deleted. It was created by another user long before you started yet another version yesterday at User:Davies717/sandbox and submitted it for review. It was rejected because of the existence of the other draft. You need to work on improving the existing Draft:RLC Ventures. It's fine to replace the existing content there with the contents of your sandbox. However, note that it is still highly unlikely to be accepted. The references are not of the quality needed to establish the notability of a company. Also, if you have been paid to write this article either as a contractor or as an employee of the company, you are required to declare this. Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure for more information. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:05:05, 26 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Lekkala R Reddy


Hi team,

Namastey from India.

I've created a page was rejected by user: CNMall41 on 24 July.

It was flagged saying that this submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is previously deleted article about the same person and the protection log. I agree, may it was deleted earlier lack of reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient sourcing). Now, he has handsome reliable sources and notability. Google is showing his notability too https://g.co/kgs/6TLjbg

Kundan Srivastava is a noted human rights activist and working since many years from the young age featured in BBC World Service and International media for his fearless and selfless works. Secondly, Please help me to know that on which ground Kundan’s article was actually rejected now? Only because the article about him was deleted earlier many times created by different contributors? I have mentioned the reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient).

I’d request you to check the draft once. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lekkala_R_Reddy/sandbox Please help me to get this article published; if meet all the guidelines. I'll be highly grateful to you.

I believe Wikipedia is for those people who’re doing some notable works in respective fields. Kundan deserves to be included in Wikipedia directory because of his notability.

Many thanks,

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been answered above in your many other identical posts. Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:12, 26 July 2019 review of submission by Johnadaniels


I took a lot of time to write this wiki article which may help someone if they wanted information on a video game named NEXTGEN SANDBOX. I searched Wiki and did not find any information on this game so I thought it would be helpful for people. It was rejected with no reason and no recourse.

Johnadaniels (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given was clearly stated as "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:41:54, 26 July 2019 review of submission by Johnadaniels


Hello Wiki,

When would a video game be considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Here is a PS4 game named P.T., why would it be on Wiki but NEXTGEN SANDBOX cannot be on Wiki? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.T._(video_game)

Sincerely, John

Johnadaniels (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnadaniels The article P.T. (video_game) has 70 reliable sources, your draft has none. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:30, 26 July 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D47:FAC2:8CB2:A484

Why is this taking so long?

2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D47:FAC2:8CB2:A484 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D47:FAC2:8CB2:A484: - it's taking so long because more editors than we've ever had before are submitting drafts for review. This is great, but all reviewers are volunteer experienced editors and there's only a limited number of us and a limited amount of time we can give to reviewing them. As such, the max time to review goes up.
More importantly for you, currently this draft would not be accepted. You need multiple sources talking about the game itself. This is generally difficult before it comes out (they can't just say it's being made, they've got to talk about it), though not impossible. It may be preferable for it not to be reviewed until pre-release reviews start being made. When they do, add them as sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

04:11:08, 27 July 2019 review of submission by 114.72.97.38


114.72.97.38 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject isn’t notable. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 04:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:32:45, 27 July 2019 review of submission by LivSav19

My article has been rejected for notability, what do I have to, therefore, include to change this? Is it just more information from more sources?

LivSav19 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LivSav19: - notability declining normally requires adding in high quality secondary sources (newspapers, books etc), but this draft was rejected as the reviewer felt it unlikely that sufficient sourcing was possible to acquire. While it's possible that they're wrong, that did seem likely to be the case (at least at this time) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:27, 27 July 2019 review of submission by LivSav19

I do not understand why this page, for a fully verified poet is seen as 'not notable'. How do i build on this page to make it become 'noteable'? LivSav19 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LivSav19 Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by independent reliable sources so that information can be verified. YouTube and Instagram are not reliable sources.

Her own website is also not a reliable source for establishing notability. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. If there are no such sources then we cannot have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:23, 27 July 2019 review of draft by Mharrsch


I created a stub article for the Spanish painter Virgilio Mattoni. It was rejected with the reason stated as insufficient qualified references. An article about Virgilio Mattoni exists on the Spanish Wikipedia. I was trying to follow the directions given to request a translated article for English Wikipedia. In my stub article I referenced four of the main sources used for the Spanish Wikipedia article so I am at a loss as to why my stub article was rejected because of the references cited. I have found an extensive article about him written as a Lot essay by Christie's Auction House which sold his most famous work, "The Baths of Caracalla" for over $250,000. I will add it as my main reference and try to support it with other English language references.

Mharrsch (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:20, 27 July 2019 review of submission by INDIANMORINGA


INDIANMORINGA (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a free advertising vehicle. 2001:16B8:5099:9400:5455:4DAC:A8C5:582 (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:59, 27 July 2019 review of draft by SamieJr10


SamieJr10 (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginner here. I wanted to create articles of footballers. But it's been too hard for me to do so. I'm not English native to understand what Wikipedia is telling me to do to verify. Please help! I wrote an article and I want simple guide to create it.

Hello SamieJr10. If English is not your first language, you may find it easier to contribute to a different language version of Wikipedia, such as አማርኛ. See meta:List of Wikipedias for a complete list of choices. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:30, 27 July 2019 review of submission by Bbarmadillo


Please give me more detailed information on why the article Draft:Zava might not meet WP:NORG. This website has been covered at major media in Germany, the UK, Austria, Switzerland and France and has a substantial book coverage. The subject also has a German Wikipedia article. Please also tell what could/should be improved at this article. Disclosure: Draft:Zava is a properly declared COI contribution. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

00:42:27, 28 July 2019 review of submission by JuniperSprings


JuniperSprings (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to ask if anyone could help me make my article look less "like an advertisement" which it's not. I pulled from various interviews and other published materials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BevVeg_International_--_Vegan_Certification#BevVeg_International_--_Vegan_Certification_%28new_section%29

08:19:17, 28 July 2019 review of submission by Aumora

Hello! can someone help me? I'm waiting for more than 2 and a half months for a second review for my draft Draft:Daniel S. Milo. I need help because TheRoadIsLong does not answer me anymore. Please, I think I did good Job and the Draft is appropriate for being an article. Thanks a lot, Aumora (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not edited since May, I'm not sure what you are accusing me of? I replied to your comment with "I will leave it to another reviewer to take a look". Please be patient. Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:40:47, 28 July 2019 review of submission by KontenMedia


This person is notable and known in Indonesian UAV/drone activist. He has many publishing video and article about UAV/drone in Indonesia. I read that he has many mentioned by every UAV communities in Indonsia (about 15 UAV communites). I hope this article about living person can be publish to help people knowing this person well.

KontenMedia (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:30:39, 28 July 2019 review of submission by Romylynmalacadrosel


Romylynmalacadrosel (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romylynmalacadrosel Your draft appears to have been copied from Facebook, it gives no indication whatsoever as to why the person might be notable enough for an article, hence the reason for rejection. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:16, 28 July 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:C72:10CE:BF8B:F5A6

Can you please help?

2600:1700:93B0:1350:C72:10CE:BF8B:F5A6 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

03:52:13, 29 July 2019 review of submission by 97.115.3.184


I've added the first two rounds of matches for this competition. The third round of matches will be drawn after the second round completes in mid-September. There is no longer anything speculative or unfinished here, this is am important annual event in the English football pyramid for small community clubs.

97.115.3.184 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:39:24, 29 July 2019 review of submission by Template:Chinu977


Chinu977 (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:46:27, 29 July 2019 review of submission by Lethgawd


Lethgawd (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:19:46, 29 July 2019 review of submission by Sarahsullivan2009


Hi, I am writing in regards to the request for 'Connexin Ltd.' page being denied. In Hull, the broadband industry is highly dominated by KCOM (who you have granted a page to) this is due to them buying and owning all the fibre lines in the city. It is not commonly known that there are other broadband providers available - after living in Hull myself for years I was shocked to find out I could receive broadband from a different company and when researching online it was evident that these companies were not publicised online. Connexin is a large company and is now more known to the public, I think it is fair that they should have a Wikipedia page like KCOM does. I have now been a customer of Connexin for a couple of years and I want to make sure that people are aware that there are other options available to them. I will also be contributing by creating a page for 'Pure Broadband' as they are the only other company, along with Connexin, that provides Broadband in Hull. I do not think it is fair or right that many people like me are not aware that we can pay significantly less for broadband in Hull - the only reason I was originally put off switching providers was because of the lack of publication online. It seems this has changed and now Connexin has had more coverage in general media - even holding their own events in Hull but Wikipedia is the only website that now does not cover them. I hope to see that the page is granted soon, and also hope this will be taken into consideration when I create 'Pure Broadband's page. Thank you!

Kind regards, Sarah Sullivan

Sarahsullivan2009 (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=908368449"