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
→09:27:08, 19 October 2019 review of submission by JamesTOswald: I notice you are still using YouTube, Twitter and blogs which are not reliable sources and interviews are not independent
Brettq888 (talk | contribs)
11 edits
No edit summary
Line 605: Line 605:
[[User:JamesTOswald|JamesTOswald]] ([[User talk:JamesTOswald|talk]]) 09:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
[[User:JamesTOswald|JamesTOswald]] ([[User talk:JamesTOswald|talk]]) 09:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
:I notice you are still using YouTube, Twitter and blogs which are not reliable sources and interviews are not independent. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 09:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
:I notice you are still using YouTube, Twitter and blogs which are not reliable sources and interviews are not independent. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 09:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

== 09:49:40, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Brettq888 ==
{{Lafc|username=Brettq888|ts=09:49:40, 19 October 2019|page=

}}

[[User:Brettq888|Brettq888]] ([[User talk:Brettq888|talk]]) 09:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


Hello,

I was told to ask for assistance with editing my article I drafted here for tips to make sure that is passes review next time. So, is there anyone who can give me some advice or assist me?


Thank you

Revision as of 09:49, 19 October 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


October 13

04:46:31, 13 October 2019 review of submission by Valiyaparambil


Even after making all the necessary changes, the article keeps getting declined. Feel like really frustrating. Am new to wikipedia, and not sure if am missing something.

Valiyaparambil (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debashis Chatterjee was subsequently accepted by DESiegel. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:28:08, 13 October 2019 review of submission by Nrahimian


I have changed the format to make it more organised ,clear and easy to read. I also added references as requested.

Most of the content goes back to nearly 50 years ago that made it very difficult to find references however I did my best to satisfy your requirements.

I appreciate your time .

Cheers

Nrahimian

Nrahimian (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nrahimian, As this is a biography of a living person, realistically every important claim needs to be sourced, and should have an inline citation. That requires additional reliable, independent sources. Also, while it is not an official criteria for failure, bad grammar may make reviewers assume your article is worse than it actually is. Please endeavor to cleanup the grammar and formatting. If you are not a native english speaker or need help, please ask and someone can assist you. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:29, 13 October 2019 review of submission by SiamackGhadimi

Hi, I think this subject will be rise up in future and already many looking for unprocessed foods everywhere, such as sugar free product and... I don't know why it should not be a symbol for future healthy eating. SiamackGhadimi (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SiamackGhadimi: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:47:40, 13 October 2019 review of draft by TMWD-WIKI


Hello. I was hoping to receive some assistance in relation to my current Wikipedia draft, in relation to John Joseph Davis.

Upon my last submission, my entry was rejected. As (as I was informed) it did not show 'significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject'.

I would kindly like to challenge this query, as I supplied four documents from the National Military Archives of Ireland, which gave first had accounts from soldiers involved in the Irish war on Independence. That John Joseph Davis was indeed involved in and an active member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, "A company" of the Irish Volunteers, and part of the Buckshot party. I fail to see how this information is not significant evidence, as it is a first hand military account, given to the the Irish Governments Department of Defense. In an official capacity by decorated war veterans. I have also supplied a link to irishmedals.ie which shows account of John Davis' involvement and activity during the war i quote: 

"Volunteer, A Company (Enniscorthy Company), Wexford Brigade, Irish Volunteers. Born in 1887 died on the 13th of February 1953, aged about 29 years old during the Rising. Fought in Enniscorthy, Oylegate, and Ferns. He was captured after the Rising and deported being released from Frongoch about Christmas 1916. He was serving as an engineer at the rank of Captain when interned in February 1921. During the Civil War he served as part of the IRA force occupying Enniscorthy Courthouse and Enniscorthy Castle during fighting with National Army forces in July 1922."


I of course respect Wikipedia's integrity and standards for accurate information on their published subjects. However I believe, that I have supplied notable references and citations of both John Davis' involvement, actions and references to skirmishes from both Public (Irish Department of Defense) and Private sources (Irishmedals.ie, independent.ie enniscorthy1916.ie) etc. To illustrate that the information supplied in my article is factual and soundly based.

I also have in my possession, certificates from the Irish Department of defense, relating to that awarding of John Davis the 1916 Easter Rising Medal and The Service Medal (1917-1921) Medal with Bar. I would be happy to upload pictures of both certificates as further proof of John Joseph Davis' involvement. I also possess Johns obituary snippet, which describes his life and involvement within the Irish War of Independence, I could upload this also.

However any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Regards.


TMWD-WIKI (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a passing note that it is not "significant evidence", but "significant coverage" that Wikipedia needs -- the amount of information in the source. We are not looking for evidence that a subject exists or that they did something, but that sufficient sources have covered the subject in-depth. In other words, a reputable news article or a chapter in a independently-published book or some such that focus specifically on the subject. The sources you have are usable for article content, but not for establishing notability in Wikipedia's terms, because (as far as I can tell) none of them are significant coverage about the person, rather include many individuals for related events. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TMWD-WIKI: To elaborate on what Hellknowz wrote, anyone can claim to be an expert and publish their own website. Self-published websites such as irishmedals.ie are not reliable sources.
A Wikipedia article should be based mainly on secondary sources. The first hand accounts from militaryarchives.ie are primary sources. Primary sources do not establish the notability of the topic, and may be used only in limited ways on Wikipedia. The certificates you mention would also be primary sources.
Having those certificates in your possession suggests that you are close enough to the subject to have a conflict of interest. You should avoid creating articles about your family, friends, or colleagues. You may wish to consider alternative outlets with different inclusion criteria, such as FamilySearch, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:57, 13 October 2019 review of submission by Joeseph Sparrow

So if my draft query moves off the visible list does that mean it is no longer under consideration for re-review? I read the user page of the user who rejected my draft page and he admits to being biased against companies and corporations. I also read in one notability page that only one regional or national source was needed to determine notability. 

  "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources."
   [[1]]
I have many sources on this page even though I admit most of them are local sources. I think "The Winnipeg Free Press" and "Siemens Says" would be considered regional sources. What more does the page Draft:Valley Fiber need for inclusion? I have seen many pages that seem less notable to me.

Joeseph Sparrow (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:06:13, 13 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Martinwheatman


Hi, Firstly thanks, I got my copy reviewed really quickly, really quickly(!), some of the instructions suggested it may take 8 weeks, or so. And apologies, I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages (as you've probably guessed!)

Is it possible to help me with the comments on my rejection?

I don't doubt that my writing style might not match the style required in an encyclopedia: this is my first page. Most of my writing is academic, which I guess isn't a suitable style for an encyclopedic entry - I'm not presenting literature reviews, original research etc. I'm not disappointed, I'm just hoping to learn!

However, the comment that it is an 'advert' is a little vague, in that it isn't a commercial product. It is a fact that Enguage /is/ open source software. Is /is/ the case that Enguage won the BSC SGAI Machine Intelligence Competition in 2016, which should make it notable(!), and I've included links to verify this, and so on. However, while some of the references do cite my own work, and I do include the COI marker(!), they are all in peer-reviewed journals, so all claims are independently verified. Further, it is not something I've just made up it represents over 12 years of research. It is written in a neutral point of view: I certainly haven't used judgemental language/superlatives (e.g. "this is world leading/the greatest..." etc) So, at what point does it cross the line into being an advert?

Is there a 'starting point' where it goes wrong? Or do you not like the whole thing? I've tried to model my page on "Cucumber (Software)", but because my system 'programs in natural language' it's not a run-of-the-mill software program. Should articles like this be written by a third party (another wikipeidan?) If so, surely there is the need for that editor to be an expert in my software?

Should I have started with a shorter article? One of the problems with Enguage is that it is complex, and in explaining one thing drags a whole load of other things in.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions, Martin.

MartinWheatman (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC) MartinWheatman (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martinwheatman, I understand having an article about your own work declined doesn't feel great, although glad we could get to it quickly. The critical advertising problem here is the lack of good sources. Most of the sources are not independent of the subject. What you need is to find more sources, ideally in the form of news articles or other journal papers. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

04:21:01, 14 October 2019 review of submission by Babitahamdard


Babitahamdard (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:07:58, 14 October 2019 review of submission by Mohit Dhaaliwal

06:07:58, 14 October 2019 review of submission by Mohit Dhaaliwal


Mohit Dhaaliwal (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohit Dhaaliwal: No question has been specified. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mohit Dhaaliwal, Looking at your draft, I see that it had no sources. In order to be included on Wikipedia, you need multiple reliable sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:28, 14 October 2019 review of submission by Sandhyasab


Sandhyasab (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Draft:GREED Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Please improve Greed instead. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Please improve @ existing article: Greed Gpkp [u • t • c] 15:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC) why my article subbmission is delaayed ?[reply]

Note: The draft in question Draft:GREED was originally declined. I CSDed it for blatant copyright issues as it was basically copy-pasted from various sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:49, 14 October 2019 review of submission by Zionstar888


Zionstar888 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

please why are my articles rejected severally?
Draft:Mordecai Uka Dike is unreferenced and promotional in tone with commercial links to purchase his books it has been correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

05:59:44, 15 October 2019 review of submission by JamesTOswald


Hello, My article on Matt_Godbolt was rejected by David.moreno72 for being not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would like to make the case that Godbolt is a notable person following from section 2.3 of wikipedia's notibility policy for persons dealing with creative professionals. While it could be argued that C++ Developers are not actually Creative professionals, The majority of Godbolt's talks and the projects he is involved in are all "Creative" in nature, speaking more on the philosophies of development and developing tools for educational use rather then proprietary gain. First I would argue he meets criterion 1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.", Godbolt is the poster boy for CLion, the 4th largest C++ IDE with 8% market share at the moment (see this study). You can observe Godbolt right there on the front page just by visiting CLion's website. On top of this, Godbolt has been invited to give 5 separate talks at CppCon (the worlds largest C++ convention) years in a row alongside some of the other largest names in C++, who already have Wikipedia pages, (see Herb Sutter, Bjarne Stroustrup). As for criterion 3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.", Godbolt's flagship project, Compiler Explorer, is a significant piece of software and is widly used by many programmers including famous programmers such asAndrei Alexandrescu (see the citations on the rejected page for more info on the validity this confirmation). Ontop of this, he was personally invited to give a talk on the history of this project at CppCon 2019. (looking at the requirements for notability I see I cant cite Alexa rank as a reason for notability, but I feel I should mention its quite up there for C++ developers if you're interested in doing any independent investigation). For criterion 4(b), "won significant critical attention", I will restate again his invitation to the worlds largest C++ conference's to personally speak about his work, and will also point out that his work has been cited and his tools used by many other C++ programmers, including being featured on multiple episodes of C++ Weekly (episodes 83, 172, 188 SE). I hope this establishes Godbolt's notability for inclusion on Wikipedia, Please let me know if there are any other problems or if the article needs anything else before it can be published.


JamesTOswald (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesTOswald: To be notable, a subject must have been covered in reliable, independent sources. Almost none of the sources on the article were independent of the subject. A google search revealed no sources that meet our standards for notability. This person appears to just not be notable at this time. Wait a few years, see if they've become notable, and you could always create an article then. Unfortunately, there are 8 billion people and very few meet the standard to be included in Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:45:11, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Bhesch

I am requesting re-review because I have been notified that this page is not ready for inclusion on Wikipedia yet many other organizations like [Texas College Democrats] have a page very similar to this one. Please explain. Bhesch (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhesch. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article that does not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean it is welcome. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. It is not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:00, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Smehra2801

Hello Wikipedia,

I have tried a lot in providing the resourceful information about this artist through News Articles, General Publications and alot more. Today I have added again as I have read their news in Dainik Savera - Newspaper and updated it. I would request you to please have a look at and help me making it notable. Smehra2801 (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smehra2801, Firstly read WP:BFAQ#COMPANY
For a business to be notable in Wikipedia terms, it requires significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. None of your sources meet all of these criteria.
In your case I imagine Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability applies. Not every business can have a Wikipedia article, and if sources meeting these criteria don't exist there is nothing you can do.
In addition, the tone is far too promotional - Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:41, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Kapa89

I added two sources describing the software Kapa89 (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kapa89, Both sources are blogs that are not considered as reliable sources. You should find significant coverage from reliable sources to show the software is notable, otherwise it is not suitable for Wikipedia.--94rain Talk 12:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:07:42, 15 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by AniSingh1991

It has been twice that my draft is getting rejected even after following all the guidelines. Proper references are being provided, the content is taken care to be not promotional, valid data is provided and everything else. My draft name - STUDDS Accessories.

Please revert as soon as possible.

Please

AniSingh1991 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AniSingh1991: Your draft was deleted instead of being declined, which means it was promotional to such a level that it warranted speedy deletion and there was no point editing it -- it would need a full rewrite. It seem unlikely that it had "proper references", as you state. This looks like a run-of-the-mill company, so I doubt it is notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we have specific sourcing requirements: there has to be significant in-depth information from reputable reliable publications. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the guidelines have been followed but still the draft is getting It has been twice that my draft is getting rejected even after following all the guidelines. Proper references are being provided, the content is taken care to be not promotional, valid data is provided and everything else. My draft name - STUDDS Accessories.

Please revert as soon as possible.

Please

AniSingh1991 (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AniSingh1991. If you think you're following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but your drafts are nonetheless being deleted, then you almost certainly don't understand the rules. Although "valid data" is a good property for drafts to have, it is insufficient. The topic must be notable, which most companies are not. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. It would be wise to edit existing articles for a few months or years to gain experience before trying to create new ones, especially ones about companies still in existence.
Whatever you choose to do, this is not the right place to ask for a deleted draft to be restored. A number of essays have been written for people in your position:
These may help you understand why the page was deleted, and what your options are going forward. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:51:10, 15 October 2019 review of draft by Rocciadurissima


Hello, an article I wrote has been declined, based on the fact that sources are not all external. I wonder: how is it possible that the notability criterion is not met when someone goes on TV and has millions of views on YT? And why are sources such as discogs and youtube excluded, when by fact they are the only way to effectively prove claims about notability and discography? That's a bit of a paradox. Thanks. Rocciadurissima (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocciadurissima: Wikipedia does not base notability on popularity or similar factors, only on presence of reputable independent sources. There are specific guidelines for such sources, as stated in the draft's decline reason. We don't write original content, we only aggregate what other sources have already discussed. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:02, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Chirag-Behre


Hello,

I have made a few changes and added links to the content. Kindly review the same.

Regards, Chirag-Behre (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chirag-Behre: None of the sources are independent of the subject. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:56, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Sourabh kachru


Sourabh kachru (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourabh kachru, your article was likley declined for two reasons: A. as it stands, the article does not meet wp:42 - there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, in order to verify the content of the article. B. Because the article appers overly promotional. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. If you are being paid to create articles, are are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:53, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Thebigl42


Hi,

I agree that adding Amazon reference doesn't increase the validity of the page. However, I've also added links to Columbia University, Harvard University, Google -- all of which are notable institutions of our time. This is the most exciting and influential media start up coming out of Kathmandu, Nepal and it feels odd for Wikipedia editors to refuse entry.

Thank you very much.


Thebigl42 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thebigl42, at the moment, the sources that are independent of the publication are simply mentions of the publication and its founder, rather than in depth coverage. See Wikipedia:Trivial mentions.
This only means that at the present time, the subject is non notable.
This doesn't mean that once it has become a more established fixture, independent, in depth, sources won't become avaliable, at which point you can write an article. This is expanded in the essay WP:TOOSOON - this isn't a reflection on what the magazine will become - In 2006, the article for the iPhone was removed, under similar reasons. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:51, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Bhesch

How can this article be improved to be approved by Wikipedia? Bhesch (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhesch: Right now your article cites zero independent reliable sources. Also, while College Democrats of America is a notable organization, individual chapters usually are not. See WP:BRANCH. shoy (reactions) 18:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Shoy: But for example, the Texas College Democrats does have a page without any notability comments on that page. Please explain. Bhesch (reactions) 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhesch: I turned Texas College Democrats into a redirect. It does not need its own page, and in fact a version of the page with even more information was previously turned into a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas College Democrats. shoy (reactions) 18:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:09, 15 October 2019 review of draft by Creatorsforum


I would like to find out how we can improve the Wikipedia page and get it approved. We tried submitting the draft, but it's been pending review for months. We tried submitting or moving the draft to an article space, but it was deleted and reverted back to a draft with a different name. We don't know if the information, format, etc. is wrong and would like to get the draft reviewed, hopefully, approved and moved to article space as the show is believed to proceed with Season 2 in a month and Season 1's Wikipedia page is not even approved/authorized. It's been taking forever. Kindly advise? Creatorsforum (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creatorsforum (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Creatorsforum: For starters, I have left a note on your talkpage about WP:PAID editing, you might also wish to read WP:COI. I'm not sure who "we" refers to, but keep in mind that editing for pay requires disclosure, and that accounts must only represent a single person, such as "Dave at Creatorsforum". In terms of the content of the article, the issue is that it is not properly sourced and it reads like an advertisement. Ideally, you need more sources. Said sources need to be reliable, independent, secondary sources. What that means is the source should not be written or related to the subject of the article, as are many of the current sources. Really the best sources are things like news articles and books. Once you have better sources, you then need to make sure the article reads like its part of an encyclopedia. It should be neutral, and read like an uninvolved review of the subject. As is, the articles reads like it is trying to explicitly promote its subject. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

05:23:20, 16 October 2019 review of submission by Bhawika Mehra


Bhawika Mehra (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawika Mehra, No question has been specified. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bhawika Mehra, In reading your draft, it is not supported by reliable and independent sources. It also reads like an advertisement, and is overly promotional in nature. It needs a rewrite and new sources to enter Wikipedia. However, it does not appear suffucient sources exist at this time, which is why the submission was declined as non-notable. There are 8 billion people, and very few qualify for inclusion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:04, 16 October 2019 review of submission by Meethashimn


Meethashimn (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meethashimn, your draft was declined for being not sufficiently notable - please see wp:42, a condensed version of this policy.
We require all articles to meet this standard, so that content in the article can be verified. If reliable sourcing doesn't exist, we can't confirm that the article is correct, thus we can't have an article.
Additionally, If you are being paid to create articles, or are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:35, 16 October 2019 review of submission by VonWerdt


Hello everyone! An article I've written was recently declined and the message I got referred me to here, if I have any questions about how to fix things. For some context: I'm to write an article here on wikipedia about my professor of roman law. (I'm her assistant.) I've already successfully done so in german, my native language. I translated the article to english myself, as I'm bilingual, not really changing anything. The article was pending for a while and I just saw now that it was declined for the reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I take this to mean that the article lacks independet sources on the subjectmatter. I admit, the only reference in the article is a reference to a book she co-published. However I don't believe there are any other references I could add, since she doesn't have a biography written about her. I linked her info-pages from the universities she works in under "Weblinks". Perhaps I should move those to "References"? I'm not sure how I could change the article so it fits the criteria better. The exact same version in german was accepted rather quickly, which surprises me even more. I also worked on a chinese version with some colleagues from China and I know they had some issues at first as well but those seme to have been cleared. Any help or suggestion is very welcome. VonWerdt (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)VonWerdt[reply]

VonWerdt (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no independent biographies, you will instead have to consider the impact of her work. Has any one else written substantially about what she has written, say a review or counter argument? WP:NPROF talks about requirements for articles on academics, if the cannot pass WP:GNG, the general notability guidlines. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:09:12, 16 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dancetome


Would you please tell us what is wrong with our wikipedia page named "Alex Bros Jewellers" we have created and what changes we must do to get it approved. The page was created under the username "dancetome". The other pages we referred which are our competitors have been approved. Please guide us through the process.

Dancetome (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Dancetome (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]



WHY IS IT REJECTED? ANOTHER JEWELLER AGAIN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hill_Jeweller

@Dancetome: The reason it was rejected was it was very promotional. Promotional wording includes " strong foundation" "the cornerstone" "adorned" "deep understanding" "finest quality" "inspired " "authenticity and expertise" "unparalleled" "exclusive encounter between elegance". The Michael Hill Jeweller page is not fantastic, but at least it is neutrally written, and does not extol the virtues of their merchandise. Instead it has plenty of history. See if you can find what newspapers and magazines have written about Alex Bros Jewellers, and base your writings on that. Greek language material is OK too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:30:41, 16 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dcs ifm



Dcs ifm (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


REJECTION OF MY PAGE Dcs ifm (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dcs ifm, your draft was declined for being too promotional - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your business.
If you are being paid to create articles, or are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:23:06, 16 October 2019 review of draft by UMMAA


Hello, I am in the process of editing this submission to make it comply with feedback from previous editors. In the case of this institution, most of the relevant sources are internal to the University of Michigan, though not published by the museum itself. Are these viewed as outside sourcing? UMMAA (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should you return with a new username, the problem with the draft is not notability, as is the case with most rejected drafts, more the style. At the moment, the article is written in a promotional style you would expect from a company's website, not the formal style exceptected from an encyclopedia. For example, the first statement in the article is that it is known for its contribution to the understanding of a global human history. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if you are being paid to create articles, or are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this and follow the paid editing policy - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:37, 16 October 2019 review of submission by Alexander Andronkin

Comparing my page with other Wiki pages, we (meaning this company I work for, we only want to have an information presence on Wikipedia like all companies) assume that by 'multiple indepth sources' you refer to the References section. All other areas from what I can see are for linking to other wiki pages, and I've added a number of those links. So, I now have added extra Resources links to the page. We are a fairly young company so do not have lots of external sources, but I assume that young companies are not barred for this, only for trying to be salesy which I have not done. Please let me know if there is anything further you require. Alexander Andronkin (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Andronkin, firstly, if you are being paid to create articles, or are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI.
Secondly Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to promote your business.
Your draft was declined as the company does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic - see wp:42. If these criteria aren't met, we can't have an article, simply because it is not possible to verify the article is true. If these sources don't exist, there is nothing you can do other than wait for them to exist - please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:06, 16 October 2019 review of draft by Stark and Stark


It has been 12 weeks seeks we last resubmitted this page, and still have not heard anything... can someone please look into this ASAP and let me know what we can do on our end to help move this process along? We first submitted this almost 4 months ago!

Stark and Stark (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently declined by JTP. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:46, 16 October 2019 review of submission by Milljohner


Hello, the article I created and wrote for our company, GameMine, has been rejected. I have cited sources with strong credibility and authority e.g. TechCrunch. Why am I being rejected despite being entirely fact-based? thank you. Warm regards, John

Milljohner (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for helpers, the draft is Draft:GameMine ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Milljohner, Many of the sources are not adequete. The MarketsInsider source is actually just a PR news release, which means its not independent. The Bloomberg source is not WP:SIGCOV. I'm on the fence about using Cheddar as a source; I need to clarify whether its suitable. I would say: try to find additional sources if possible. That can only help you. Also, make sure the article is neutrally worded so as to avoid being declined for advertising. Keep up the work, and with luck you should get it approved. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:07, 16 October 2019 review of draft by PK2112


How can I change the title of this article? I want to remove the word "Brushless"PK2112 (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PK2112 (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PK2112. On Wikipedia, a page is renamed by moving it to a new name. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:30:07, 16 October 2019 review of submission by CheatCodes4ever


THIS IS RIDICULOUS YOU MUST ACCEPT THIS PAGE OH AND BY THE WAY SINGLES FROM EPs ARE NOT SINGLES FROM ALBUMS TOO AND CAN I LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT’S WHAT I LIKE by BRUNO MARS WAS RELEASED ON JANUARY 30, 2016 I never made that edit but it’s right, check genius

And by the way acccept this right now there is no reason all of your reasons to delete it and decline it are incorrect. If you’re not happy with the page, you should be helping me with it, not deleting it. Wikipedia Editing is about editing, not deleting and declining. By the way, it’s a fact that you always lie lie lie you just keep on lying and lying Again this whole website is a whole lie and if you decline this again I’m going to tell you that this website is ruined and I don’t want you to do this again. You can’t. So fix up this website and make it reliable.

CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheatCodes4ever, Lets have a look at the notability criteria for albums:
  • Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it - No
  • The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart No - the Billboard Comedy Albums Chart isn't a national chart
  • The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country It has not
  • The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award No
  • The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. - Nope
  • The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network - It was not
  • The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network - it has not
If you can prove the album meets any of those criteria, it can have an article. Otherwise, it can not. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CheatCodes4ever, Also your userpage shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works - You’re supposed to make pages of everything. Please read both WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:EVERYTHING ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:12, 16 October 2019 review of draft by Rwdepalma


Rwdepalma (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rwdepalma, The sentence you have written would go better as an addition to the Fats Navarro article, not as a standalone article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

03:29:32, 17 October 2019 review of draft by Ramongonsalis123


I published this again with proper resources and changed the unreliable ones still nothing happened, can someone help me in actually getting this to being published.

Ramongonsalis123 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramongonsalis123: The problem is that the fighter's accomplishments are insufficient to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. The notability criteria for mixed martial arts fighters revolve around their fights for top-tier MMA organizations. If Desert Force Championship were top-tier, he would need at least three (3) professional fights for it, or to have fought for the highest title of it, neither of which is true. Moreover, Desert Force Championship is not a top-tier MMA organization. Unless there's more to his fighting career than the draft says, the topic is not acceptable for publication on Wikipedia. You may wish to consider alternative outlets for your writing about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:14, 17 October 2019 review of submission by 1.127.111.98


1.127.111.98 (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a person, or any subject, to be considered notable for wikipedia, it has to meet WP:42 - it has to have had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Unless you are a programmer who has been covered in reliable sources, it is not possible to have an article. This is because it would not be possible to verify the contents of the article - if there are no reliable sources, the article could essentially just say what the subject wanted it to. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn
Additionally, writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:11, 17 October 2019 review of submission by Vasareliepaite


Hello, I would like to know why my article about Dione ice cream is declined? It looks like I've done everything properly (citations, etc). Could you please explain what should I do better (add something, or make some corrections, etc)? It would be really helpful, thank you!

Vasareliepaite (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vasareliepaite, the article was rejected by AFC because it wasn't deemed to be notable - see WP:42 - Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. In your case, I imagine the problem was significant coverage. Simple mentions of the company existing, or routine press release type mentions aren't determined to be significant.
Now, for whatever reason, a user moved the article out of draft into the encyclopedia. They are well within their rights to do this, but I don't think it was a good decision when the article isn't ready. Because of this, it has now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dione (ice cream) - what happens next is determined by consensus in that discussion. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:22, 17 October 2019 review of submission by Millie Vago


Millie Vago (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm having a lot a trouble dealing with the publishing of my article because I don't get why is it that declines. I took all of the external links from the body text and put them as "cite", as I think it should be; or so I understood. Could you please help me?

Thank you!

@Millie Vago: The most recent declination was for content that sounds like an advertisement, not for your referencing style. The topmost box on your draft has some helpful links about how to improve your draft. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! What should I take out of it? It's a Biography, and as such, it contains a lot of refferences about work places and companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millie Vago (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Millie Vago, I recommend you follow the advice given to you by TheRoadIsLong, the last reviewer regarding phrasing. Remember, this is an encyclopedic article, which should read neutral. Wikipedia is not for promoting people, it is for gathering useful and notable knowledge. You also need to go through the references. Only include references that directly talk about the subject, are reliable, and independent of the subject. Unusable references should be removed. Uncited claims should generally be remove, as this is a biography of a living person. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:03:12, 17 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ashleyj618


An article for MB Real Estate was recently rejected for not being sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. What can be added to this entry for approval?

Ashleyj618 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleyj618, the subject needs signifigant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The sources listed were either promotional, or just mentioned the subject in passing. If you can find those sources, do and add them. But it seems that such coverage may not exist, in which case the subject is just not notable. Alas, there are millions of businesses and we can't cover them all. Only a handful actually qualify for inclusion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:29, 17 October 2019 review of draft by TrevlacT


I am trying to understand what, if any changes are needed to the article to meet the "noteability" requirement. Margaret Hamer/Maggie Browne was a popular children's author as was her mother Sarah Sharp Hamer for whom there is an existing Wikipedia page. When I look at Sarah's page it appears to have a similar form, and references a page for Maggie Browne which does not exist. My intention was to plug that hole by providing a Maggie Browne page

Would providing references to her books for sale on Amazon be considered better citations ?

I am not trying to challenge the decision, simply to decide what type of changes or additions are needed for acceptance.

TrevlacT (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TrevlacT (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TrevlacT, To get the article passed you need sources that talk about her as a person. Using Amazon sale links is not acceptable. Ideally, you'd find newspaper articles or a book written about her. But regardless of the form of the source, it must be reliable and secondary, not primary. Keep trying at it, work to revise it, and don't be afraid to ask more questions here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


October 18

01:52:04, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Nitrous1200


Additional Sources found and cited.

Nitrous1200 (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitrous1200: You have already submitted it, please wait for it to be reviewed. Expect this process to take ~2 months. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nitrous1200, I have reviewed it. Several issues remain, chiefly the sourcing and the wording. More reliable sources are needed, and as this is a biography of a living person (per WP:BLP) most statements require an inline citation as well. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:15:39, 18 October 2019 review of submission by NickHailey

I think the subject is now notable for a page. NickHailey (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NickHailey, I have submitted for review under your name, and I invite you to be WP:BOLD and fix it (one of Wikipedia's core ideas!). If you think this person is now notable, you must improve the article to show that. Find reliable sources and expand the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NickHailey: - hi there. Reviewers will look at the draft itself - it doesn't need content added directly to the help desk. Best of luck with your editing Nosebagbear (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Review

07:50:05, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Mainowner

I would like to write few more article about school and temple in my location .But previous article not yet published .Please let me know i can write more article ?.If i maid any error in submitted article , i need to rectify it next article.When my above mansion article reviewed?

Mainowner (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mainowner: - you can have multiple drafts pending. In terms of timing of review of your original draft, - currently we have a major (though shrinking) backlog, with drafts there about 14 weeks last time I checked. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:09:55, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Elenmelkonyan123


Hello I need help with Draft:InLobby. My article submission has been rejected for not being sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia and the reviewer commented it as basically advertising . However I have done a detailed research on the topic , found notable sources for my article, followed all the guidelines and haven't used a primary source...So please, if you have a time read my draft and explain me, which parts they qualified as advertisment and what can I do to improve it. Your comment on it will be highly appreciated ! Elenmelkonyan123 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenmelkonyan123: Sources 1 and 3 look like recycled press releases from non-WP:RS websites to me (press releases are not independent). Sources 2 and 4 are interviews, so they aren't independent of the company either. If these are the best sources you can find, then this company is not notable, and no amount of editing will ever be able to fix that problem. shoy (reactions) 14:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:25, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Sanjaysharma5882

I just need advice, why my article is rejected.

Please give me feedback so I can work on this and request for re-verify. Sanjaysharma5882 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaysharma5882, The article is overly promotional, and the subject may not be notable. You need to find multiple reliable sources that mention the subject with significant coverage. If a reference does not mention the subject, don't include it. Regardless, the page is not written like a neutral encyclopedia article and only serves to promote its subject. Please read WP:N to understand the style of writing and presentation expected on Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:21, 18 October 2019 review of submission by JaneShuttleworth


Please could you advise how this article could be more 'neutral'. I carefully researched other Wikipedia articles for similar organisations before writing this, and modelled my submission on work already approved and published. The article is an entirely factual representation of a non-profit-making organisation so if you could highlight aspects that are considered not to be neutral, I'd be grateful for the guidance.

In respect of sources, the article references 20 external sources, including the BBC, the Guardian, Classical Music Magazine and local print press.

A number of published Wikipedia articles refer to Samling Institute or its programmes in the body text or in references (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Banfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuccia_Focile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Jegunova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justina_Gringytė https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Allen_(baritone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobel_Buchanan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Costa-Jackson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuna_Scott_Sendall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wnukowski). Having a page for Samling Institute that these references can linked to would improve the credibility and give greater depth to these articles.

Finally, it seems strange that an organisation that has been given the title 'Institute' in the UK should not be considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute which says In the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man the term "institute" is a protected word and companies or other organizations may only use the word if they are "organisations which are carrying out research at the highest level or to professional bodies of the highest standing" [1]

JaneShuttleworth (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well for example this "The Samling Artist Programme brings together emerging classical singers and pianists – usually in the final stages of their studies, or the early stages of their careers – with internationally recognised artists, directors, actors and movement and language coaches in a series of week-long, intensive, residential masterclasses. Participants are selected through a combination of recommendation and audition. The coaching is predominantly carried out in private, but the residential week ends with a public masterclass and concert." is entirely unsourced and promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute

13:49:23, 18 October 2019 review of draft by Johnny234424


I don't understand what is wrong with my article that it keeps getting rejected. This article and submission is for a English Course I am taking in college. If this article doesn't get accepted by sunday night then I'll fail my mid-term. Please help or explain why they won't accept it. Thank you. Johnny234424 (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny234424: - I believe the inline sources are being refuted because you're using primary/non-independent sources, that is, they can't be trusted as independent reliable sources. I personally feel it's pretty close - it needs a couple of sources to support the key things (who he played for etc) and then you can either find more sources to support the other facts or trim them.
Wikipedia cannot run to external deadlines - we specifically discourage courses from requiring acceptance as a minimum criterion. I'd advise raising our inability to guarantee acceptance (or even a review) on a short or medium timescale, rapidly. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny234424: Like Nosebagbear says, we can't change our guidelines to meet artificial external deadlines. If your professor really wants to assign Wikipedia articles as coursework, then they need to work with WP:WEP in a structured fashion. shoy (reactions) 15:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny234424:, Nosebagbear and Shoy hit the nail (mostly) on the head. At the time, internal citations weren't used. Now they have, which is great! Additionally, Krevis meets our notability guidelines for NFL players, which is awesome. What was concerning to me was some of the sentences in the article that come across as way too informal for an encyclopedia, and can't be backed up with the references provided:
  • According to him, he liked the sport more than studying. He was known for being a punishing lineman and earned himself quite the reputation during his college years.
  • In 2019, his estimated income is $100.000-1 million.[8] He is retired and doesn’t play professionally but is still active on social media and likes to include himself in the sport industry.[9] He prefers to go to the games, rather than watch it on TV.[10]

Did you interview Krevis as part of your assignment? Bkissin (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:00, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Doggygirl1234

Hey! I am trying to edit a page for my friend Lauren she has millions of followers online and tons of articles. I have included someone that just mention her but there are a lot of articles fully about her in her references, do I have to shorten the article? Here page was up on Wikipedia for years but was deleted after an editing war. Please let me know if you can advise. Thanks so much! Jenn Doggygirl1234 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doggygirl1234, We strongly advise against editing the articles of people you know, as that constitutes a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). If you are editing the article, only sources that are reliable, independent should be used. All others, and their information, should usually be discarded. Additionally, several of those sources must have significant coverage of the subject to ensure her notability. If such sources cannot be found or do not exist, then the subject is not notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Captain Eek! This was helpful, I have never met lauren but followed her online for years, how do I know if sources are reliable, independent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doggygirl1234 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doggygirl1234, well I suggest you read the policies (linked above) to get a feel for it. In general, a source like the New York Times is reliable and usually independent. It is a reputable major newspaper, and its content is made by its reporters. A bad source would be a press release by a company used in an article for that company: the source is inherently biased towards that company. Social media posts and youtube videos are not usually reliable or independent. Articles that feel like clickbait, or clickbaity websites, are often not reliable either. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:35, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Zionstar888


Zionstar888 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, I have re-edited this article, so I will like you to review it once again... Thank you very much!

You have not re-submitted yet, but the draft is still no where near ready for accepting, please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources and even if he really is "a dedicated cross-cultural missionary, an Author, and award winning Graphic designer." I don't think he passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:20, 18 October 2019 review of draft by Vinvibes


Hi, its after a long gap that I have made an attempt to publish on Wikipedia, and would like someone more experienced to check my draft and point out how it can be improved, and get published. Thanks in advance, regards User:Vinvibes 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinvibes: I'm afraid that draft doesn't seem to exist at the moment, nor do I see a similar draft which you have edited recently. Did you forget to save the draft? Am I missing something? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that you have just created it. I suggest you submit the draft for review. It might take a bit to get reviewed, as there is a large review backlog, but that'll give you time to keep improving it and working on other articles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, its great to interact after a long time; so how else can I improve on it? Any suggestions? Thanks in advance, regardsVinvibes 17:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinvibes (talk • contribs)
Vinvibes, I have gone ahead and submitted and reviewed it on your behalf. Main issues here: needs better sources to establish notability. Most of the sources just seem to be interviews of him, which is not sufficient. Also, is overly promotional: the wording should be neutral. The anecdote about wearing his fathers clothes should go. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - will remove this part...what else comes across as promotional? If you go thrugh the content, I have tried to just glean the gist of facts and used them, and left out the rest simply because it would seem too promotional. Thanks for the effort, regards Vinvibes 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Vinvibes, Both his motive and his tagline should go. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:07, 18 October 2019 review of submission by 2A02:C7D:1A72:8300:FDCA:651E:7029:DACB


2A02:C7D:1A72:8300:FDCA:651E:7029:DACB (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:42 to understand the basics of notability. If you can find sources as outlined, the subject may be included. But the current sources do not establish that the person is notable for inclusion. Work to find more, and better sources. But it may be that the subject is just simply not notable at this time, which is common; there are 8 billion people but only very few can make it onto Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:12, 18 October 2019 review of submission by ASHUDU


ASHUDU (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC) because he is a notable person and we are gathering information for his other sources to edit more parts of this article.[reply]

@ASHUDU: - two things:
1) You say "we are gathering" - are you an organisational account?
2) Nothing in the article indicates that he is a notable individual unless and until he's such a famous political strategist that reliable, secondary sources are covering him Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:04:20, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Coe-1878

Hello, I'm trying to create a new article on Professor Kumares C. Sinha from Purdue University. I've made the title in the article wizard, but when I try to enter text a notice indicates the following: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Can somebody let me know what is necessary to be able to create this page? thanks. Coe-1878 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coe-1878, Were you trying to create a draft version? Or a final version? What was the exact title you tried to enter? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:05:34, 18 October 2019 review of draft by Juliaferrari


Juliaferrari (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to learn how to make a submission about the small press that I am part of and also to link my name to my deceased partner's website who was Dan Carr. Can you help me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliaferrari (talk • contribs)

@Juliaferrari: First off, read our conflict of interest policy and our policy on promotion.
If you want to try again, then try following these instructions on how to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

05:56:37, 19 October 2019 review of submission by RahulJ730

I have removed all the promotional content on which the objection was raised. I have provided News links too. Still Wikipedia thinks it's an advertising. Please show me which lines of the content look like advertisement. And, please re-review my article once and suggest me the changes you want. RahulJ730 (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RahulJ730, For starters, all of the sources about her life need a reliable source that is cited inline. Also, the medical claims made at the end need a WP:MEDRS -- a more stringent source than usual. The whole public interaction section should go. And the global presence feels like I'm reading a LinkedIn, not an encyclopedia. It should probably all be removed or briefly summarized under career. Also, please go through all sources to ensure they are reliable and independent. If they aren't, get rid of them. You likely need to find more sources regardless as well. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:55:32, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Huskhod


}} why my article submission was declined? Huskhod (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:56:34, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Huskhod

why your article submission was declined? Huskhod (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:27:08, 19 October 2019 review of submission by JamesTOswald


Hello AFC, Thank you for the feedback on my article. Since my first review, I have added much better independent sourcing to establish notability, I now have citations to 4 independent interviews from the subject, 2 independent articles on him, As well as 6 or so other independent sources that mention him and his work. Ontop of this I removed any sections that are not backed up with independent sources (early life and family life), as well as subsequently removing sources which were not independent in the first draft such as the subjects blog and youtube. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve this article. Thank You,

JamesTOswald (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are still using YouTube, Twitter and blogs which are not reliable sources and interviews are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:49:40, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Brettq888


Brettq888 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

I was told to ask for assistance with editing my article I drafted here for tips to make sure that is passes review next time. So, is there anyone who can give me some advice or assist me?


Thank you

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=922011229"