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
Sukoner (talk | contribs)
61 edits
→{{Help}}: new section
No edit summary
Line 715: Line 715:


Sudip Koner 18:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Sudip Koner 18:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


== 19:03:58, 17 February 2020 review of submission by Elnencatala ==
{{Lafc|username=Elnencatala|ts=19:03:58, 17 February 2020|declined=User:Elnencatala/sandbox}}

[[User:Elnencatala|Elnencatala]] ([[User talk:Elnencatala|talk]]) 19:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:03, 17 February 2020

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


February 11

02:39:37, 11 February 2020 review of draft by Monsieur Nam


I have volunteered to write a Wikipedia article for my fraternity, although the only issue is that a lot of the material I wish to use as reference material is not cite-able, as it is not publicly available. In my initial submission, I just cited our fraternity's Facebook and Instagram page, but my submission was declined for lacking proper citations. What can I do to correct this?

Thanks! -Sam

Monsieur Nam (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Nam I don't think there is anything you can do. If your fraternity is not written about with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are publicly available, it would not merit an article at this time. Social media accounts are not independent sources, and sources in private hands not available to the public are not acceptable, as it must be possible to verify them. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to also declare your conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I understand how using our own fraternity's social media might be considered as 'unreliable', however almost every major fraternity uses their own websites as references. Furthermore, many of the already approved fraternity pages for newer/smaller frats I have looked at have used their social media as a reference and had no problems... There is definitely some improvement that needs to be done on my article (it is still a draft after all), but considering that very few other pages relating to the same sort of topic have more reliable sources I would assume that some leeway would be given to others of the same nature as well.

On another note, I did intend to declare a conflict of interest, but I'm not quite sure how to do that as this is my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Nam (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Nam Beware in citing other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see other stuff exists. Each article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. I'd be very interested to see other articles on fraternities that rely on citations to their own social media accounts. Wikipedia summarizes what independent sources state, not what an organization says about itself. As I note above, if there are no independent sources, it would not merit an article. This goes for other articles on fraternities as well. Not every organization merits an article here, even within the same field.
There are formal ways to declare a conflict of interest, but a simple statement on your user page is usually sufficient("I am Monsieur Nam and I am a member of a fraternity that I am writing an article for"). Please sign your discussion page posts; I will provide you with instructions on how to do this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page as you have recommended. I will also be sure to use the signature and timestamp for all my future comments. Thanks you for pointing that out. I can provide a list of a number of Wikipedia articles for fraternities and/or sororities which use their own sites as reference. It seems not at all uncommon, as most societies maintain some level of secrecy. I did my best to simply summarise the fraternity and did not give any opinion. Might I ask which parts of my article most need sources so I might try and resubmit it with more appropriate sources? Thanks again. --Monsieur Nam (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Nam You need more independent sources. I would take a moment and consider what the article content would be if you left out all primary sources and the content that they support(the fraternity website, its social media accounts, etc.) Primary sources can be used in certain limited circumstances(see WP:PRIMARY) but cannot establish that an organization meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Only independent sources can do that. Does your fraternity do charitable work that is covered in the news? Has it led protests against/for any cause that are covered in the news? Does it have an influence on the university that independent sources have documented? It's not just about avoiding 'giving opinion'; Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others say about your fraternity.
Information based on private fraternity information that isn't revealed publicly ("MOZ is known to have a number of executive positions within each of its two chapters, however exact positions and their respective responsibilities/duties are not publicly known. ") should be removed entirely. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:40, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Techmallus


Techmallus (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techmaullus You don't ask a question, but one uncited line will not be accepted as a article. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial for more information on Wikipedia and creating an article(actually the hardest task on Wikipedia). 331dot (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:06, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Nature987765


Nature987765 (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I’m not sure why my draft was rejected as a “combination of advertising and gossip”. Underwood has been in the limelight since the late 2000s because of her close friend Lara Bingle (she was her manager in an Australian television series). I have included the brands she created, the blog she runs about fashion and travel. One of her co-partners, Sabine Römer, has her own article which has a lot less information. The only “gossip” I can see in my draft is about the rumour she was dating a British singer (the rumour is sourced). The majority of the article is about her being an entrepreneur. She is notable because there are lots and lots of independent articles about her and she has been known to the public (especially in Australia) for at least a decade.--Nature987765 (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature987765 Interviews with her are not acceptable for establishing notability, as interviews are a primary source. Wikipedia should only summarize what independent reliable sources state. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Respectively, I have only used a couple of interviews as sources. I have provided independent sources about her brands.--Nature987765 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature987765 The sources I examined, even if not entirely interviews, consist of quotes from her and/or are brief mentions of her. Wikipedia requires significant, independent coverage in reliable sources- more than just a brief mention of her relationships or brands(if it's her brands that get coverage, that might merit the brands an article, but not her personally). 331dot (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Hi. Thanks for replying to me. Can you re-examine the draft now? I have added more independent sources about her, not her own words or brief mentions about her, but full articles about her.--Nature987765 (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature987765 You've cited that she has founded some brands and the existence of her blog. That's not significant coverage. The sources need to describe a lot more than just the fact she founded some brands and writes a blog. For example, Bill Gates's article doesn't just say "he helped found Microsoft and is rich". It describes his actual influence on the company and the events of his life leading up to that influence. Why is it significant that Underwood founded these brands? Why is it significant that she writes a blog?
I welcome you getting other opinions and viewpoints on this- and if they differ, fine with me- but I can only tell you things as I see them and I really don't think based on what I know now that Underwood merits an article at this time. That can certainly change in the future, but I don't see it now. You can certainly disregard what I am saying and resubmit the draft anyway, but I think the chances of success are low. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I don’t want to disregard what you have replied to me because I value your opinion. May I ask, why does Underwood not merit an article, but one of her co-founders Sabine Römer does have her own article? If anything, Underwood is more known than Römer. There are many articles on Wikipedia with a lot less information and fewer sources referenced in the articles. I have read the Wikipedia articles about creating articles (drafts), using verifiable sources, notability, etc. I don’t pay too much attention to the fact that she has her own blog to describe her travel experiences and fashion. She’s an entrepreneur in London who has achieved quite a lot in her life since graduating from university. She founded and is a co-owner of some well known brands in the UK. Should I add about her influences in the brands?--Nature987765 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In quickly glancing at it, I think that perhaps Römer might not merit an article either, for the same reasons. However, it wouldn't matter if Römer did or not, as each article is judged on its own merits, see other stuff exists. If independent sources have written about Underwood's influence on her brands, (again, not interviews/quotes from her or just citing that she founded them) that should be in the draft. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
having seen it, I just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabine Römer DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:14, 11 February 2020 review of submission by LukeLovesEditing


I need help with the editing part, if you could walk me through on some parts, that would be really helpful.

Tsunami307 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:29, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Eveliendezwart

19:21:29, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Eveliendezwart


Eveliendezwart (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]



19:53:51, 11 February 2020 review of submission by 74.108.27.177


Hi there, I'm confused as to why my article was rejected. I used only reliable sources that feature the subject, not just mention him in passing and also linked out to other family member's wiki pages that mention him. Would love some advice!!

74.108.27.177 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:14, 11 February 2020 review of draft by Olivefresh


I reckon the previous version seemed to be lack at the 3rd party-sources. I added more materials be independent to the subject. My question is if this addition/edition would be enough to be published? Please kindly/specifically advise me if further improvement needed.

Olivefresh (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:13, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Rpierce13

The page called Airshare is notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia database. This company is mentioned numerous times on the page for Jet Cards and is among the ranks of its competitors, such as Wheels Up and Plane Sense, who also have pages. I would like to request a re-review of this page. Thank you. Rpierce13 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rpierce13 Please see other stuff exists. Not every company merits an article, even in the same field. Please review the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offer are just routine coverage or information from the company website; Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on jet cards is a magnet for spam and most of the companies in that article don't belong there. Of the two other articles you mentioned, Wheels Up was previously deleted for lack of notability and (to my eyes at least) is on the bare edge of passing WP:NCORP, whereas PlaneSense actually seems like a notable company and our article just needs some more sources to be added. Every article is judged on its own merits. shoy (reactions) 20:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:00:56, 11 February 2020 review of submission by 58.171.92.113


Hi, I'm just wondering why this page was deemed not suitable. As far as I can tell, the sources show that Kay Stammers is a public figure (a television reporter, with many similar to her appearing on Wikipedia), and the sources were also impartial.

It was noted that the submission read "like an advertisement". However, the submission simply contained two facts about a television personality that I saw was missing from Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how that's like an ad. I'd like to improve this article if I can and would like help understanding why it's ineligible. Thanks!

58.171.92.113 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question. The text does little more than state that Stammers exists- which is essentially an advertisement. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects showing how the person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. The two sources you offered just confirm that she exists and has a job. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 12

01:05:34, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Leila Jeffreys 72


Leila Jeffreys 72 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to re-review this submission. I have a couple of issues I'm hoping you can offer advice on.

1. This is not an autobiography. I am an independent contractor compiling resources for Leila and thought it best to create a page for her using details she can easily access when I am no longer working directly for her. If you feel it would be beneficial to create a new Wikipedia account with my own details rather than Leila's, I can resubmit that way. Could you pls let me know if this will be helpful?

2. I've received feedback that Leila does not satisfy the notability criteria for creative arts. I have reviewed these criteria and I am hopeful that you will revise this assertion. She's the subject of a 30-minute documentary commissioned by Australia's national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (criteria 3). She's exhibited her artworks in Australia, Hong Kong, the USA and the UK (criteria 3 & 4). Her work has been included in public exhibitions and is part of many private collections around the world (criteria 3 & 4). She has been featured in notable, reliable and objective publications all over the world also and with her most recent exhibition in Australia she was the subject of major features in numerous well-regarded titles (The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, Australian Geographic, Art Almanac, Art Daily, Artist Profile etc ) (criteria 1). She has been interviewed extensively because of the unique way she is able to present her subjects (criteria 2). She has also published her work in book-format at the request of major publishers both here in Australia as well as in North America and the UK (criteria 3). I've kept her entry deliberately brief and avoided hyperbole - there's nothing misleading in her entry. Some of the references I have supplied link back to Leila's website b/c she has been very diligent in keeping track of her own press and some of the articles published on her are no longer available online, however, they are genuine articles and can be accessed via her website.

To quote the former curator of Australia's National Portrait Gallery, Dr Sarah Engledow, Leila's work is "simultaneously serious and witty, gentle and impactful; technically, they are quite miraculous. Her rapport with her subjects, her technical ingenuity, her eye for colour, form and composition and her expertise in the processes of fine art photography combine to create singular works that have often – alas – been imitated but have never come close to being equalled.”


I am hopeful this clarification will aid the justification of Leila's case for a wikipedia entry.

Thanks again for your time,

Mel

Leila Jeffreys 72 If you are not Leila, you must change your username immediately. Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest to make a username change request. Once you change your username, you must review and comply with the paid editing policy; this is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you review some other articles on artists to get an idea of how they are structured and what content is being looked for. Any article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the subject. The draft as it stands now is just a list of work and accomplishments, little more than a resume. This is why Leila does not seem notable- if she is, you need to demonstrate that. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:10:47, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Contrary.Carrie


I would like to get feedback on the edits made .. I resubmitted in December with a much more comprehensive article and list of references. If additional edits are needed, I would appreciate feedback so I can make those changes. Thank you!

Contrary.Carrie (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Contrary.Carrie: Did you look at the specific advice that the reviewer gave last time? You have way too many references (see WP:REFBOMB) and most of them do nothing to prove WP:N. Remove all references to Youtube, Spotify, Facebook, Bandcamp, etc. Those do nothing for your article. Next, look at WP:NMUSIC. I assume that you are trying to meet criterion #1? You need to find substantial coverage in published sources, not passing mentions on websites. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. shoy (reactions) 21:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shoy:Thank you for your helpful and specific feedback. I've cleaned up the reference list to remove pages that were self-published by the band (youtube, etc.) as well as ones that just made passing mentions. I was struggling with the need to prove/document sources of statements vs. weeding out "noise", so your feedback is appreciated!

I believe the band qualifies for notability for several reasons:

  1. 1 - multiple published works -- including Fender, BMI, KROQ, and several magazines included in references
  2. 4 - Coverage from international performance (Corona Capital festival in Nov 2019)
  3. 7 - Has been featured on KROQ (Los Angeles) including a special interview video, being #1 on local radio weekly countdowns Locals Only, and the headline spot for KROQ Locals Only festival and compilation album
  4. 11 - KROQ, KCRW, Alt 1059, and other radio stations have had their songs in rotation and on countdowns.

If there is more needed to get this published, I would greatly appreciate the feedback. THANK YOU again!! Contrary.Carrie (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Contrary.Carrie: #11 specifically says rotation "nationally". You would need a lot more coverage to pass #7, "most prominent" is a high bar to clear. Pinging the last reviewer Bearcat to get their thoughts about #4. shoy (reactions) 13:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you haven't really demonstrated that those criteria have been passed. Here's a more detailed explanation of why:
Criterion #1 - Please note that the "published works" criterion deprecates blogs, university or college student newspapers like The Daily Tar Heel, and Q&A interviews in which the band is talking about themselves in the first person. I'm not going to say that they definitely don't pass this criterion, because I haven't checked all of the sources, but it's not at all obvious that they definitely do pass it, because all of the ones I have checked were blogs and student newspapers and Q&A interviews. So taking into account what I just said, please review your sources again and tell us which are the three best sources that still count toward #1 after you ignore the blogs and the student newspapers and the Q&A interviews.
Criterion #4 - This criterion is not passed just because they got a 29 word in a listicle about a one-off performance at a single festival. It requires a full-on national or international tour that generated ongoing coverage, such as reliable source concert reviews in a variety of publications. It is not passed just because you can offer technical verification that they played at a festival — it requires a full tour that was itself the subject of substantive coverage (not just concert calendar listings or short mentions of their name in listicles.)
Criterion #7 - This criterion is not automatically passed just because you can show some local coverage in the local media — it's a very high bar that requires a lot more than just placing in a radio stations "local musicians" chart. For an example of how #7 actually works, a musician who was one of the original innovators of hip hop back in the 1970s, but never really became famous outside of New York City, could pass that criterion if his historical significance were established by significant reliable source coverage even if he never actually got to personally benefit from the genre's commercial popularity now by charting or touring — but it's not automatically passed by just every band that can show a handful of local coverage in their own city.
Criterion #11 - The airplay rotation criterion requires an entire national network, not just a list of individual radio stations. Basically, if you're talking about US radio airplay, the only way this criterion comes into play is if they got onto one of NPR's music shows (World Cafe or All Songs Considered.) This criterion exists primarily as an alternative to #2 ("single or album on a national music chart") in foreign countries that sometimes don't even have trustworthy record charts to use, and is not generally useful in the United States at all. The US really doesn't have any national networks that are devoted specifically to music, so the only way to actually pass this criterion in the US is a couple of specific NPR shows — and any band or musician who's actually getting onto those NPR shows almost certainly already passes other criteria anyway, so the shortage of ways to actually pass this criterion is not actually unfair to American musicians.
So you definitely haven't shown that they clear 4, 7 or 11, and you haven't proven that they clear 1 — please follow up by listing what you believe to be the three strongest sources left after you discount the blogs, the student media and the interviews, so we can review those and see if they're substantive enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:53:15, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Viditalk14


I wanted to check how to edit this article further. Are the establishments within the mall considered advertisement? What aspects of the mall should I focus on? Thank you! Viditalk14 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viditalk14 You need to focus on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the mall. Significant coverage goes beyond press releases and routine business announcements(such as a purchase, opening, etc.). The mall website is not an independent source. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:00:30, 12 February 2020 review of submission by VodkaWaka


This article is inspired by the same title in Mandarin. Please go read it. Everything written is based on what already happened. I don't see anything wrong here for truth being documented.

This Wikipedia, should be helpful to me, to create articles. That means I need serious advice.

VodkaWaka (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VodkaWaka, The version in Mandarin is up for deletion, and for good reason. It is intended to simply attack a living person, which goes against our policy on living people. This version is also poorly translated. It seems unlikely that the page would be approved, no matter what edits were made to it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:49:34, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Mahul sharma


I have already added the citation in the footnotes then why my draft is declined again. I want to know the real reason for rejection. Kindly help me as i want to correct my draft Lerocque.

Mahul sharma (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahul sharma: Did you read the reasons given in the pink boxes? Those are the 'real reasons'. Did you follow the advice given in those boxes? If so you'll have added inline citations that show where the statements you've made about Leroque can be verified, and you'll have re-written the draft to be less like an advert. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:31:07, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Samantakbhadra

The reviewer said that the article seems to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article. It is true that the article emphasizes the Brussels airport terror attack in 2016 as Nidhi (the article is about her) rose to prominence as a survivor of the attack. Post that, she has been a well-known leader of the employees agitation to revive the now defunct Jet Airways. She has also published her memoir last months and is currently touring the country launching her book. Therefore, given that she is a well-known person due to the attack, her Jet Airways activism and her book (along with multiple awards and talks), we would like to further emphasize the fact that the article is about Nidhi and her journey and not only about the terror attack although that is prominently mentioned in the article. Kindly do review the article and let us know if we can make certain edits which would allow the article to become notable enough for publication on Wikipedia. Thank you so very much! :) Samantakbhadra (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantakbhadra, On Wikipedia, we only cover folks who are notable. We also generally do not cover people notable for only one event. The only thing that might make the subject notable is being a victim of the bombing, not her memoir or her union activity. At the moment, I'm afraid that she isn't notable by our standards. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:43:47, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Nayabks


Hello there,

I am requesting assistance to discuss the decline of the submission. My Wikipedia submission was based on another laundry company that is published here. This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressto

I believe my referencing was stronger than theirs, because mine proves that "Laundry by time signature" was awarded by ISEA for being the best Laundry Service. In my understanding, anybody given prestigious awards that prove the quality of their services to be at the forefront of their industry is notable enough but I might be wrong. Can you please help me point out what might be lacking from my end?

Thank you for the support, I admire every volunteer for their service. I\


Nayabks (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nayabks Your draft only has two sources and does little more than state that the company exists. (the article you mention has its own issues as well, which is why it is not good to use the existence of other articles to justify your own, see other stuff exists) Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about companies that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Because of this, not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. Please read Your First Article for more information. As for the award- which doesn't seem particularly remarkable at least without context- any organization can give out awards, but for the award to be significant there needs to be significant, independent coverage of the award(like for the Academy Awards or Grammy Awards or Tony Awards. The article on ISEA International does not even mention that they give out awards or why, let alone any independent coverage of them. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I read the articles and understand your points. So I'll forget the Pressto page. As per the Notability of a company or organization, I do understand now exactly what is required. I had mistakenly tagged the wrong ISEA page, I was able to find an article that will fulfill the requirement: here's the award being independently covered by a top Nigerian news source: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/04/16/laundrybytimesignature-others-win-award/

This Day has a wikipedia page too. If I edit this source into the article and change the ISEA part, will this page be good to come alive?

Thank you!

P.S. this is the ISEA page: https://www.iso.org/iso-awards.html these are called international standard excellence awards

Nayabks (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:44, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Nayabks


Hello Wikipedians!

I'm requesting help because I want to understand the objections on my draft so that I can effectively work on improving the draft. There are 2 main objections:

  1. 1 Sources are not good enough:

What I'm unable to understand about the verifiability of a reference is, what determines if the website is seen as a good 3rd party source? Because I have posted news sites like "Market watch" as one of the references but even those didn't pass. On top of that, some of the top Indian entrepreneur news sites were also declined, such as: "Silicon India".

  1. 2 The tone is not neutral enough:

I am neutral about the topic and had written from a neutral point of view. But I don't see what went wrong. If it's possible to get highlights of that, that will be very helpful, if not, how can I find an editor who will be willing to improve my writing?

Lastly, I have 9 more articles that were recently uploaded about this entrepreneur. Can you check the list and let me know if any of these websites are considered credible enough?

http://www.globestats.com/meet-romy-johnson-who-made-3-5-crores-in-a-year-being-an-edtech-entrepreneur/ http://www.vernamagazine.com/2020/02/08/brilliant-entrepreneur-romy-johnson-is-helping-thousands-to-study-abroad/ http://www.fabworldtoday.com/the-incredible-success-of-the-21-year-old-entrepreneur-romy-johnson-turns-into-a-sensation-in-the-business-community/ http://www.openthenews.com/romy-johnson-youngest-indian-edtech-millionaire-entrepreneur-speaks-for-the-first-time/ http://www.usaherald.online/romy-johnson-from-a-college-student-to-successful-edtech-entrepreneur/ http://www.featureweekly.com/amazing-success-of-romy-johnson-catches-edtech-industry-by-surprise/ http://www.broadcastcover.com/simple-edtech-businesses-earn-romy-johnson-3-5-crores-in-a-year/ http://www.ustimesnow.com/romy-johnson-indias-talented-self-made-edtech-entrepreneur/ http://www.allnewsbuzz.com/want-to-be-a-millionaire-learn-from-romy-johnson-who-made-it-as-a-successful-edtech-entrepreneur/

Thank you for your help, I admire and respect the service that every volunteer adds to the platform and makes it possible to be maintained. Cheers!


Nayabks (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:46:05, 12 February 2020 review of submission by DoeEyed


Added extra references to various websites. Updated information with latest band information. DoeEyed (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:55:54, 12 February 2020 review of submission by TomPaveySmith


I'm looking for guidance in terms of setting up the OakNorth page. I'm an employer at the company but i've been careful to follow guidelines provided in terms of ensuring the entry is fully factual and that all key points are linked / referenced with multiple impartial sources.

Please do let me know if you're able to help.

thank you

TomPaveySmith (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article(not just "page") seems largely sourced to press release type articles, brief mentions, or routine business announcements. There's also once instance where you use Wikipedia as a source- which you should not do as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, being user-editable. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case the definition of a notable company. These sources should have chosen on their own to give significant coverage to the company and not contain staff interviews or other routine announcements. Please read the information I have linked to here, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:26:46, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Nickkane8


I don't care to put work into this. If somebody else wants to fix it they can. Updating this info was harder than I thought it would be.

Nickkane8 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone else care to put the work in? Topic does not appear to be notable enough for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:14, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Redokcart


Redokcart (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:05, 12 February 2020 review of submission by 47.23.95.170

Hi, This page was created taking reference from the page of Jeremy Stoppelman. Could you please re-look at it and guide on how can it be improved. The references provided includes Forbes, Reuters, Yahoo Finance and Buzzfeed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanking you. 47.23.95.170 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are credible, however the articles on the page from those sources only mention the subject in passing, if at all. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:40:47, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Bank.jeanne

The content is based on the press release on ISO TC292 online website, but I wrote that press release and have permission to include it for the wikipedia page. Plus the information has been modified and restructured but some wording has to remain the same as it is referring to the content of a published standard so you don't want to change the wording too much

Bank.jeanne (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who wrote it, press releases are not independent sources so cannot be used. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:11, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Bapsyata


Bapsyata (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Deleted for advertising/promotion. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:49:24, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Mahadi H

multiple authentic sources have been added as the reference for the support of my article on Hi-Care Group Mahadi H (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahadi H You've added what seem to be brief mentions or listings, and not the significant coverage required. Your draft is also filled with promotional language("has started it's journey", "top flourishing"). If you work for this company, you must comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:37, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Catture

I have added the full discography of the artist to the page, to prove the work of the artist. Catture (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catture The work of the artist in not in dispute, what is in dispute is if they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician and if they get significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The key phrase there is "significant". That's more than a brief mention or listing. Please heed the advice you have already been given on the draft itself. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

06:09:18, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Carl Carlington

can’t figure out how to post a pic-  would like to add the one from this link

‪https://www.tapinto.net/towns/union/sections/arts-and-entertainment/articles/union-native-making-waves-on-daily-sirius-radio-and-espn-tv-shows‬

Also there are a few links in the sub categories that need to be set as references thank you

Carl Carlington (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Carlington, In most cases, with very few exceptions (logos the most common), we can't use images unless the photographer has licensed them under a free license, which allows anyone to use an image for any purpose. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:15:12, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Daphinevadhera


Hi, the article was posted six months back and after several changes due to references, lack of clarity over the Indian environment and allied issues, it has been re-submitted, the editors feel that the content is better now. Please have a look Thanks Daphinevadhera (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daphinevadhera Who are "the editors"? Only one person should be operating your account. You have submitted the draft, it will be reviewed due course; this may not happen quickly so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 331dot. The editors I was referring to were the experienced editors who helped me during the live help section. Regards. Daphinevadhera (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:53, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Sohaibchoco


I want to publish a new page on wikipedia about this organization Tanzeem-al-lissan. I've tried many times to publish this page but could not done. Please help me in this regard. Sohaibchoco (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Sohaibchoco[reply]

Sohaibchoco (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sohaibchoco The draft reads as a promotional listing for the organization. Any article about this organization should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the organization showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization(please read). This does not include routine coverage, brief mentions, staff interviews, directory listings, or other primary sources. Wikipedia itself should not be used as a citation as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You may want to read Your First Article for more information.
If you are associated with this charity in some way, you will need to read about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:37, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Marilen.buenviaje


I went to livehelp and they mentioned that the article is extremely promotional. I just need help as I am quite confused. Not trying to be promotional. but the page is about him and his accomplishments. Otherwise, without those accomplishments he is not suitable to be in the wiki ? (sorry if my understanding is wrong..i just need help as im confuse as how not to make it promotional about himself when the page is actually about himself. if not, what else to write then?... Please advise. Thanks. Marilen.buenviaje (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:14, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Manishsinghon


Manishsinghon (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manishsinghon, for a business to have an article here, it has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources - the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise what reliable sources have written about a subject. If this coverage doesn't exist, there can't be an article, and there is nothing we can do to make one. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:50, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Spiritletters

The article title above (The Toven) was apparently rejected. Reason; "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Please breakdown the meaning of "sufficiently" as it relates to notable. As I understand the guidelines. "notable" is the requirement and while accompanied with the word "sufficiently" can come off as ambiguous and unclear to the author. Currently I can find no such language in Wikipedia guidelines and rules referring to the phrase "Not Sufficiently Notable". Please assist with pointing this verbage out if I am missing something. Respectfully. Spiritletters (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Spiritletters. You are correct that notability, as Wikipedia uses it, is binary. A person either is notable or isn't. I don't know how much thought or discussion went into the wording of that rejection message. The word "sufficiently" may have been included because the target audience (novice editors) are usually familiar only with the common definition of the term and not with the technical way Wikipedia uses it. It may also have been considered friendlier, less bitey, less as if we're saying their subject is a nobody. It may have been a nod to the fact that notability is not fixed. Someone who is not notable now may become notable later. Or the word may refer to the sufficiency of evidence. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant information about their subject. A draft that cites one or two such sources might be said to be closer to demonstrating notability than a draft that cites none.
With regard to Draft:The Toven, mostly it cites Wikipedia, which, being user-generated, is not a reliable source. The only other cited source is their website, which is not independent. So the draft cites zero of the recommended three sources. The reviewer did their own search and could not find sufficient sources to demonstrate notability, so volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:54, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Udaya Thami


Udayatt 16:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Is my article name is National Thami Museum?

@Udaya Thami:, this was done as there was a previous abandoned draft with the same name. If the article is promoted to mainspace, then the name will be changed upon promotion.
Thanks, ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:43:40, 13 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Musicvideogod



Devarius McKinney (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musicvideogod, firstly, I don't think he's received significant coverage in reliable sources, a prerequisite for having an article here.
Your second problem comes from the first, your sourcing is very poor. As stated by another reviewer, YouTube, Twitter, Vimeo and Instagram are not suitable sources. In order for our articles to be reliable, they have to be based on good reliable sources. See wp:rs for the guide. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is simply not notable. This is not going to change no matter how many edits your make or how many times you submit it for review. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:29, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Millie Vago


Millie Vago (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I would like to have a piece of advice on my article. I am editing it since august :( Thank you!

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Millie Vago#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Millie Vago: Thank you for your response. I do not find it credible, so I will not give you a hand with the draft and will not communicate with you further. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

03:29:19, 14 February 2020 review of draft by 216.10.217.148


216.10.217.148 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a person to have an article here, they have to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. Your subject has not received this coverage, therefore can't have an article here.
Also, if you are being paid to edit, you are required to disclose this. I've left a template on your user page with the details. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:03:36, 14 February 2020 review of submission by Tempehislife

Hi user,

Please re-review this and let me know if I need to change anything for this.

Thank you, Tempehislife

Tempehislife (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tempehislife: - I believe it's been re-reviewed shortly after resubmitting. To clarify, the current sources are insufficient. Some are primary and/or non-independent (e.g. LinkedIn), or unreliable (Crunchbase) or don't actually talk about the subject himself in any real detail, focusing on the company. Notability can't be inherited from a business to its owner/CEO etc. As a note, even if the Crunchbase source was accepted, a lone source couldn't demonstrate notability for the individual. Thus, hunt more sources that are secondary, independent (which rules out interviews), reliable and talk about Wilson in some depth (c 10+ lines, not including quotes). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:32, 14 February 2020 review of submission by Thinkthank2


Please Advise on how to edit the article and move to main article space as par cited source. The given source is enough for the one-liner Wikipedia article and shall grow afterwards with time. pls, advise.Thanks Thinkthank2 (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, no amount of editing is going to change that. Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:49, 14 February 2020 review of submission by Matthias.galler

The draft has been declined > I have added citations; online sources are in German language mostly, the only available English online source being the ENB's homepage, however

What else could be done to improve it?

Thank you very much.

Matthias.galler (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias.galler, References don't have to be in English, but for any business to have a Wikipedia article, they have to have received Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic - see wp:42, which your draft currently doesn't demonstrate. For example, links to the firms own website aren't independent, and the details at stipendienlotse.de aren't significant coverage. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 21:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:53, 14 February 2020 review of submission by Catture

Hi there. I have now added a full discopgraphy to the page, to submit more of the artists work. Please advise what else I need to do to make this page live. Catture (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catture, the problem is notability. For anyone to have an article here, they have to have recieved significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic - see wp:42. The criteria at WP:MUSICBIO give a general idea of what musicians are typically notable. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 21:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:14:31, 14 February 2020 review of draft by 81.106.105.222


2020 is missing its details about Japanese television.

81.106.105.222 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:02:05, 14 February 2020 review of draft by 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:28


Hi there. could you help me better understand the feedback on this article? the sources I used are not paid/pr based. they are reputable industry trade publications.As a new editor I appreciate that insight. thank you.

2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:28 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:28 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fozzable. Cision PR Newswire and Business Wire are distributors of press releases. Citing such sources does nothing to establish notability. Trade publications, such as Insurance Business Magazine, New Food Magazine, Insurance Journal, and Insurance News Net are presumed to lack independence because of their often too-cozy relationships with the companies in their industry. That, combined with their narrow audience, means that such publications generally do not help to demonstrate notability. Comstock’s Magazine is an independent, reliable source, but it doesn't contain significant information about the company, only quotes someone who works there. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:40, 14 February 2020 review of draft by Timofeytv


Hi there! :) Could you please point on non-reliable references we used in this article? Referencing publications seems very reputable?

Thank you in advance for your help!

Timofeytv (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timofeytv: Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are to be used by one person only. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:31:41, 14 February 2020 review of submission by Jcollinsycc

Hi- I believe I have the inline citations correct this time, but I want to make sure that the entry as it is meets the standard for Academic entries. I'm not sure how else to make it fit. Thank you for any help! Jcollinsycc (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:10, 14 February 2020 review of submission by Keith Fallico Musical Artist


Keith Fallico Musical Artist (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kylie,

This submission is 100% autobiographical and 100% true.

I know because I, Keith Fallico, wrote it myself. I lived it. I remember it all vividly.

I would not want to publish any untruths that might come back to haunt me.

Please rest assured.

Thank You

Respectfully,

Keith

Got it

Kylie,

Does Wikipedia offer a service to research and cite for me all that I already know to be true? In such a manner, of course, that will pass your review?

Please advise

Thank You Keith Fallico Musical Artist (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith Fallico Musical Artist: All Wikipedia editors are volunteers, so there aren't any "services" as such. If there are pressing matters or problems, they are generally attended to quickly. But in this case there are thousands of pending drafts and most need a lot of work, and there are very few editors who have time or interest to work on them. We have many help and advice pages written over the years. But we can only provide you with general advice about a draft here, and actual writing of citations for the article will likely remain up to you. Wikipedia strongly discourages you write this that you know to be true and only use material from reliable sources. Also make sure to WP:DISCLOSE and conflict of interest you probably have. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:54:41, 14 February 2020 review of submission by John BG Johnson


John BG Johnson (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if the issue with copyright of images has been resolved, can anyone help me finish this article? Thanks.

The draft has been rejected as not notable, the fact that you keep removing the rejection notice will not change this.Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

10:30:12, 15 February 2020 review of submission by Pat34552

sir plz see this https://mr.wikipedia.org/s/4fto https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=jVLCcagAAAAJ&hl=en https://www.esakal.com/sci-tech/sachin-lokapure-gains-75-patents-194214 https://www.etvbharat.com/marathi/maharashtra/state/sangli/sachin-lokapure-have-a-75-petant-and-his-name-is-in-limka-and-india-book-of-record-1/mh20190601142150560 https://lokmat.news18.com/maharastra/techonology-sangali-petent-man-special-report-update-mhkk-383981.html https://www.jaimaharashtranews.com/sangli-phunsukh-wangdu-achieves-75-petant/?fbclid=IwAR2McMewBPuiCqSBb95xBncjLAbfS2hCqLXvJRvkTE1gNAy23ktdEnBl940

this is notable Pat34552 (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pat34552. It isn't clear why you are directing reviewers to the Marathi Wikipedia. Each language version operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the Marathi Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Also, the existence of a Marathi article does not mean it should exist, it may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it. If you meant it as a reference, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because it is user-generated content.
The Google scholar link shows a low h-index and a number of citations that is unremarkable in pharmaceutical chemistry. It does not show that he is a highly cited academic. The popular press is generally unreliable for scientific reporting. If you wish to argue that the news links are reliable in this context, they are nevertheless variations on one story, so count as only one source.
It would be unusual for an assistant professor to be notable. Having been granted patents does not make a person notable. In most cases it isn't even significant enough to be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Rejection is meant to be final, to communicate that no amount of editing will make the topic acceptable. Volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. To change anyone's mind you would need to do much more than assert "this is notable". You would need to present clear and compelling evidence that the topic meets the professor test or the general notability guideline, something the references you've provided fail to do. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:57, 15 February 2020 review of submission by Thinkthank2


Please Advice on how I can move this article on the main space. Thinkthank2 (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you cannot, the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia and has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:21, 15 February 2020 review of submission by PurushottamKafle


PurushottamKafle (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PurushottamKafle, The draft has been deleted so we cannot help you. Do you have a specific question? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:22:56, 15 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 81.106.105.222


2020 is missing its page about Japanese television. I tried adding it to the '2020 in television by country' section but there was no sign of anyone uploading the '2020 in Japanese television' page. Can you please add the '2020 in Japanese television' page with events, programs (Both new and ending), milestones and deaths to the 'television' category? Thank you.

81.106.105.222 (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:18, 15 February 2020 review of submission by G Spot TV


G Spot TV (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@G Spot TV: Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:00, 15 February 2020 review of submission by John BG Johnson


John BG Johnson (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Is anyone available to help me finish this article and be published correctly?

As above, the draft has been rejected as not notable, the fact that you keep removing the rejection notice will not change this.Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:03, 15 February 2020 review of submission by IamTRoy4

This new Sports channel by Lex Sportel has no wikipedia, so I thought about creating one, but after creating the page, it got declined but I've given sources. IamTRoy4 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC) please look in to the page and publish it as soon as possible.[reply]

IamTRoy4, It needs more than one source. Three is usually the bare minimum, and they must be of good quality. Also, it needs prose, not just lists. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:08, 15 February 2020 review of submission by Attih Soul


Hello! My name is Attih Soul and I'm writing because my request to publish my artiste profile was rejected. I would love a review and guidelines/advise on how to arrange my publication such that it doesn't get rejected again. Thanks as I await your response.

@Attih Soul:The article had no sources and no structure. I recommend you read an existing good article, such as Beyoncé, to get a feel for what an article should look like. You may also wish to read the easy referencing guide. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:01:43, 15 February 2020 review of submission by Spiritletters


The Toven draft

1.The article title above (The Toven) was apparently rejected. Reason; "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Please breakdown the meaning of "sufficiently" as it relates to notable


2. Most of the album/works were covered in an attached article from a proclaimed notable media outlet San Diego reader. The info was published 2 years ago by the outlet. Then mysteriously, on the day The Toven draft was created the outlet deleted the entire page. This appears to have been a preventative measure. How should a Wiki volunteer respond?


3. Most of the early notable works of The Toven are connected to wiki page Jayo Felony and his Underground album which is now being redirected after having created The Toven draft. How should a wiki volunteer respond?

Spiritletters (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Spiritletters (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritletters, So the main issue you have here is circular references. We don't cite other Wikipedia pages within Wikipedia pages, because you can end in a situation where two Wikipedia pages cite each other and its unclear where the material originally came from. You need to remove all the Wikipedia citations and replace them with citations to the original sources. In terms of #2, I find it unlikely that the San Diego reader happened to just delete the article. Perhaps it moved to a new URL. You might also be able to find an archived version of the page. In the future you can prevent that by using a website archiver, see Help:Archiving a source. With regards to #3, the Jayo Felony page still exists. His albums were redirected because they weren't notable by themselves, just the artist was. Nothing more needs to be done. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir! Please expand further if your able

Source links

1.The Jayo Felony Underground album was published for years. Why was it redirected only yesterday after I referenced it as a source for The Toven draft? can I use the original sources to that page? If so, where are they as access is no longer available due to the redirect.

San Diego reader source

2. It is actually indisputable. The San Diego reader article in The Toven draft was accessable and normal until yesterday as it was deleted.Volunteers went to the link before it was deleted. Here is the deleted link https://www.sandiegoreader.com/bands/toven-the/. We have proof. my question is what should a volunteer do when and if a media outlet decides to play musical links? I understand that this is rare but it definitely occurred with the San Diego Reader and the sole particular author of their "Blurt" column who happens to control their "local band" section. I wont say his name at this time. Spiritletters (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many hundreds of artists listed here [1] strange that Toven has been removed, it was your only possible reliable source and we need at least three independent reliable sources before the draft could be accepted. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source and your draft is still only sourced to Wikipedia so will not even be considered. The artist needs to pass WP:MUSICIAN have you read that? Which part of the criteria do they pass? Theroadislong (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:27:28, 15 February 2020 review of draft by FeldA1


My Wikipedia article was denied I would like to get some clarification on the reason given. Particularly I would like to get clarification on what is meant by my references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Is this implying that I need sources that are unrelated to the topic but still prove the importance of said topic? I am a little confused by the wording. FeldA1 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FeldA1: Each source used for notability has to satisfy the criteria -- 1) reliable 2) independent and 3) in-depth. If any is not true, then the source is not enough for notability. Several such sources would establish notability. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:14, 15 February 2020 review of draft by Mknappssa


Hello. I'm struggling to understand how to fix this article. I've done my best to write it from a neutral point of view. I'm citing many external sources that are not published by the school. The school is notable in that it's the only school in Georgia working to follow the Sudbury school methods. I am not able to tell the difference between this Sudbury School of Atlanta page and other Sudbury school pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Free_School and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Sudbury_School. I could really use some guidance on how to resolve any issues in the page to get it published. Thank you for any help you can provide!

Mknappssa (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mknappssa You were given an explanation to this on your draft- the sources you have offered are not independent of the subject, and also barely mention the school, if at all. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. High schools are usually notable, but there must be sources.
Beware in citing other similar articles- see other stuff exists. Each article is judged on its own merits. Other similar articles existing does not mean yours is okay too. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

10:20:49, 16 February 2020 review of submission by 122.173.23.38


122.173.23.38 (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


hello wikipedia. i dont know how to create a page properly i am new here. could you please or anyone help me to make or create my page with hard singh rapper name here on wikipedia worldwide. i am rapper. i want to disclose my life bio here so everyone know me.

if anyone can help me with this please email thanks or tell me how to or how can i make my page exposed not for socilism only to for my life bio. ike other artist does. thanks

I guess this refers to the blocked User:Hard Singh Rapper. Theroadislong (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:51:10, 16 February 2020 review of submission by Hemant21101989


I want to have my biography on Wikipedia because in my field of work it's important to have a presence in Wikipedia to validate myself and my work. Hemant21101989 (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, rejection is meant to be final you are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hemant21101989 If you just want to tell the world about yourself to validate yourself, you should use social media. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves, only in what others say about them. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:26, 16 February 2020 review of submission by Abbas Universe

Hello, I have made my article fakeYOUTUBE and I claim to own all the information I have made from my website all by me so I would like to ask why my article was deleted 2 times for no reason. ©2019 fakeYOUTUBEBig textBig textSmall text == Copyright fakeYOUTUBE Abbas Universe (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Universe Sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your website. If independent reliable sources take note of your website and give it significant coverage, then it might merit an article, but not now. I would also suggest that you read guidance for younger editors, perhaps with a parent or guardian. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:07, 16 February 2020 review of draft by SLParker


I need help figuring out why my draft article was rejected for not having enough citations/footnotes. I have 17. Are there particular portions of the article or individual sentences that need sources that don't have them? If I know specifically where these are missing I can fix it. Thank you! Sally

SLParker (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YOU are being paid to edit, whilst we are volunteers here, please do us the courtesy of researching how to create an article first before asking for help. IMDb and YouTube are not reliable sources for establishing notability The early life section is totally unsourced and it's not clear what makes him notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:29, 16 February 2020 review of submission by Ckr1981


Hello, I think I made a mistake in the original submission where it changed the name of the actual Wikipedia page to include the _(band) at the end of the page name. I spoke with someone in the support chat before the page had been accepted and they said to just leave it for now and when it was reviewed, it could be corrected there or left as is if it made sense to do so. My question is, can the page name be switched to be just “Psychobuildings” as that is the band name and there are no other Wikipedia pages for anything to do with Psychobuildings? Or should it be left as is? Thanks for the assistance!

Ckr1981 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to just "Psychobuildings". 331dot (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:34, 16 February 2020 review of draft by Funt Sterling



Funt Sterling (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:46:49, 16 February 2020 review of submission by Funt Sterling

Hi dear admins and friends I added one trusted site (which acceptet whith user Cullen328) and added information from google. What can I add again ? :) Those sites have info about this artist.

https://www.eurodancemag.ga/2019/06/mrf-presents-mrp-aka-c-block-here-we-go.html

https://g.co/kgs/fqpuQu

Funt Sterling (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:03:06, 16 February 2020 review of submission by Ioujka


More video footage of this arcade title has recently surfaced, and I have added these clips as additional references for noteworthiness.

Ioujka (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ioujka. YouTube is generally unreliable, so it doesn't address the problem of the game not being notable. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable, so volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 17

01:06:01, 17 February 2020 review of submission by Stevenper


Hi, the above draft page has not been accepted. I don't know why as the company is at least as well known if not better known, than competitors such as Pet Circle. VetShopAustralia is the oldest online retailer of pet products in Australia (est 1999) so is noteworthy etc. I have provided many 3rd party references.

Stevenper (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the article's secondary source references show in-depth coverage of the subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevenper: Articles are evaluated on their own merits and not by comparison to other similar things, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pet Circle appears to be the subject of multiple profile articles in reliable sources. The sources that you have provided all appear to be routine coverage of business activity which do not establish notability. shoy (reactions) 14:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:01:45, 17 February 2020 review of draft by Spasiba5


I am new here and know that that draft at Draft:Religious conversions in Pakistan may not be perfect which is why I am asking for help. There are conversions in Pakistan that are voluntary and I think @El C:, an admin, with this edit at the Hinduism in Pakistan article shows that he supports that idea. Now please help improve that draft so that we can put it back where it belongs. Right now, the religious conversions in Pakistan article redirects to the forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan article. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft I submitted has been rejected by @Sulfurboy:, so I request someone experienced to improve that draft - I don't think I can do it myself. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you to read WP:BUILDER Sulfurboy (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The draft I submitted has been rejected by Sulfurboy, so I request someone experienced to improve that draft - I don't think I can do it myself. Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Can you improve my draft also?

Request on 03:49:14, 17 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by AlarSebas



AlarSebas (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:24:26, 17 February 2020 review of submission by 117.211.133.124


117.211.133.124 (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@117.211.133.124:, firstly, I think you may be logged out, if you are Krishna34552?
It was rejected as a functionally identical version was submitted to the one declined. If you have a more specific question, please clarify Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:52:15, 17 February 2020 review of submission by Shasta02

Hi, I would like some help with getting my page reviewed and accepted. What changes would you recommend I do to fix it? Thank you! Shasta02 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shasta02:, two main issues. I don't believe it's currently notable, as there are only 2 significant news sources, and 1 of them is an interview so isn't independent. You'd need to find more suitable sources that are in-depth (10+ lines), secondary (newspapers etc), independent (no interviews), reliable (the news source). The content also needs to be mainly about the company and its actions.
It's also written in a fairly promotional fashion - the founders section in effect alludes to the qualities of the founders "After entered high school, the two realized that when taught with an engaging curriculum and knowledgeable teachers, STEM camps had the potential of being inspirational". Nosebagbear (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:31, 17 February 2020 review of submission by Elnencatala


Elnencatala (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

==

18:52:28, 17 February 2020 review of submission by Sukoner


Sudip Koner 18:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


19:03:58, 17 February 2020 review of submission by Elnencatala


Elnencatala (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=941295812"