Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 828: Line 828:


I do not know how else to change my article. I reviewed some sentences yesterday that appeared bias but my paper is a summary of a documentary on Amazon prime that accurately depicts what the documentary entails. I do not know how to change it or how to avoid it being deleted.
I do not know how else to change my article. I reviewed some sentences yesterday that appeared bias but my paper is a summary of a documentary on Amazon prime that accurately depicts what the documentary entails. I do not know how to change it or how to avoid it being deleted.

== 17:46:01, 21 April 2020 review of draft by SeònaidVilmar ==
{{Lafc|username=SeònaidVilmar|ts=17:46:01, 21 April 2020|draft=Draft:Pablo_Starr}}


Hi! Curious how I can improve "verifiability?" Sources include Cosmopolitan, the Associated Press, as well as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus (these being the world's two foremost book review trade publications) -- as well as newspapers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pablo_Starr

Also, not 100% sure where the "non-neutral" point of view is?

Thanks for the help!

[[User:SeònaidVilmar|SeònaidVilmar]] ([[User talk:SeònaidVilmar|talk]]) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:46, 21 April 2020

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, 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


April 15

04:55:57, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya


the article which I submitted for publishing, reviewed are Nepali proverbs ......... actually its used in daily lives and most of them do not have an exact English translation. as nowadays people are not using these either in writing nor in spoken.. these will disappear with time... thus I am doing this to preserve it for future generations. please do suggest how can I do it. with regards.... sudan Bhattarai.....

Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya, What article? What you linked to is just an article that says "nepali proverbs" in nepalese Sulfurboy (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:11:59, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Joseph Carrollane


Hi there, I've shortened the Wikipedia entry for the Hello Dating app. Please take another look to see if it's more acceptable.

Joseph Carrollane (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Carrollane, The article was rejected which means a fellow reviewer has determined that there is no hope to demonstrate notability for the topic at this time. As such, the article will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:59:30, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Vipinahir


Vipinahir (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I already provided the reliable sources as well valid /suitable/ independent sources so please check deeply all the link

You were requested multiple times to properly format your references and you ignored this, just leaving a menagrie of unreliable or primary sources of bare urls at the bottom of the page. You repeatedly after warnings resubmitted without making good faith efforts to improve the article. Per the rejection message: Article has an overly promotional tone that is basically a press release for the college. User has repeatedly resubmitted without good faith efforts to improve the article and clearly has not taken the time or has to the care to review our policies. Since this is clogging up our backlog and since this page is WP:TNT the draft is rejected.
The article has been rejected and as such, will not be considered further. Please take the time and care to read our applicable polices for creating pages. This will help you immensely in creating pages or making edits in the future. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:40, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Badgerbrook86



I'm looking to add and edit several cabaret and comedy prominent figures into Wiki over the next few months. I've started with Bernie Dieter who is currently one of the biggest touring cabaret artists but yet to have an article on here.

It would be great to have someone check over the revised article with the changes I've made.


Badgerbrook86 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Badgerbrook86: hi there. Your changes certainly are an improvement, though it still reads as somewhat promotional to me. One suggestion is that we don't generally do reviews like that (just listing particularly positive lines from the various reviews) - I'd suggest two facets on it. Format wise, take a look at some other articles in the same general field that are reasonably long. See how they handle their critical reception/reviews sections. If reviews are generally positive but have some common negative or concern, give that. If there are some more mixed, or even negative, reviews that are in reliable sources, include them.
The "Little death club" section has three lines on the plot, and then 9 about how successful it's been. Coupled with the fairly long positive review section, it's rather disproportinately pro-Bernie then actually summarising the subject matter.
This isn't a full review, just a few things that jumped out at me Nosebagbear (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:35, 15 April 2020 review of submission by ImPritamShaw


ImPritamShaw (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImPritamShaw, do you have a question?
Your draft was declined, as a biography of a person who doesn't meet our general notability guideline. We require subjects to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, as without this there would be no way of reliably verifying the contents of the article. This is especially important for articles about living people, due to the potential consequences about false information in our articles. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 18:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:27:15, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Bartelomeus-123


Dear Sir/Madam, it is the first time that I am creating a Wikipedia article and I would like to ask your help. Could you elaborate on the reasons for rejecting the article?

1) Topic not sufficiently notable: are you referring to a) no sufficient coverage in the articles referred to or b) not enough reference articles? 2) Submission contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia: could you further clarify? Other streaming protocols such as HLS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming), MPEG-DASH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP) and WebRTC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC) also have a Wikipedia page

Looking forward to your feedback. Once obtained, I'll take it into account to further update the Wikipedia article.

Thanks Bartelomeus-123

Bartelomeus-123 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:40, 15 April 2020 review of submission by EmmaOldenkamp


Hello, I have gone in and re-edited the document to omit any advertorial language, leaving only factual information. Can you please re-review this and let me know if the article is still unacceptable, and if so, why? We have been trying to have our brand listed on Wikipedia for some time now and would love to rectify this soon! I appreciate it. EmmaOldenkamp (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC) EmmaOldenkamp (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "list brands" on Wikipedia, we have articles about notable subjects. Undeclared paid editing is a breach of the terms of use that you have to agree to abide by when you edit here, and we take editing in areas where you have a personal or professional interest very seriously. If you edit the page again now that you have been notified of these issues, you may be blocked. The draft was correctly rejected it is blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:06, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Thecorporateidentity


Hello,

I am just wondering how I could get my draft Julian Michael Carver to become a live article. How many credible sources would I need? I have found other authors on wiki with much less sources, sometimes with just sources to just their own website. Any advice?

Thecorporateidentity (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other stuff exists; other inappropriate articles existing does not mean yours can, too. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. Feel free to point out these other articles; we can only address what we know about.
Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:27, 15 April 2020 review of draft by 2A00:23C8:6C03:4B01:E0F6:95C4:27E:3FF5


Hi there. I wanted to know whether Companies House can be used as a source of information about professional positions held and date of birth?

I also wanted to query this bit of feedback from the original submission of this draft article: "a lot of the verbiage is copied from other biographies or original research". This is not true, as I have written this article myself, but I don't know how to prove it!

There was also the following comment on the first draft: 'The early life and education section is completely unsourced and seems to be copy-pasted or closely paraphrased from somewhere'. The second part of this is not correct - again, I wrote this text from scratch. However, I don't know how to source date and place of birth, details of early life etc., as they are simply not published anywhere. Part of the problem is that the subject of this article is a psychoanalyst, still living, and analysts are generally very protective of their privacy and personal details, due to the work they do with patients. This means I can't provide published sources for these more private details, even though they are absolutely factual. Could you help me with this problem?

I also don't understand this comment: 'a lot of the writing portrays Britton in a positive light with unsourced random supporting quotes'. I am revising the text and trying to take out anything that seems too positive and not neutral enough, but I don't see what 'unsourced random supporting quotes' refers to in the original draft. I have provided references for every quote I have used.

2A00:23C8:6C03:4B01:E0F6:95C4:27E:3FF5 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig Copyvio shoes that 77.9% of text is copied from https://psychoanalysis.org.uk/our-authors-and-theorists/ron-britton Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:35:29, 15 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Simon Aronsson


Hi there,

I'm trying to get the k6 article through for creation, but keep getting it rejected. The article has both scientific references and references from notable sources (like GitLab), yet it gets rejected?

Please advice.

Best regards, Simon

Simon Aronsson (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:47, 15 April 2020 review of submission by CRZ Clintzy

It is a good book and I want the world to see it and review it

CRZ Clintzy (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this is not a forum to distribute books. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:23, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Juliemb54


Could someone help me understand why an article I created was sent to draft, then declined by the same editor? I have 23 reliable sources cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fobazi_Ettarh

Juliemb54 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juliemb54. On Draft:Fobazi Ettarh I've explained some problems with the cited sources, which I hope helps you understand why it was draftified and declined. Contrast the draft with your earlier works, such as Star Montana and Harmonia Rosales. Note how certain sources in those articles are used over and over throughout the article - they support numerous statements about the subject. That suggests they contain a depth of information about their subjects that is absent from the sources cited by the draft. Perhaps it is too soon for an encyclopedia article about Ettarh.
From your editing history, I surmise that you are part of the galleries, libraries, archives, and museums community, have participated in one or more edit-a-thons, and may be interested in addressing systemic bias in Wikipedia content. Creating biographies in under-represented categories is useful and important work, but is not the only way to improve the encyclopedia. You may wish to save a copy of your draft on your computer, set it aside for a while, and explore other facets of Wikipedia.
If you've been involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, you might want to graduate to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green. If you have online access to sources out of reach of the general public during lock-down, you may be able to add missing references in the spirit of 1Lib1Ref. Or, within the bounds of fair use, you may be able to share through the Resource Exchange a portion of a source that another editor needs. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that lead to many other ways to contribute. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:56, 15 April 2020 review of draft by TealTortoise


I think that my subject meets the criteria for notability on the following grounds:

Nomination for a significant award: British MBE The subject has been featured in at least three national media outlets over a period of over 10 years (for a living subject)

I'd appreciate some assistence with how to improve the 'Neutral Point of View' requirement in the article. Please join me on the talk page.

TealTortoise (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TealTortoise (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading around some more I can see that there are issues with adverts - I've got no personal connection with the subject of the article - I stumbled upon her and thought it was really cool to see a high-profile plumber. TealTortoise (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article to remove as much fluff as possible. I also agree she is notable enough for an article, would love to see the article expanded. I have no dog in the game here either, she just seems like an interesting person for an article and she does appear to be notable to me! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:32, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Royalty clothings


Royalty clothings (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising, Wikipedia is not for promoting your business. Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:52, 15 April 2020 review of submission by AviCicirean


AviCicirean (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AviCicirean, do you have a question to ask?
Your draft was rejected as it was clearly an advert for an event.
We have neutrally written articles based on what reliable sources have written about a topic, not adverts based on what businesses say about themselves.
If we just hosted what businesses said about themselves, it would just become an advertising site. We would find that after a week we would have no readers left, making the website somewhat useless. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 18:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:33:55, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Smithstella2001


Stella Smith (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

01:33:12, 16 April 2020 review of submission by 2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421


What is the exact threshold for a content creator to be deemed eligible for a page. It seems to be rather up to individual mods to approve a page without any precise criteria. Lots of "less know" creators have pages. Thanks for helping clear this up!


2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421 (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are few exact thresholds in Wikipedia. You may find the essay WP:NYOUTUBE informative. Novice contributors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their subject. The draft cites no such sources, and the reviewer is confident that no such sources exist. If Wikipedia articles without such sources exist, they should be improved or deleted. They are not a reason to create more articles that don't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:22:13, 16 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by ChristinaL.P.


I have made changes to my article according to reviewer comments. How do I resubmit?

ChristinaL.P. (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChristinaL.P.. The draft was already the pool to be reviewed when you posed this question. You can tell by the large mustard-yellow box, presently at the bottom of the draft (later you may see it at the top, it doesn't really matter where on the draft it is). --Worldbruce (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:29, 16 April 2020 review of submission by BharathSD

I have added more references to prove notability.

BharathSD (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BharathSD I assume from your username that you work for Spark Databox. You are required by the Terms of Use to formally comply with the paid editing policy and declare that relationship. Your draft just tells that your company exists; that is not enough for an article- and in fact Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself(as you are free to do that on your own website). Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not press releases, brief mentions, or routine announcements) say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Your assumption is wrong. I am not working for Spark Databox. I have no connection with that company. In the past, I have had a user name created for Wiki and its lost. My preferred username Bharath was not available so I added SD as I started writing this article about Spark Databox. Again, Spark Databox is not my company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BharathSD (talk • contribs)

BharathSD so how is it that you have no connection yet very clearly state that not only did you upload their logo as your own work but that made a point to manually type that you created it yourself in photoshop? Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae You are right. I will have to change that setting.

06:35:13, 16 April 2020 review of submission by Piuskerala

Seven references were added. Many external links were added.One figure clarifying the process is added. Several internal links were added. Twelve more equations were added. Six paragraphs were added for clarity of the subject. piuskerala (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piuskerala The draft was rejected because it reads as an essay of original research on the topic, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources state about the topic- and it was rejected(not just declined) because the reviewer sees little chance the draft can be improved to meet standards. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:41, 16 April 2020 review of submission by 1.186.197.15


1.186.197.15 (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected because there is no indication that the person you wrote about meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You would need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person(not press releases, interviews, or brief mentions) showing how they meet that definition. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:23, 16 April 2020 review of draft by Mgrodzins


How do I deal with the fact that my subject, married three times, goes by many different names over the course of her lifetime? For example, if someone searches for "Rita Matthias", can they be redirected to "Marguerite Julie Strauss"?Mgrodzins (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Mgrodzins (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgrodzins:, if and when it passed review and becomes an article, redirects can be created (if there isn't an article of that actual name) from other names to the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks.

13:23:34, 16 April 2020 review of submission by Smokethatskinwagon


Smokethatskinwagon (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I added that he is now a syndicated radio personality. which was one of the suggestions to resubmit for from previous moderators. He did not win the ACM award.

13:28:48, 16 April 2020 review of submission by M.Saiful Mridha


M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:28:48, 16 April 2020 review of submission by M.Saiful Mridha M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:45, 16 April 2020 review of submission by Antoniobasha


Antoniobasha (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC) help me create an article about me on wikipedia[reply]

16:33:44, 16 April 2020 review of submission by M.Saiful Mridha


M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:44, 16 April 2020 review of draft by M.Saiful Mridha

16:34:26, 16 April 2020 review of submission by M.Saiful Mridha


M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)  Done M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question about Name of submission

Hello, WikiProject Articles for creation! I'm M.Saiful Mridha. I have replied to your question about Name of submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. M.Saiful Mridha (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:40, 16 April 2020 review of submission by Chascal


The article I created regarding CodeLaunch was rejected due to "not sufficiently notable for inclusion" and "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" with the moderator stating "this is entirely based upon press releases and mere notices".

I added 38 individual third-party references, including several .edu and other educational domains, prominent news sources and business journals, and relevant articles from other technology publications. This article is not self-promotional and the event itself does not profit, it is fully funded by sponsors and community contributions, similar to any other nonprofit organization. CodeLaunch is a vehicle for early-stage startup organizations to launch their product without taking on any financial risk.

Additionally, I have seen several other comparable business and startup competitions with articles on Wikipedia - I'm curious how CodeLaunch differs from these?

If you could provide additional clarification and steps I could take to get this article published, that would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Chascal (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chascal - First, do you have a conflict of interest? Are you being paid by CodeLaunch? (If not, why are you working so hard to get the article accepted?)
Second, you have reference-bombed the draft, by adding a very large number of low-quality sources. There is a myth that, since sources are required in Wikipedia, adding more sources is what needs to be done to get an article accepted. Sources are necessary but not sufficient. You can always find low-quality sources, but you cannot make a non-notable subject notable by adding low-quality sources. That is a myth. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:34, 16 April 2020 review of draft by Ayamaraben


Ayamaraben (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert Mc Clenon declined my submission, but he suggested that I did have an article, but remove the text above it as it may be hiding it. Where do I edit the article and resubmit? I do not see it anywhere. There was a message that said edit below the line. Can you tell me how to access the article and resubmit properly? Thank-you, Ayamaraben

User:Ayamaraben - Is the draft that you were trying to submit Draft:Carlos Escalona Cruz? You did submit it also. It was declined, and you were told to reformat and resubmit it with better sources. Do you have any more questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:01, 16 April 2020 review of submission by Donmirdas


I removed the things you claimed to be advertising. Is the article now okay?

Donmirdas (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Donmirdas - Now that you removed the advertising, there is very little left, and it does not establish musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:59:21, 16 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by The 0utsider1


My post was denied can u tell me why my post - which is based off of the history of the school district on a school building in the very same school district and one i actually attended so i know it was there... was denied? This happens to alot of posts of mine. Why can the page "Paul W. Dillon Home" get posted with NO references what soever and mine- which is on the web page of the actual school history get denied???

The 0utsider1 (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The0utsider1 Your draft was declined because it is sourced to nothing other than the school/district website. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Independent sources need to have written about the history of the school in order for it to be on Wikipedia.
If any article is posted without sources, you are welcome to propose its deletion or otherwise point that out. As this is a volunteer project, we can only address what we know about. It is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


April 17

01:23:36, 17 April 2020 review of draft by Saffario


Hi there I've recently had this entry requested. As it didn't have the right tone for an encyclopedic article. I've since gone in and made some edits. Could someone please check it out and let me know if anything is standing out as needing attention before I resubmit. I appreciate your experience and knowledge in helping with this page.

Kind thanks,

Saffario (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saffario, Well for one it needs more sources. A mere two references is not enough to prove notability. But don't just add any old website, such sources need to be high quality. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:37:36, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Blobbie1838


Blobbie1838 (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC) hi so the first time i submitted it you said that i need to include footnotes and that there were to many links at the bottom so when i changed that why was my article denied, as surely i can use as many references as i need so when getting rid of some ot them and having the part that it was liked to included why was my request still denied?[reply]

Blobbie1838, Much of the article remains unsourced. You need to provide inline citations. Also, the use of interview quotes is way overdone and reads pretty awkwardly. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if it my article why cant i use interview quotes i have written in. my style so why is it not acceptable

@Blobbie1838: Draft:John McCrea is not your article. One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that no editor owns any page and all contributions can and may be mercilessly edited (within the bounds of the community's other policies and guidelines). Also, the draft isn't an article. If you continue behaving the way you have been, it will never become an article.
The referencing is better now than it was in your first draft, but only because other editors have improved it. You've received good advice from several reviewers regarding the density of inline citations, the overuse of quotations, the inappropriate tone, and the non-neutral point of view. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting a draft accepted that expresses the opinion in Wikipedia's voice that he is a "great actor". Instead of acting on any of this feedback, you've resubmitted the draft without addressing these problems. That is a recipe for getting the draft deleted and getting yourself blocked from editing.
To establish notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia) the page should cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic. Furthermore, the bulk of the article should be based on such sources. In addition to all the other problems, the draft is based on three interviews. They are primary sources, and to the extent that they're merely McCrea talking about McCrea, they lack independence. The interview by The Times is the only one that contains significant independent research and analysis by the interviewer. It's the only one that helps demonstrate notability, and is not enough on its own. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:32:30, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Cbirchallroman


On my page, the feedback said that I was not citing reliable sources and that it was formatted more like an essay with references to unrelated works from my own train of thought. I've since removed those superfluous references and added headers so it's an organized summary of the topic, but what else can I do to make this good quality for publishing?

I'm doing this as an assignment for my seminar class. Originally I was going to make contributions to the article for The Myth of the Machine, but my professor saw my notes and preferred me to use the content to make a separate article. Is it better to add onto the existing one, though?

Thank you!

Cbirchallroman (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbirchallroman, I would say that its better to add to the existing article, as I don't think there is enough for a standalone. As an additional note: you really shouldn't use Mumford's book as the source about Mumford's own book. You should find some independent sources that discuss the topics and ideas found in his book. If no sources discuss Mumford's work, then clearly no source thought his work very important, and thus we don't either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cbirchallroman I would also note that it is pretty unfair to you for your professor to require you to write a Wikipedia article as an assignment, especially using this AFC process, which can take months. Your professor may wish to review the materials for educators at the Wikipedia Education Program. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:29:02, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Littlepawan

This page has been reviewed and the decision is made for the speedy deletion. I am a new Wikipedia writer. This page is created by me without any profit or promotion purposes. I would like to improve this page so that it can get accepted. I want to ask other users here to assist me with improvement tips. I tried to write it as neutral as possible. If you can suggest me how to improve this, I would be very thankful. Littlepawan (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:25:45, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Piuskerala

My article was rejected in march. The reason given was that, it had less references. Later I have modified the article considerably. I feel that the field is very useful for those who work in agricultural field. Once rejected, what is the method to put it for further review? piuskerala (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piuskerala - User:331dot already answered you. Please do not ask the same question several times. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:46, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Jasonhogarth

I have added all relevant and necessary citations to this page. Please could you re-review. No money has exchanged hands for this work and I do not know the individual I am editing the page for, I am simply an art enthusiast who would like this page to be published as I believe the work of this individual is wholly important, relevant and notable.

Jasonhogarth (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonhogarth, Unfortunately the article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further at this time Sulfurboy (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:52:41, 17 April 2020 review of submission by 210.212.72.157


210.212.72.157 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? I'm afraid the draft is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, it is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:09, 17 April 2020 review of draft by Sforsunting


Hi, I want to ask on how to make my articles accepted by Wikipedia and which part I did wrong when I write mine.

I tried many times but the editors always said that it's just an advert, even though I feel like I already write it neutrally.

This is the article,(User:Sforsunting/sandbox) can you point out which part to fix so it will be neutral?

For the record, I took a similar business as a reference : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveloka

Sorry if it's plain to see for you, because before submitting this I already asked some other people and they said it's not an Ad, but they are amateurs and not professionals, so I hope you can point it out to me.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Sforsunting (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sforsunting What you wrote (which can be viewed in your sandbox and is unnecessary to post here) does little more than tell about the company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable company). The sources you have offered merely cite the existence of the company and what it does, not the significant coverage others unaffiliated with the company have chosen on their own to say about it.
You should not cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. It could be that the other article you cite is also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only deal with what we know about. In this case, it seems that the article you cite has at least some sources with significant coverage.
If you work for this company or are affiliated with it in any way, you must read and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:01, 17 April 2020 review of draft by Claireatwaves


All of the references in my submission are print ones which I have seen myself. I can't find anything notable online yet - Mark was significant in the 1980's/ 90's design scene so nothing's online yet.

The references I've given are all verifiable - not sure why Vogue and Interior Magazines wouldn't be considered good sources for a designer.

What should I do?

Thanks for your help


Claireatwaves (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claireatwaves It is not required that sources be online(it helps, but is not required). It is difficult to know what your sources are citing as you have no in-line citations(i.e. citations next to the information being cited). Please see WP:CITE for information on citing sources. If you have a connection to this person, you must read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first 9 sections have no cited sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:59, 17 April 2020 review of submission by 223.176.97.114


223.176.97.114 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:36, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Blobbie1838

my article was denied as it wasn't in the correct style of writing however if its my article should it not be acceptable as its my work not anyone else's, also to start with it was denied as the links didn't have footnotes to the part of the article that it related to however throught the article there were footnotes to the link where i got the information from, so i would like to know why i cant write in my style? and how it can be changed so that i can get it published? Blobbie1838 (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like 'great British stage and television actor and singer" and "John is a great actor" may be your style of writing, but it is not Wikipedia's style, we write in a neutral tone here and it is NOT your article it belongs to Wikipedia so will need to conform, I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:27, 17 April 2020 review of draft by MarieFranklin427


Requesting assistance with the Mermaid of Hilton Head Draft Article. I am not associated with the business, however I am conducting a study on businesses focused on eco-conservation and the public's growing interest in for-profit businesses whose business models are focused on being eco-friendly. I have added citations from notable sources such as Nat Geo and Coastal Living, but not sure why I am unable to get approval for this article? MarieFranklin427 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


MarieFranklin427 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:46, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Karen Pinket


I would really like to get this information on "Mr.Krusty out on the web. This is my first time making a Wikipedia Project, so I might mess up. Please excuse that and tell me what I can do to improve. Thanks have a good day! Karen Pinket (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, there isn't really anything you can do, the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:25:36, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Karen Pinket

Just wondering why you declined my Submission. Karen Pinket (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karen Pinket - There were two problems. First, you did not provide any references. References are required. Second, the subject was not notable. Most YouTubers are not notable. Most people are not notable. Just adding references is not likely to help. No amount of editing will overcome a lack of notability.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:13, 17 April 2020 review of draft by FalteringArc2


I was told that the colors would all have to represent Democrats but I was under the impression that in a primary the candidates would be assigned a color.

FalteringArc2 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FalteringArc2, Yes, everyone does get assigned a color, so I think Sulfur's feedback there was a bit incorrect. Compare your article to 2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses or 2016 Iowa Republican caucuses. However Sulfur's other feedback was quite relevant. The article had insufficient sourcing, and prose. You should find some news coverage from the time (Newspaper archives may be necessary) and use it to explain things, such as how the heck Bill Bradley had 4 delegates and zero votes. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:09, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Iayaz


Hi, i gave 3 references & yet my article is not allowed for publishing . I suggest that let it publish , more people will contribute by providing references Iayaz (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iayaz, The article and sources were not formatted correctly. But thats irrelevant: a housing project is very rarely notable, and the sources you provided definitely don't show notability. Writing a Wikipedia article from scratch is very hard to do. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:02:18, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Eholder


hey, si;finpu, i am always getting confused by the other Eric Holder, the former attorney general. when i saw my colleague, holly lang's wiki entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Lang). i thought i could do the same. did i somehow use the wrong approach? many thanks for your advice, eric


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eholder#April_2020 Eric Holder 20:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eholder Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. Only people who are notable, i.e. have recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources can have pages. If you are notable, someone will eventually create a page for you. But making an autobiography is not gonna fly, as its impossible to write a neutral article about yourself. Also, your colleague may not be notable either. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:06, 17 April 2020 review of submission by CherLloydOFG

This is an article directly about a song by Cher Lloyd. I put in lots of time and effort to get the article how I like it and I referenced her other oricle for 'None Of My Business' as a template. If there is any way we can get this article out there that would be great. Thanks CherLloydOFG (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CherLloydOFG The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved to meet standards. With the promotional language in it, I must agree. Not every song by a musician merits an article. If you work for Lloyd, you are required to comply with the paid editing policy. Probably you shouldn't have their name in your username, either. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:03, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Tokidoki232

I recently drafted an article about Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture. The current draft has been declined, and the reason provided was because it was written like a marketing piece and did not have enough supporting evidence. May I ask for some additional guidance about what I could modify or eliminate that would make it seem less like a promotional article? I carefully reviewed the tips on how to write a Wikipedia page. The article is written in a neutral tone, was fact-based and referenced third-party sources in every section. Citations came from well-established publications such as the Chicago Tribune, Crain's Chicago Business, Architectural Digest, etc. If you could provide any specific advice about problematic areas and what I could rectify, I would greatly appreciate it.

Tokidoki232 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:02:48, 17 April 2020 review of submission by Cubical


I believe this article should be published because it contains a lot of pertinent and useful information about this road's history & importance in Ottawa. I included nine sources, most from different publishers, which in my eyes add a lot of credibility to the info. Many other pages about major Ottawa roads which have far less information are still present on Wikipedia which is making me question the consistency of the reviewing process. I believe this article does have a place on Wikipedia, since it is instructive and follows the guidelines. For the notability concern, I do believe the information I provided, like Jeanne d'Arc having its own Transitway station on Ottawa's Rapid Transit network, being home to one of La Cité's major campuses (the largest French-language college in Ontario), and being one of the largest roads contributing to the huge population boom of Orléans and East Ottawa in the 80s, makes it an important part of the capital's road network.

Cubical (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cubical, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. We are in the process of finding and cleaning up or deleting many of those old articles. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Taking a look at the sources, they are pretty primary. There isn't substantial news coverage of the road that shows it is a cultural landmark. You may wish to inquire at WP:WikiProject Canada to see if folks there are willing to take a look, but I would first suggest you find newspaper coverage. If it cannot be found, then the road is not notable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

00:24:52, 18 April 2020 review of submission by Sahagunethan


Sahagunethan (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:00:57, 18 April 2020 review of draft by Susleman


I've been informed that the notability of the BLP is in question due to the fact that roles to date have not been leads. Both Brandon Hardy in "Good Boys" at the Pasadena Playhouse, and Brad Kirchoff in "When the Streetlights Go On" for Quibi are considered leads. What can I do to prove this other than what is already provided? Susleman (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susleman, The decline message should likely have been expanded to say lead roles in notable productions. If the film they had a lead in is not wiki notable, or if the play they were in wasn't in one of the premier playhouses or part of a touring broadway show, then it will do very little if nothing to establish notability. The decline was appropriate. Notability has not been estabslihed for this subject and it's likely they are not notable at all at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:09:57, 18 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by PHansen.Research


I recently published a draft for a wikipedia article on an Academic Research Journal where the major references were the journal itself, its SCImago and Resurchify Data, and information about the founders from the University of Canberra website. My draft was declined and I received feedback that the references weren't credible enough to warrant publishing the draft article. So, my question is how can I find references that are more credible than academic peer reviewed sources? PHansen.Research (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PHansen.Research Most of the sources you have offered merely cite the contents of the journal; the journal itself would be a primary source and not establish notability. A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the journal, showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable academic journal. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:15, 18 April 2020 review of draft by SunnyBoi


Hello AfC Help Desk, I am hoping for some help with an article submission which has been declined because of the original author's COI. Most of the content of the page has been rewritten since they created it, I have added most of the references and removed promotional and unsourced material. Would it still be considered as not being NPOV because of the original source? I do not have any links with the organisation so would my edits be considered NPOV? Thank you for your advice and time. SunnyBoi (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SunnyBoi (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:14:27, 18 April 2020 review of submission by THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER

11:14:27, 18 April 2020 review of submission by THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER}}

THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i just created an article for Nikka Starr and i want you to re-review it.

11:38:02, 18 April 2020 review of submission by Paintitkid


Hello,

Have added the relevant news articles covering the person. The subject has won 2 awards and has been featured in all major news outlets in the state. One could classify him as a 'celebrity'. He is a notable personality in the state of Kerala, India (population 32 million). Please do reconsider.

Paintitkid (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:09:21, 18 April 2020 review of submission by THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER


THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, the topic is not notable and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:41:40, 18 April 2020 review of submission by THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER

12:41:40, 18 April 2020 review of submission by THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER

THEBIOGRAPHYMASTER (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so i have done some edits and im so sorry for the picture i am not the person i write in and i am not paid i uploaded the pictures because i want to show the public who i am wrting about but i will find another image that is not my own work and i am sure and i will tell to you that i am not person im writing i am just a biography writer of a notable person

14:24:52, 18 April 2020 review of draft by TheBirdsShedTears


Please review this draft as part of AfC help desk. Thank you! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears: You have submitted your draft today. There are Currently 1,773 submissions awaiting review, some of which are waiting 8 weeks already. Reviewing your submission right now would be unfair. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:NOTNEWS, and your draft contains opinions and original research which is not appropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:17:59, 18 April 2020 review of submission by Haitypicky


Greetings, I believe the page has enough citations and the information is absolute. Thanks

19:59:55, 18 April 2020 review of submission by Zayj27

BhaatBank is a small organization gives out something that is not easily available in Bangladesh, food. And especially during this COVID-19 Pandemic, they have raised thousands of dollars for the wages and well being of those put out of work during this time, which in Bangladesh is a substantial amount of the population. BhaatBank has continuously given out food and clothing to those who need it despite the situation. BhaatBank should deserve this recognition for working through this pandemic alongside the doctors and first responders for helping the poor on the streets while the rest stay home. The volunteers at BhaatBank are volunteers that believe that Bangladesh, a country the size of New York with a population of 164 million people can be saved one by one and that every person counts. Thank You for re-reviewing this article. Zayj27 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zayj27 That's a great cause, and I hope the organization is successful, but Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good causes or as a form of "recognition" for organizations or causes. This is an encyclopedia; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state with significant coverage about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable organization). Not every organization merits an article here, regardless of what it does. If you just want to tell the world about this organization, you should use social media or an alternative forum where what you want to do is permitted. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


April 19

00:25:00, 19 April 2020 review of draft by Evvekk


This draft was declined due to notability, but I believe the subject qualifies for notability under WP:MILPERSON criteria 2 (subject is an Admiral) and criteria 5 (commanded United States Navy Dental Corps). Additionally, the subjects were notable enough for special recognition by both of his almae matres. Evvekk (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evvekk, This should have been accepted. I'm approving it now. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:54:17, 19 April 2020 review of submission by Adam Catch


Adam Catch (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Catch, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's looking for his other sock. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the archive: 07:16, 19 April 2020 Mz7 talk contribs blocked Adam Catch talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{checkuserblock-account}}: Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adam Catch). Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:16, 19 April 2020 review of submission by Futbol10p


This coach is a professional soccer coach within the National Independent Soccer Association (NISA) and also has notable accomplishments plus legitimate references for everything.

Not recognizing NISA as a professional league but recognizing the USL League One and USL Championship is highly suspicious and seems like there may be potential collusion with USL league representatives as there is more vague information for USL1 then NISA available.

https://www.nisaofficial.com/news/2020/02/16/nisa-receives-ussf-pro-league-membership

The collegiate programs this coach worked for should also be notable enough to qualify for publishing to live site.

Futbol10p (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futbol10p, We did not create the guidelines surrounding whether a certain league is considered fully professional or not. We simply follow the rules set out by them. If you have issues with the current standard of notability, you may want to discuss it at either Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Until any of their rules change, the subject of your page is currently not notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:39, 19 April 2020 review of draft by Per W


The answer from the reviewer was: "No evidence that this power cable passes the notability threshold. " I cite two sources: a technical description and a newspaper article. They provide substantial coverage and are independent. I found other newspaper articles about the cable, especially when it does not work.

  • Should I provide these article somewhere?
  • Should I look for more detailed descriptions of the cable?

Per W (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 1292simon, you are more than welcome to comment! Per W (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per W, Add a couple of the newspaper articles and resubmit it or ping me when it's done and I'll look at it and likely approve it. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:18, 19 April 2020 review of draft by Puremusician


Hi, I'm trying to submit an artist wiki page. It has been declined maybe because I put it under article category. How can I fix it? Puremusician (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puremusician, You need to show with reliable, secondary sources WP:RS that your subject passes WP:NARTIST or WP:ANYBIO Sulfurboy (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:48, 19 April 2020 review of submission by Puremusician

I have tried to submit an Artist bio page, it has been declined maybe because it was under article category. I don't know how to change the category, please help. Puremusician (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puremusician Your draft was declined because it has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support its content, as the reviewer informed you. Wikipedia articles should summarize what such sources state, showing how the musician meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. Please see Your First Article for more information. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:47, 19 April 2020 review of submission by G. Moore

I am working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals. Our project goals include having a list of hospitals for every Country/Major Administrative Division of a Country. There was no list for Indonesian hospitals. I started an article on List of hospitals in Indonesia, since there were already several articles about hospitals in Indonesia in Wikipedia. It was reverted to a draft article because it wasn't complete and the task seemed to big to the reviewer. Since then, I have added all of the major hospitals in Indonesia, along with references and discussion of health facilities in Indonesia. I would like to move this article to the main Wikipedia workspace now that it is more complete and substantive. Not all hospitals are notable. However, this article lists all major hospitals and a few clinics and medical centers as well. As notable hospitals are discovered in the list, links can be made to create the articles on notable hospitals. I have put a lot of effort into this, as I think it will be important to know about Indonesian hospitals during the corona virus pandemic. REF: Draft:List of hospitals in Indonesia

G. Moore 13:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to G Moore 13:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G. Moore, Looks good now. I've approved it. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:02, 19 April 2020 review of draft by 151.20.130.162


151.20.130.162 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:52:46, 19 April 2020 review of submission by 1.186.198.197

enough notability present 1.186.198.197 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1.186.198.197:, but to interpret as a question on the grounds you give, I've looked and confirmed the reviewer's judgement. The sources you give fail to meet each of the four requirements to show page notability: in-depth, reliable, independent, secondary. Social media is both unreliable, non-independent and non-secondary. Wikis, including ours, aren't reliable (and depending on who wrote it, non-independent). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:53:50, 19 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by MissRight44



MissRight44 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MissRight44, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:54:51, 19 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Keirvt


An editor using the handle, Sulphurboy has declined publication of Draft:Australian Speleological Federation Cave Diving Group article on the basis that the organisation that the wiki article does not meet the criteria of showing significant coverage. The aricle shows the organisation is part of the Federal body of Australian speleologists an organisation of about 1500 members across all states of Australia. https://www.caves.org.au /https://www.caves.org.au/ The Cave Diving group has been in existence for many years and references the Federal body's web page, its code of ethics and the national and international achievements of the diving group. The ASF will reference the CDG page if it ever get published.

The draft wiki page has been authorised by the Australian Speleological Federation (ASF) . Although the proposed wiki page is short and simple the page underwent scrutiny by the Federation oganisation and rewrites.

The draft wiki page references the parent organisation and it project based exploration in Australia including cave diving exploration over many kilometers under the Nullarbor Plain as one example.

I cannot understand how this page does not meet the requirements of wikipedia. Please could you be more explicit in the reasons for denial or perhaps review the editorial descision.

Keirvt (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keirvt, I suggest reading the linked policies in the decline message. Particularly, we need to see WP:SIGCOV of the subject in reliable, secondary sources to show that it passes WP:NCORP. We do not care at all whether or not the subject has approved the creation of the page. We're you hired by the organization to create the page? What is your association with them? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:14, 19 April 2020 review of submission by Mukilteoedits


Hello, I posted this on the Teahouse, but now I'm wondering if I should have posted it here? A few weeks ago I asked for the page Draft:Scott Disick to be unSALTed. It is my first time working with a SALTed article. The main page has been nominated for deletion four times in the past, but I believe the article is now ready for creation, since Disick's fame has increased. I received feedback that the articles I used were only passing mentions of Disick. This simply is not true. I cited more than 100 sources in this article, and while some of them do contain passing mentions, many do not. For example, Chicago Tribune, E! News, Architectural Digest, People, and this one HuffPost, among others. Additionally, notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP, and the most recent community consensus was to allow new draft, and you can find at least two other editors (alongside myself) who have commented on the main page talk page requesting that an article be made for this subject. Additionally, on Talk:Kourtney Kardashian there are several discussions in which people have suggested he receive his own article. I believe he meets WP:ENT parts one and two. He has been a main cast member in more than 140 episodes of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, has his own show on E!Network (new since last discussion of his notability), and has guest starred on a number of other shows. In reference to point two of WP:ENT, he has a large fan base (23.5 million Instagram followers; 6.8 million Twitter followers - more than Adam Sandler, Gwen Stefani, the White House, etc.). Finally, the current redirect does not make sense, because he is no longer dating Kourtney Kardashian. He also meets WP:GNG, because he has significant coverage (which a quick Google search will show). I don't know how to improve the draft, and I think the editor simply did not approve it due to the past nominations. How can I go about getting this draft approved?

Mukedits (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mukilteoedits, Neither the draft nor the article space look to be salted, so I'm not sure what the problem is that you are running into? Sulfurboy (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sulfurboy:The draft space is not salted, the article space is I believe? I already requested the draft to be unsalted and was able to create it. I asked for the draft to be reviewed and approved but it was denied; however, I don't think it should have been and another editor agreed. Can you provide feedback on why it was not approved? I don't think the reviewing editor properly considered the draft (but I'm not trying to throw shade). Mukedits (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mukilteoedits, Not sure why you're asking me. I didn't decline it. And I'm not seeing any page protection on the mainspace article. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, I thought this was a help page? The feedback said I could post here if I needed help? I'm asking you because you responded to my question asking what the issue was. Also the mainspace article Scott Disick is protected, but it currently redirects to Kourtney Kardashian which is not protected. The reviewer did not respond to my request for further feedback from him and I need to know the next steps for moving forward with getting the article approved.

April 20

09:26:23, 20 April 2020 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:ACEA:385F:12FF:10C4

I am requesting a re-review because I have made the required changes that I understand needed to be implemented. I have ensured that all information is factual and not promotional. 2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:ACEA:385F:12FF:10C4 (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have ignored DGG's advice, which was to not resubmit. Unfortunately nothing substantial has changed: this is a promotional profile for a non-notable individual. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 11:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:46:30, 20 April 2020 review of submission by Sworrubt


I've been advised that this article isn't notable, but the eight other departments in the Faculty of Science and Engineering at The University of Manchester have Wikipedia articles - this is the only one without one.

Sworrubt (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sworrubt, Please see WP:INN Sulfurboy (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:27:00, 20 April 2020 review of draft by WikiMacaroons


I'd like help with improving this page. It was the second I created and the second to be rejected for one reason or another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bill_Stickers_is_innocent

WikiMacaroons (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMacaroons, What did you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy I was told my article perhaps did not qualify for Wikipedia due to the cites. What do you think? WikiMacaroons (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMacaroons, You only have one source and it's an entry on a phrase dictionary. That isn't enough to pass any of our notability guidelines. I would recommend reviewing the links in the decline message that Kylie already provided on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy Thanks for your guidance. Do I send you a barnstar? Sorry I'm a bit of a newbie, only like a hundred edits WikiMacaroons (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:07, 20 April 2020 review of submission by 106.204.207.43


106.204.207.43 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:44, 20 April 2020 review of submission by Muneer19


Muneer19 (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can i know why is it rejected i can i first looked his all the documents and then i started to make this page he has his page on instgram also namely as mb_enterprises_ you can ask him for documents or details so can you please help me in making this page

17:13:26, 20 April 2020 review of submission by Rohitmadanjha


Rohitmadanjha (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It includes a lovely photograph (probably not copyright free though), the subject is not shown to be notable. Facebook is never a reliable source and cannot be used to establish notability and Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics that have been reported on in depth by multiple, independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:06, 20 April 2020 review of submission by Rohitmadanjha


Rohitmadanjha (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rohitmadanjha, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:26, 20 April 2020 review of submission by MissRight44

While creating this article I looked up that article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Esports_Federation, it has less appropriate references than I added to my work. And I am really annoyed with the fact that my work was rejected. Don't you consider "The Herald" as a good news source? Please, give me some advice, so I can have my article published. I have proofs-articles from such websides: The Herald, The Chronicle, Pindula, Zimbabwe News. I'm looking forward for hearing from you!

MissRight44 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MissRight44, It is abundantly clear that you did not read the linked policies that were provided six or seven times over. If you had, you would have learned that The Herald article would be considered WP:ROUTINE coverage. The article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. I would recommend going forward that you edit pages of existing articles that may interest you as to familiarize yourself with our processes, as creating new pages is one of the most difficult tasks you can do on Wikipedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:50:19, 20 April 2020 review of draft by 151.20.130.162


Hi, why this page has been rejected? Thanks


151.20.130.162 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left a decline message on the page itself, are you able to see that? Did you have a specific question about those linked policies? Sulfurboy (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:56:32, 20 April 2020 review of submission by Gkatt655


Gkatt655 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I delete it myself or let you do it?

An admin will come along and delete it shortly. Going forward I would recommend editing already existing articles about topics that interest you. Creating new pages is a very difficult task. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

02:16:22, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Articlegooroo


I'm sort of a standstill now. I initially created the Beyond Better Foods article because it seems a clear candidate for something that should be included in Wikipidia. I cam across it in another article - Lisa Lillien, a known influencer. I figured that as the org is a large, national company with products that have been reviewed by impartial parties (dieticians and nutritionists), as well as large national health and fitness mediums that review all kinds of products on a regular basis, this seemed to make sense. The company's notoriety seems to be clear - it has massive distribution, multiple products and flavors, and has been discussed online, in print, on news channels, and more. It is regularly mentioned as one of the defining organizations that recreated the frozen food aisle, alongside Halo Top, Arctic Zero, and others.

When I initially created the article, I received feedback that there weren't enough sources for it, and that some of the links provided were press releases. I've since removed those, and have provided a number of new links and articles, summarizing their content in the process in the article.

The feedback that I am now getting is it reads too much like a press release or an advertisement, yet I don't see how. The facts are this is a positively reviewed product that changed the industry here. I've also received feedback from the people that rejected it which is referencing content that is no longer in there (some of the press releases). They have since been removed - how do I let them know that?

I tried to also be as impartial as possible, putting negative press that I found as well (they currently have a lawsuit). Other than that, I didn't find much in that area.

Lastly, I based this model on other articles I found that have already been published (like Ben & Jerry's, Dippin Dots, Halo Top, Häagen-Dazs, etc). I don't understand what else I need to do here...can someone please help? Clearly my edits aren't working, so could really have someone else illustrate, on this article, what needs to be done to correct it. Almost everything can easily be found online and is readily available so, yeah.

Please help. It would be most appreciate for article and company that seems to merit this. I'm a bit tired of continuing this :/

Thanks,

Articlegooroo (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articlegooroo, The article has been rejected which means it unfortunately will not be considered further. Please note that creating new pages is one of the most difficult tasks one can undertake on Wikipedia. Further, WP:NCORP is one of the toughest standards for notability. So you had two major things working against you. Many experienced editors go months or years without creating their first page. I would recommend editing existing pages of topics that interest you so you can get a better feel for what we look for in pages. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:08:41, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Itzbasid


I want to request on guide of how to fix my article love to make more article but this is my starting point, and I have issue with citation and reference please I need your guide on it. Thanks

Itzbasid (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Itzbasid, As already suggested to you, the first step would be a read of WP:REFB and H:FOOT. If you still are having issues with properly formatting your sources, you may want to pay a visit to the WP:TEAHOUSE Sulfurboy (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:12:58, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by PHansen.Research


Hi, I need help making the History, Aim & Scope section of my draft article for Democratic Theory read more encyclopaedically. I don't have heaps of experience writing encyclopaedia articles so if someone could help me (or even do it for me) that'd be great. PHansen.Research (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PHansen.Research, Did you need help with something specific? Asking people to write your article for you is a bit untoward. Please see WP:BUILDER. If you just wish to suggest someone should write an article about a subject, you can propose it at WP:SUGGEST Sulfurboy (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PHansen.Research: Here are some simple instructions (almost like a recipe) for how to write an article that won't be rejected. Right now, you're focusing too much on material that is not going to get it approved and so doesn't belong. Just find at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the journal Democratic Theory (not just people who work for it or with it), but are not affiliated with, connected to, or dependent upon Berghahn Books or the staff of Democratic Theory in any way. Summarize those sources, then paraphrase the whole thing. That's literally all you have to do. The "History, Aim & Scope" section is dead weight at this point. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:24:15, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Fact Initiative


I need assistance because my account is about to be deleted and also my article was rejected and I am being directed as using it for promotional. This is a Non-governmental organization and we focus on preventing the spread of fake or misleading news, gossips and stories across the continent.


We will request you approve our article and not regard the account as being promotional.

Thank you.

Fact Initiative (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the page since it was a WP:COPYVIO of your about page, and blocked your account because accounts are for individuals, not groups. When you rename your account or get a new one made, you can find instructions on how to create an article that won't be rejected or deleted in this link. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:41, 21 April 2020 review of submission by No sense of humour


Sorry, the title of the page you created is not correct. The page I created was specifically for "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering Optical Activity". This is a physical effect for chiral scatterers of light.

The editor has renamed the page to "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering", perhaps to shorten it. But this is actually incorrect because "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering" is also a physical effect, one that does not require the scatterers to be chiral.

I can create another page for "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering"... but the one I already created should be properly renamed to "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering Optical Activity" not just "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering".

Thank you! :-)

No sense of humour (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@No sense of humour: This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. After a draft is accepted and published as an article, it is outside our scope. It was published as Hyper Rayleigh Scattering Optical Activity, but subsequently moved several times by different editors. Being edited mercilessly comes with the territory. The most effective place to discuss the optimal title for the article is it's talk page, currently Talk:Hyper–Rayleigh scattering, where some discussion of the matter has already taken place. I recommend that you post there, pinging the participants in the previous discussion (see Help:Notifications for how to do so). --Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:28, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Doodiepoodie


Hello- I got help from the IRC - and have made the changes Doodiepoodie (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I got help from the IRC - and have made the changes

Hi there,

At first I did not agree with the conclusion of the reviewer!

Then I went to the IRC channel and spoke to a user named Majavah who walked me through the issues.

I have fixed these which were (a) putting the main point in the start (b) removing copyright issues (c) removing blogs and other opinion pieces

Please have a look?

Doodiepoodie (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doodiepoodie. I have reviewed the updated draft, and concur with the first reviewer. No amount of editing can fix the problem that he is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Most professors and entrepreneurs aren't. Pick a different topic to write about, we have over 6 million existing ones to choose from, nearly all of which need improvement. See Wikipedia:Community portal if you're unsure where to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Worldbruce - thank you, I will explore the others!

12:26:13, 21 April 2020 review of draft by Magiseif


The article was declined because citations were not put in footnote. However, I believe the only references that are not in footnote are the paper awards. Is that what is meant? I want to make sure I address the comment and not get this article rejected again so any help would be great! Thank you. Magiseif (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magiseif. You are correct about which statements do not cite a source. In addition, external links, ones that take the reader away from Wikipedia - like Magy Seif El-Nasr, are not allowed in the text. They must be removed, converted into citations of references if that is what they are, or collected at the end in an "External links" section (where there shouldn't be many links). Most importantly, Wikipedia is mainly interested in what other people have written about her, not so much in what she says about herself. At present the draft cites only sources written by Magy Seif El-Nasr. Only independent sources demonstrate notability, and the bulk of any article should be based on such arms-length sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:46, 21 April 2020 review of draft by Babbglin


Hi I wanted to fix a link in the article regardng extensible metadata platform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Metadata_Platform) There is a list of software and one of the entires is called "Diffractor", this incorrectly redirects to the article "Diffraction grating" (please note that the term "diffractor" is not being used in this article at all) which has nothing to do with the software called "Diffractor". So I created a new article about the software but it got declied due to page "Diffractor" already existing and redirecting to Diffraction grating. In order to pubish the article for review again I have to cite sources. Which I can't really see how to do. The software has a website (https://diffractor.com/) wich I included in the article. There isn't much more that I can do.

I'm new so I have no idea how to fix this issue :) Thanks!

Babbglin (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Babbglin. I've fixed the original problem on Extensible Metadata Platform for you. You can read about the underlying issue at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The Diffractor tool may not be notable (may not be suitable for a stand-alone encyclopedia article). Even if it is notable, I recommend against pursing a draft about it because creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can attempt. There are many easier and more rewarding ways to improve the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:40:07, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Boston4you



Boston4you (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:17:05, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Noeljg20


Hello, I am trying to create a page similar to the already approved Renesas Microcontroller families RL78, R8C for example. Could you please let me know what would need to be modified in order to create the "RZ microprocessor" page? Thank you,

Noeljg20 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:20:30, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Deldel1010

Could you please advise on how to get a business page on wiki without sounding I guess salesy Deldel1010 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:02:46, 21 April 2020 review of draft by 51moont


51moont (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC) I just submitted full text but it is showing blank page. Could you check?[reply]

16:36:22, 21 April 2020 review of draft by Alexajacome


Alexajacome (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how else to change my article. I reviewed some sentences yesterday that appeared bias but my paper is a summary of a documentary on Amazon prime that accurately depicts what the documentary entails. I do not know how to change it or how to avoid it being deleted.

17:46:01, 21 April 2020 review of draft by SeònaidVilmar


Hi! Curious how I can improve "verifiability?" Sources include Cosmopolitan, the Associated Press, as well as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus (these being the world's two foremost book review trade publications) -- as well as newspapers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pablo_Starr

Also, not 100% sure where the "non-neutral" point of view is?

Thanks for the help!

SeònaidVilmar (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=952324276"