Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 47.72.203.102 (talk) at 20:34, 12 September 2018 (→20:33:16, 12 September 2018 review of submission by 47.72.203.102). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


September 6

02:25:06, 6 September 2018 review of draft by 68.103.78.155


Can you put the 2018–19 United States Network Television Schedule (Late Night) to the main article page please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi@68.103.78.155: - I was going to go ask at 2018–19 United States network television schedule if they could help, however I think that would be extremely premature. If you have at their equivalent boxes of programming, every single show/slot has to be referenced. Currently yours doesn't have any, so I don't think they would be willing to add it in as it currently is. If you have a look at the type of referencing they use you might be able to locate equivalent references. Once you've done that, it is probably worth asking on their talk page Talk:2018–19 United States network television schedule if they can help add it in. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Did Put A Reference In And I Think it's Ready to Move into Article Space. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:01:08, 6 September 2018 review of submission by Hoppie19911


im requesting assistance in order to gather the correct refferences for my article submission that needs ammendmants if anyone can help me i will be truly grateful.

Hoppie19911 (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:34, 6 September 2018 review of submission by Amithaaamis


Amithaaamis (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:25:29, 6 September 2018 review of submission by Abdi110


Abdi110 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:39:06, 6 September 2018 review of draft by Editor-Milburn


I posted a page for review in early June. How much longer should it take for review? Editor-Milburn (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Editor-Milburn Editor-Milburn (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor-Milburn. Only 30 out of the 3744 drafts in the pool to be reviewed have been waiting longer, so my best guess would be no more than a week or two until the next review. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:56, 6 September 2018 review of draft by Yuriromanorussia


My article for Isaac Angking was declined due to the fact that he has not played a game for a fully professional team yet. However, he has just earned his first cap for the New England Revolution. How can I resubmit my draft?

Yuriromanorussia (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the review is currently pending, I assume you were able to resolve this :) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:22:47, 6 September 2018 review of draft by FelixCreative


Hi. I'm confused as to the reference to promoting Leilani Bishop. We only listed her name and linked her name to her wikipedia page. Is this not allowed?



FelixCreative (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:24:50, 6 September 2018 review of submission by FelixCreative

In terms of secondary references, we dont have any less than some other agencies listed. We dont court media or use PR agencies.

Also, I'm not sure about the lack of 'neutral tone' as we used similar wordage to other agency listings. Please assist.


FelixCreative (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:FelixCreative#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

00:35:20, 7 September 2018 review of draft by Xaviertherapper


Xaviertherapper (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a online music feature

12:32:15, 7 September 2018 review of submission by Naresh Yadav Ateli


Naresh Yadav Ateli (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:02:36, 7 September 2018 review of submission by Joe Rockefeller

there is a federal ethical investigation of the name utilized as the information provided by me is the proven fact I know. Joe Rockefeller (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that your submission to Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the help desk. Thank you. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:27, 7 September 2018 review of draft by Shadwell Basin


Shadwell Basin (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To: Nosebagbear, Gbawden, Cassiopeia, Worldbruce, 

    Thank you all for your help and advice while trying to write the above. I'm most grateful.
    The article is now waiting review in due course and I hope meets Wiki style and requirements,  
    though still struggling to find three page numbers for newspaper articles cited.
                                                                             Many thanks
                                                                             Shadwell Basin

17:38:46, 7 September 2018 review of draft by Abdulelah1


Abdulelah1 (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Fruiticulture submission was rejected because the reviewer wrote "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Pomology instead."

Fruiticulture is a new term. Times are changing and advances are being made in agriculture. Pomology is not synonymous with the new term Fruiticulture. The emerging term Fruiticulture means "a form of vegan permaculture agroforestry that focuses on fruit growing. This is not exactly Pomomology. Please allow the advancement of the lexicon by allowing this new definition of Fruiticulture.

Respectfully,

Abdulelah

Hi Abdulelah1. The redirect from fruiticulture to pomology was created in 2011, so it isn't a completely new term. However old it is, it may still be too new to justify a stand alone article. Wikipedia is, by design, a trailing source. It doesn't cover topics until they've received significant attention from the world at large. Only one of the draft's twelve sources mentions the term, and it may not be a reliable source. You can open a discussion at Talk:Pomology, or one of the WikiProjects listed there, about whether fruiticulture should be covered in a separate article, but they'll expect you to show significantly better sources about fruiticulture than what's in the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:19, 7 September 2018 review of draft by Mythbusterbuilding1


Mythbusterbuilding1 (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have submitted my first article, I want to make sure that it is in guideline. There are a lot of requirements, how can I get my article published without any errors on Wikipedia?

Hi Mythbusterbuilding1. Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so practice, practice, practice. I, for instance, spent six years making about 1,500 edits to existing articles before creating one. By then I understood which topics were suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia and which weren't. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:23:17, 7 September 2018 review of submission by Demographichistorian


I was wondering which statements where made on the article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Greek_atrocities_in_Macedonia_and_Thrace

please inform me so I can either remove these statements or provide citations .

Demographichistorian (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

08:46:49, 8 September 2018 review of draft by JohnK3142


Background

Wanting to produce an article on Babylon.js I found that this draft page with the title [| BabylonJS] is still open for editing and a previous a draft with title Babylon.js [draft article] was deleted. To ensure my article is substantially different to and meets the Wikipedia criteria I have asked RHaworth for a copy of the deleted Babylon.js article.

Question

Regarding the titles BabylonJS and Babylon.js which of the following is the better option

1. Edit BabylonJS and redirect Babylon.js to it

2. Submit a new page Babylon.js, have the BabylonJS page deleted and redirect BabylonJS to Babylon.js

No longer relevant have decided on 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnK3142 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JohnK3142 (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:55, 8 September 2018 review of draft by Anonymous1941


Can somebody please take a look at my draft because I resubmitted the draft and with the help of Primefac I was able to fix all the issues with my draft. I have resubmitted the draft and it has been more than two weeks and no one has took a look at my draft. I would really appreciate it if someone reviews my draft.--Anonymous1941 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous1941 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anonymous1941. Someone will review it. The backlog of drafts awaiting review is 2 months going on 3 months, so don't expect anything to happen until November or thereabouts. While you wait, feel free to chip in at Wikipedia:Community portal to reduce some of the encyclopedia's many backlogs. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:40:10, 8 September 2018 review of draft by Srajprosadm


Trying to find out how much longer it is going to take to approve the Praana: article. Thanks much!

Srajprosadm (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srajprosadm 574 drafts have been waiting longer to be reviewed. It has been waiting 7 weeks. The backlog is running between 2 and 3 months. So I would guess it will be a few more weeks before the next review. Of course there's no guarantee that the next review will result in acceptance. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


September 9

01:59:35, 9 September 2018 review of submission by Christianadrias


Christianadrias (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:27:59, 9 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Abb14c


I wrote an article for publication. After review it was not accepted because it sounded like a poem. However, I cleared the text in the editing box and wrote a new one which I published.I haven't received any information yet. Again I still see the message that was left by the reviewer whenever I open my sandbox

Abb14c (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abb14c The article above seems to have been deleted, as you have requested it to be. I cannot see the page, so I can't offer help Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:12:28, 9 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Fazlam


I'm trying to make an initial page for the ethnic Pahari people who live in the western part of the jammu kashmir region but i'm being told a page is already made but that page refers to the pahari people of nepal who live east of the jammu kashmir region.

Fazlam (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fazlam - There isn't enough information here to warrant a new page specifically for it. If you can gain sourced information for this, then add it to Pahari people. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:42:22, 9 September 2018 review of draft by Vellino


Hi - I was hoping someone might be able to review my submission. I submitted my second version 8 weeks ago.

Many thanks - André

Vellino (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vellino Reviewed and declined. See comments on the panel atop of the draft page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:55:31, 9 September 2018 review of draft by UnrealAir


When I attempt to change the link to the channel on the infobox, it always ahows a link to some banned youtube channel and the channel parameter always reads P. Michael P. Link I want it to go to: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3q7lahh4WXoco8h-JTMATA P.S. I just repurposed PewDiePie's infobox. --UnrealAir (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC) UnrealAir (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UnrealAir - I have fixed this particular link. However, you should ask the question - is the subject notable for a wikipedia page? Please see the general notability guidelines, and see if the subject meets these. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Request on 01:21:05, 10 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 137.119.141.90



137.119.141.90 (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:18, 10 September 2018 review of draft by Sharath RK Teja


Sharath RK Teja (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out the parts of the article that sounds promotional, so that I can improve it?

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Sharath RK Teja#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your declaration, Sharath RK Teja. I see that Draft:Grptalk has been deleted for being unambiguous advertising or promotion. So the short answer to your question about which parts is "all parts". See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for an explanation of why it's a bad idea for a company to try to write an encyclopedia article about themselves, and what the alternatives are. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:15, 10 September 2018 review of draft by Navysaylorgirl


Navysaylorgirl (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not how to resolve some of the original editor's comments. We had an exchange back when I originally wrote this, and he offered some advice, but now I can't find that page, and it looks like he is taking a break from Wiki. I haven't been paid to write this, so I really don't know what to do about that. Can someone offer some suggestions on more neutral language to use to make this less "overly positive"? I'd really like to get this posted in some form. T/Y

@Navysaylorgirl: The user is not inactive, they just edited an hour and a half ago, see Special:Contributions/Cameron11598. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


September 11

Request on 03:04:01, 11 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Navysaylorgirl


I asked for help making the article I submitted more neutral. I was especially confused because the message I get states that the original editor "is taking a short wikibreak." But the editor that responded told me that the original editor was in fact available. However, that editor provided no constructive help, which does me no good. I would simply like to do what is necessary to get this to meet the guidelines. TY


Navysaylorgirl (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Navysaylorgirl. Removing information from non-independent sources can help achieve a neutral point of view. I tried that as an exercise, and there's almost nothing left. The two remaining sources are independent and reliable, but they do not contain significant coverage of Proman. This leads me to conclude, like reviewer Cameron11598, that Proman is not notable (not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article). No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. The only constructive advice I can offer is to move on to a different topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:03:30, 11 September 2018 review of draft by Mvscrimenti


I don't understand why article submission was rejected. The editor said there weren't enough high-quality sources, but I have 15 news stories about this company from Reuters, Bloomberg, Forbes, FT and other highly-reputable news sources. Please advise. Mvscrimenti (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:16, 11 September 2018 review of submission by Kai Kiat


Draft:Mao_Daqing

Hi. Did anyone see this latest revision?

Kai Kiat (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kai Kiat. No one has seen Draft:Mao Daqing because it has not been submitted for review. You may submit it by clicking the blue button in the large gray box at the top of the draft. Note that the draft has significant formatting problems, possibly caused by copying and pasting a rendered article instead of copying and pasting the wiki markup from the edit tab of an existing article. The draft also misuses external links. There should be no links in the text that take the reader away from Wikipedia. It might be wise to fix those problems before you submit the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:42:17, 11 September 2018 review of draft by Mpwong


I received this response to my submission: Please note Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. Does this mean that I have to remove internal references to people cited that have Wiki pages?

Mpwong (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mpwong. Yes. Do not write Student of Chiura Obata<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiura_Obata</ref>, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference. Instead write Student of [[Chiura Obata]] See WP:Linking for more information about internal links.
More generally, you seem to have missed the point of references. In a statement like, "She went on to become a corp de ballet dancer for the San Francisco Opera Ballet Company [1]." the reference must prove that she was a corps de ballet dancer for the San Francisco Opera Ballet Company. The cited source proves nothing of the kind, it's just the San Francisco Opera's homepage, which doesn't mention her at all. See citing sources and WP:REFB for further guidance.
Understand that although the above are important problems to fix, they are not the main problems with the draft. The main problems are that it is based far too heavily on what the artist says about herself, and very little on what independent sources, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, say about her. An encyclopedia biography should not be a copy of the person's website. By not using independent sources, the draft fails to demonstrate that she is notable (that she belongs in Wikipedia). To correct this, throw away everything you've done and start over, using only independent sources at first. Once you've squeezed everything you can out of independent sources, you may add something non-controversial from non-independent sources here and there to round out the biography. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://sfopera.com/

13:54:28, 11 September 2018 review of draft by Fabregado


Please i want to know if my article is due for publishing? I have corrected every errors there in, but if there is/are any please let me know


Fabregado (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:52:10, 11 September 2018 review of submission by Robroots187


Robroots187 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I have added more sources and news to qualify ... This is starting to look like discrimination ...

Yes, we require subjects to be notable and do not allow fabricated content such as "has a single produced by Wiz Khalifa" with absolutely no sources to support such a claim. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

06:34:24, 12 September 2018 review of submission by Xaviertherapper


Xaviertherapper (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not quite sure why this was rejected again. Xavier is a signed artist under a major label and is currently on tour in Europe. We made this page for his fans to look more into his past once he's left their city. If you look though the reference links you'll see tour dates etc. Xavier was also mentioned on Billboard, SlugMag and Complex News/Media. Before I submitted the last article I browsed over other artist in his range with way less notifiable features and and noticed they have Wikipedia pages. This is very unfortunate, I've written articles for way less notable people then Xavier with no trouble. Seems like this young African American artist from Utah still can't catch a break even if his life depended on it. Thanks anyways, Morris Plaza - Artist Manager

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Xaviertherapper#Declare any connection. You write that you've written articles for other people too, evidently not under your Xaviertherapper account. The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account", so you need to disclose all other accounts you've used, and any conflicts of interest you have with topics edited with those accounts. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:05:15, 12 September 2018 review of draft by Bestow123


How do I resubmit article for review?

Bestow123 (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bestow123. There is a blue "Resubmit" button in the big pink box at the top of the draft. The depth of coverage in the sources is insufficient to demonstrate notability, so there isn't much point in resubmitting unless you can find more substantial sources that are also independent and reliable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:23, 12 September 2018 review of draft by Ninjamukesh


Ninjamukesh (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:42:02, 12 September 2018 review of submission by Shankaruppusamy

I have submitted the page earlier and it was rejected for the lack of structure and references. I have edited the page again. Please review and let me know if this qualifies or to be improved further. Shankaruppusamy (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shankaruppusamy. The draft fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Also, Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:16:20, 12 September 2018 review of draft by Fuchs ufficiale


There is a Wikipedia article titled Delta del Po which is in Italian, Veneto, and French (among a few other languages) and I think it should exist in English, too. I tried to start a translation of the page, but I was informed that there is a subsection of another page (Po(River)) that already covers the Po River Delta. I am glad that there is information on the Po River Delta online but I think the page of Delta del Po should be available in English as well.

Thank you for your assistance!

Fuchs ufficiale (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuchs ufficiale. To justify a separate article, you need more than the one paragraph in User:Fuchs ufficiale/sandbox/Po Delta. The best approach would be to start by expanding Po (river)#Po Delta. If and when that section becomes long enough to stand on its own, and too large to continue as part of the river article, it can be spun out into a new article Po Delta. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:07, 12 September 2018 review of draft by Adrian Dern


Hello,

i created an article about the "Adolf-Wuerth-Center for the History of Psychology" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adolf-Wuerth-Center_for_the_History_of_Psychology), which has been classified as a draft. There is actually already a german version of that institution and I only wanted to translate and create an "international"/english version of it. Unfortunately I am not able to post the article to the normal Wikipedia-Site and it says that I have to wait for a review that can take more than two months. I actually don't think that there's any necessity to review the article, because of enough sources etc. I would be glad, if you could help me to move the article.

Sincerely A.

Adrian Dern (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:18, 12 September 2018 review of draft by Mythbusterbuilding1


Mythbusterbuilding1 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add links on the image section?

17:05:44, 12 September 2018 review of submission by Navysaylorgirl

I

I apologize for perhaps seeming difficult with this. Regarding Worldbruce's exercise in removing the non-neutral data, I understand why some of the citations are considered non-neutral, but I'm having a hard time understanding why a citation from the SEC isn't considered neutral. Also, why is a website showing that Proman is a Board member considered non-neutral, when the "fact" in question is whether he is a Board member or not? I'm confused as to the issue of using NAPW and PDN sources, since those are the companies he founded / worked for, and furthermore, those are acceptable sources in other cases (the NAPW site) to which a search of "Matthew Proman" on Wiki currently links to. Finally, why is Proman suddenly considered not notable, when there was a "Matthew Proman" Wiki page for well over two years, using some of the same citations as the page I'm attempting to put up, and using language that was certainly less neutral? I was attempting to produce a much fairer page, than what originally existed. So why is my attempt so problematic?

Also, I haven't figured out how to respond to the original editor to ask them directly, so I'm not trying to circumvent them. If someone could tell me how to do that, I would -- gladly. TYNavysaylorgirl (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navysaylorgirl (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:33:16, 12 September 2018 review of submission by 47.72.203.102


Hi there, this page easily satisfies WP:BAND and there should be no question that a Wikipedia page should ben created considering their size, influence and notoriety in the music industry. (A list detailing how they satisfy this criteria is on Cullen’s talk page). Just because the page has been created very poorly multiple times by overexcited fanboys in the past (and rightly rejected) doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t deserve an article now. Could you please elaborate? Thanks. 47.72.203.102 (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=859255846"