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 Sreenathr10 (talk | contribs) at 18:10, 7 October 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


September 30

20:33:18, 30 September 2018 review of submission by RadiantTiger


Hello

I really need help in getting this article published. Dr. Fawcett has made incredible contributions to psychiatry in research and has been recognized internationally for his work. He is also a noted author. Would a donation help and if so, who do I send it to and for how much? It is my goal to get this published as he is terminally ill and it is a dream to see this article completed. Please please please please please help. I can't stress how important this is.

RadiantTiger (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RadiantTiger Welcome to Wikipedia. The most obvious problem with the draft is that you have used inline external links instead of proper footnote references. See the Referencing for beginners guide to fix it. You should also read the notability standard for academics.
Please note that Wikipedia has no deadlines and may not be used to memorialize anyone or anything. While donations to the Wikimedia Foundation are certainly welcome, it has no influence on the Wikipedia editing community, which is run entirely by volunteers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

05:43:44, 1 October 2018 review of submission by Kitplane01


I read the directions. I understand I cannot ask here for the status of my article. But where can I ask for the status of my article? I wrote it in May, and finished answering all requests in August. I just want to make sure I'm still in the queue.

Kitplane01 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kitplane01 Greetings to you. You could ask your status of your Draft:AN/APS-4 article here. The article still under waiting for review status. We the reviewers are volunteers and the backlog is huge (8-10 weeks) and we are trying to get the review done as soon as possible. Kindly be patient. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kitplane01 Reviewed. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:40:19, 1 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Zpramahlo



Zpramahlo (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:13:50, 1 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 95Grand


I created a page with VERY reliable sources (you cannot get more reliable!) & it was rejected saying that the source was not reliable. The page was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:1990_Channel_10_Challenge_Cup. Can you please explain to me how a publication published Immediately following the event is not reliable?

95Grand (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've cited a Journal by the name of "Rugby News Week", several times in the article. Whilst this could well be a reliable source, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain the validity of paper based sources. I'd suggest WikiLinking these sources (As it took me some digging to realise we have an article on this source.
I'd also suggest finding at least one more independent reference, as notability is a little thin on the ground, if only one source is mentioning the tournament. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the original reviewer to give their opinion. It is likely to be the same as what Lee said so if you work on that it should be fine. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I always check the references of drafts first to assess the notability , but in your draft there are no linked sourced I could refer to . It just looks like you added the source, but did not link it . See other articles like [this] for how linked sources work . For more information see WP:REFB , WP:CITE and WP:RS . Kpgjhpjm 16:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kpgjhpjm: The sources used are from a 1990 magazine, and thus cannot be linked. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


What you have told me is that there is no point adding more to Wikipedia unless it is on the internet either in a Newspaper (& Google Newspapers doesn't have articles form the 90s) or a website that cites no sources)! So what you are in fact telling me is that I should create my own website with no sources & then link it in. Currently, you accept sources from http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/, https://afltables.com/rl/rl_index.html & https://web.archive.org/web/20050226063543/http://users.hunterlink.net.au:80/~maajjs/aus/nsw/sum/nsw1991.htm none of which list their sources! Guess where they get their information from? Rugby League Week (my source in this instance), Rugby League News & Big League Magazines. The reason that I sourced Rugby League Week is that it is the ONLY source where you get all the information in one place on this subject & to find other detailed information, I would have to link newspapers or other hardy copy of magazines. Possibly this is why you do not have a page for this subject at the moment. I am trying to put this information up precisely because it CANNOT be found on the internet! Not everything is on the internet would you believe? If you like, I can send you scanned pages of the magazine.

As for the sources you do accept, this week I have written to http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/ to point out several errors in their website & cited several sources for them to check.

This has been a very disappointing experience for me & I was waiting to add further pages until after I received a response. As Wikipedia apparently accepts unreliable sources & will not accept credible ones, allow opinions to be printed as fact & also allow libellous comments on it, I no longer believe in it's credibility, so I will not be contributing any further.

This is a subject I know well & have many sources that most people do not have access to - even the National Library of Australia doesn't have the information I have. I know I have been there many times. Unfortunately the sources required for this subject for the most part are not available online, so that leaves me in a catch 22 situation. Either I put up (according to you) incredible information or I create a website with no sources & use that website's page as the link to Wikipedia thus doubling the amount of work to do.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95Grand (talk • contribs) 07:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

95Grand - I actually disagree with the reviewing editor in this case, because, Wikipedia DOES accept print sources, and holds no prejudice over its use over a website, provided the publication in question has editorial proceedures in place. If you take a look at WP:RS, most projects on wikipedia will indicate which publications are deemed "reliable", and which do not. Websites, or publications do not have to state which sources they use, but are deemed reliable by consensus of users.
In this case, your source is fine! However, we would still want more than one referee to be commenting on the tournament, to deem that it is a noteworthy tournament. Sometimes, editors (even experienced ones like me), would prefer a link to a publication, as they can then see what coverage the subject recieved. If the tournament had a whole page spread say for several of these entries, it would probably be deemed very notable, however, it could be that it was simply mentioned in small print.
If I saw that it was mentioned in another publication, I'd be willing to promote the article myself; as I feel it would likely then clearly meet WP:GNG. One of the biggest issues is regarding this being a pre-season tournament, which could likely mean, it is less notable than a fully-fledged season tournament. Hope this helps Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been accepted to 1990 Channel 10 Challenge Cup, but the article does not actually pass notability because it relies entirely on a single source, the Rugby League Week magazine. I have tagged it accordingly, though the accepting reviewer probably deserves a trout too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67: I like fish. I did a search before approving the draft. I found a 450 word article in The Canberra Times dated 6 March 1990 talking in depth about the final match link and the challenge drew crowds of 15,000+ at the Pioneer Oval, reported in a 12 page feature by the Champion-post dated 16 February 1990 first page link the same paper reported on the event again on the 21 February 1990 and 11 April 1990. If someone wanted to write up the whole season it was covered by The Canberra Times over several articles [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (links to Trove). I took that as enough to meet GNG if you could reconsider the tag please. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Frayae I've removed the notability tag, please pass the seafood... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


how do I put an image? It's too hard for me.

Blink 1102 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:40, 1 October 2018 review of draft by 68.103.78.155


I Created this Category On Saturday and I put 6 References but I hope is it enough for an article please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why Didn't you Answer Me Yesterday. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. We are all volenteers, and it can take some time for us to get back to users. Your article is in the review queue, and will be dealt with as soon as we can. There is an arguement regarding WP:TOOSOON against this article, however there are some references regarding shows not returning from 18-19, so I'll leave it to a reviewer with more knowledge of TV/American projects. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is a review queue. I Hope this article moves to article space soon. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

07:39:15, 2 October 2018 review of draft by Farooqqammar12


How much time Wikipedia takes to approved my article my article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dolmen_Malls

Farooqqammar12 (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated it on 24 September, about 8 days ago. You might have noticed that, at the top of the template, it says "This may take more than two months" - this is because there are nearly 4,000 other submissions just like yours waiting to be reviewed. As the template says - please be patient. – numbermaniac 09:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:45:51, 2 October 2018 review of submission by 2600:1700:FB00:9C00:D4FE:243:70E7:A0ED


Why was a new article written instead of this declined draft being moved into article space? --2600:1700:FB00:9C00:D4FE:243:70E7:A0ED (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC) 2600:1700:FB00:9C00:D4FE:243:70E7:A0ED (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

Request on 11:47:57, 3 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahendarprajapati



Mahendarprajapati (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


October 4

01:11:39, 4 October 2018 review of draft by Tyler mack13


i would like to know if this page would be considered to be acceptable for my client? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Allan_Aziz if so how can i improve it?

Tyler mack13 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Please disclose any conflict of interests or paid editing. Also, unsourced biographies of living people are not accepted. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:43:02, 4 October 2018 review of submission by Chennai Information Updater


Chennai Information Updater (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


my articles declining all the time ..., am not a paid editor and just provide all details which were available from the internet... Can somebody help me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Star_Martin

10:01:13, 4 October 2018 review of draft by 154.78.234.122


why is my article being declined

154.78.234.122 (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it lacks secondary sources to establish notability. See the decline notices at the top of your draft. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:06:21, 4 October 2018 review of submission by Lucia S Herrera


We are requesting a re-review for Zangi. Zangi is an established and up and coming company in the tech industry which deserves to be considered notable for the following reasons.

- It's competitors in company size and age are considered notable. For example: RetroShare, Tox, Bitmessage, Ricochet, & Ring are all serverless instant messaging companies who have the same or less amount of sources in quantity, and these sources are not in any publications more prestigious than the updated sources that I have presented on the Zangi wikipedia. - Zangi is an international corporation, developed in an highly recognized tech industry regions like Silicon Valley and Armenia (a google search of Armenia's tech industry would show the countries trending interest in this field). - Another related topic of interest these days is the sort of software Zangi is relevant to. Serverless, Secure Data, decentralized automation for business communication.

I believe that publishers like Reuters (Domain Authority of 94), TG Daily (Domain Authority 98), and Crunchbase (DA 91) are recognized for their legitimacy and should be considered notable.

I hope you will reconsider Zangi, and I look forward to constructive criticism on ways to improve this page to meet Wikipedia standards.

thank you for your time and consideration,

Lucia Lucia S Herrera (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucia S Herrera: It's competitors are irrelevant to its notability on Wikipedia. Articles can be notable while having few sources, notability only requires that these sources exist - although they should be added to the articles. Notability is not inherited from other software or companies. As for the three sources you pointed out, all your references to Reuters were not produced by them and are hence not secondary and more press releases, so they cannot establish notability; Crunchbase is not considered reliable as it consists of user-generated content (source). It appears that TG Daily might be a good source, but you need at least 3 good ones to pass WP:GNG (with more specific criteria at WP:NCORP), so as is the article definitely appears to fall short; I haven't looked for others, but if Newslinger has said that it's not notable, presumably he's looked. Note that this can all change with time. LittlePuppers (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lucia S Herrera, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I rejected Draft:Zangi (software) because the sources cited in the draft don't show that Zangi meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline. To qualify for an article, a subject needs to have received significant coverage in at least 2 reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here are the sources cited in the draft:
  1. Odyssey: Not significant coverage and not a reliable source. See Odyssey (publication). Short mention in a listicle from a crowdsourced publication (user-generated content) with little to no quality control.
  2. Medium: Not reliable or independent. Published on Zangi's blog.
  3. Bloglovin': Not reliable. Self-published blog.
  4. Crunchbase: Not significant. Directory listing.
  5. Crunchbase: Duplicate of #4.
  6. Trend Hunter: Not reliable. Crowdsourced publication with little to no quality control, according to their FAQ.
  7. Zangi Blog: Not reliable or independent.
  8. TGDaily: Not reliable. No named authors. Publication has no editorial team.
  9. Reuters: Not independent. Story is a "Reuters Brand Feature", which is "a paid for, custom created solution which allows brands to share their story with their target audience on Reuters.com".
  10. Interesting Engineering: Not reliable. Site doesn't distinguish between content ads and non-sponsored content.
  11. Zangi Blog: Not reliable or independent.
  12. Interesting Engineering: Duplicate of #10.
  13. Reuters: Duplicate of #9.
  14. Reuters: Not independent. "Reuters Brand Feature", just like #9.
  15. Reuters: Not independent. "Reuters Brand Feature", just like #9.
  16. Microsoft TechNet Gallery: Not reliable. User-generated content.
I rejected the draft instead of declining it because an internet search did not reveal any other sources that would meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. My suggestion to you is to focus on your product, and to spend your effort on improving Zangi. As Zangi becomes more notable, it will naturally attract press attention, and you can always submit another draft to Wikipedia when Zangi qualifies for an article in the future. — Newslinger talk 22:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please take a moment to review Wikipedia's policy on paid contributions. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 23:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:44, 4 October 2018 review of draft by Bmasi


Have I submitted the draft for review correctly Bmasi (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiki community, I have reviewed my article on Lara Porzak several times after having been declined because I had two versions of it in my sandbox. I have since deleted the old one and submitted the most updated version for review but it has been a long time since I submitted and I just wanted to know if it was perhaps because I hadn't submitted correctly. Could someone please advise me? Many thanks Beatrice

  • It is correctly submitted. Please be patient while the review is waiting. This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are almost 4000 pending submissions waiting for review. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

03:18:23, 5 October 2018 review of draft by 68.103.78.155


Can you Put the 2019-20 United States Network Televison Schedule to article space please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:36:28, 5 October 2018 review of submission by Partha Varanashi

I really don't understand this format of work. My sources are legit, As the article is about my grandfather. It would a great help to simplify this. Partha Varanashi (talk)

Partha Varanashi - You will also need to officially state your Conflict of interests, as you are related to the subject. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:28:52, 5 October 2018 review of draft by Yulokyuan


Yulokyuan (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:52, 5 October 2018 review of draft by 3dukasyon


3dukasyon (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edukasyon.ph was reviewed more than a moth ago and I provided all the necessary citations and links to the article, yet I haven't received any feedback until now.

11:45:59, 5 October 2018 review of draft by Rufus2017


Rufus2017 (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm trying to submit an article but it keeps being rejected due to unreliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Petroc_Sesti&action=edit I am unclear as to what is unreliable about these sources. Please could you clarify? Thanks, Alex

  • Sources need to be independent of the subject, I think that sources from a gallery the artist is affiliated with are being treated as unreliable because they are effectively self published. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:01, 5 October 2018 review of submission by 23.241.37.38

I am trying to find out who was the owner of my home and had it built in 1941 fourth Street San Fernando Ca. and what was the lot size??? 23.241.37.38 (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, anon. You are going to have to look somewhere else, unfortunately. Wikipedia is not the place for this. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:14, 5 October 2018 review of submission by Francman200


Completely revamped the details and added more references and prominent family ties. The contact is not only a successful and renowned business entrepreneur but is also the son of a prominent philanthropist and art collector and the grandson of a famous media figure. Francman200 (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:31, 5 October 2018 review of submission by Jamaican Wiki


HDKyle, How can I get this page approved? Jamaican Wiki (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be truthful I don't think you can because the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia. If you really must get that draft approved, read WP:COI and follow the instructions. Then read WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC to get an idea of the policies which your work is being assessed against and rewrite the draft with significant improvements before submitting it again. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

06:59:21, 6 October 2018 review of submission by Supreet1234


I have been instructed to create this Wikipedia page for this gentleman called Mr. Rohit Bansal who is at a very senior position at the Reliance Industries. I have to give regular update to my seniors for this page's progress as they need to submit this wikipedia page to the people at reliance industries. I had simply no clue as to what should be written and what should not be written, and how should it be written while defining who Mr. Rohit Bansal is.. I have been learning with trial and error method to create this page for Mr. Rohit Bansal. Also, despite reading a lot of articles on how to correctly create wikipedia page for a person, a fool like me is still with empty hands. I request you to please help me out with the creation of this page as I have to report this to my seniors. Please help me.. its been a long time since i have been trying to create this but due to being stuck in so many other tasks and lack of time and knowledge, I have been repeating mistakes.

KINDLY, help me with the creation of this page. It is important for the security of my job. Please help Sir. Supreet1234 (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Please disclose any conflicts of interest and paid editing before you continue. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:29:21, 6 October 2018 review of draft by SuperTramp1987


SuperTramp1987 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've got a problem creating an article, and I chose to create an English article of Gräddö in Wikipedia, e.g.. Can anyone please help me! --SuperTramp1987 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:34:14, 6 October 2018 review of draft by Kidvskat22


I would really like a writer that needs recondition for scrips he has written for a upcoming series. What can I do for this draft to get approved? Kidvskat22 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may add more content about the person and most importantly sources. All biographies of living people must include at least one independent, secondary source to show that the subject exists. We have a very strict policy on BLPs. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:18, 6 October 2018 review of submission by Shmuel.zweinstein


Submission declined on August 19 2018. I have made the changes requested and resubmitted for (re)review. It's been dead silence since. PLEASE HELP!

Shmuel.zweinstein (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:24, 6 October 2018 review of draft by 185.61.186.146

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Please, could someone review this interesting article in mathematics? (Bernoulli polynomials of the second kind). The article was written more than 10 days ago and is ready for publication. The material exposed in the article is accessible not only for mathematicians, but also for students in mathematics. The links are verifiable and easy to find.

185.61.186.146 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:10:14, 7 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Sreenathr10



Sreenathr10 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:27, 7 October 2018 review of submission by Sreenathr10


Sreenathr10 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=862939699"