Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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


March 28

02:36:37, 28 March 2019 review of draft by Kmccook


Kmccook (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a draft submitted on a photographer, Jason Thrasher. I was working in my sandbox and somehow it got declined in the sandbox but I think I have done the work needed with inline citations for the actual draft. can you help me? I am not asking for early review of the draft--I know you are busy but my sandbox work might have mixed things up. Thank you here is the draft 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jason_Thrasher   Kmccook (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kmccook (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article not published

05:27:50, 28 March 2019 review of submission by ShwetaSmenon


shweta singh 05:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

06:55:20, 28 March 2019 review of draft by Platipusica


Hi there! I have no idea where to find "reliable sources" which mentioned Jam.py framework, other than this two in references, and this ones here: http://codegeeks.xyz/category/jampy/ https://devrix.com/tutorial/35-best-html5-and-css3-responsive-frameworks/

This is creating impossible situation for me which I can't resolve. Please advice.

Thanks

PS

29 March 2019 Thank you for reviewing and pointing "More like #5 needed.". I added one more and hope this will help in making a positive decision.

Btw, I do not see any references for this framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottle_(web_framework). Or this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_(web_server)

refereed in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_frameworks

No comments.

Kind Regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Platipusica (talk • contribs) 03:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Platipusica (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:35:27, 28 March 2019 review of submission by Convo Agent One


Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review my draft. However, I would like to request a re-review because I believe that the subject is notable enough to be included into Wikipedia. I base this belief on several substantial news and mentions in several independent publications available online about the subject, some of which have been utilized to create the content. Both this quality of being covered by media publications frequently since the subject's foundation and its active status in the online marketplace in the country (India) makes me feel that an inclusion in Wikipedia is valid.

I should add that I have a conflict of interest on this draft, which I have declared on its Talk page.

Any more clarity on this would be greatly appreciated. I thank the community again for its time and consideration. Convo Agent One (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are differing opinions on this draft. AfC is an optional process. If you want the page, move it yourself Legacypac (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding, Legacypac. I wouldn't want to do that because I have a conflict of interest with the subject. And as per WP:PE point #5, I would request the AfC community to regard it and publish if it meets the criteria, which I believe it does. Please do let me know if there's anything more I could add/edit. Thank you for your support. Convo Agent One (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:25, 28 March 2019 review of submission by Hottfitnsexy


How he is not notable when he is being published by major media websites and the sites have all been sourced in the page? Please have someone else review this article again because you are not reading the material and sources. Hottfitnsexy (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you will have to discuss with User:RHaworth who has made this page impossable to create without Admin tools because it has been created so often problematically. Legacypac (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:23, 28 March 2019 review of submission by Chris7turner


Hello. Comments made by editor K.e.coffman regarding the notability of AFDP Global have been taken on board. The notability guidelines require that 'each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be multiple of such qualifying sources.'

More of these sources covering the social enterprise's launch have therefore been added, including MSN, FOX Sports and Reuters, as have subsequent significant mentions of the organisation, including in The Guardian, CNN, Reuters again and Inside World Football.

Overall, sources now include these above plus the Washington Post, the BBC, Eurosport (owned by Discovery Communications)and Associated Press. Is this enough to establish the notability of the organisation? Chris7turner (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris7turner, I've taken a look at the draft. The only current content that might be worth keeping is the "History" section, all the rest is fluff at best or even simply irrelevant. I have not evaluated the sources as it's close to bedtime for me. Trim it down to only what's in the History section and resubmit it for another review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:53, 28 March 2019 review of draft by Paul Wynter


newbie to editing pages for WIKI, I had been blocked because I use a VPN I am based in Bangkok and have to use a UK vpn for company reasons and privacy abroad reasons how can I clear this block, I am now using my HOME IP address (3BB ISP) which is not VPNed, thank you.

Paul Wynter (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:24, 28 March 2019 review of draft by Bigchip


Hi, In 2010, I created the article Dog Is Dead. I last edited it in 2016 (although others have since then). This February (nearly 9 years later), I received a message on my Talkpage headed: "Submission declined on 22 February 2019 by Legacypac (talk)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bigchip/Dog_Is_Dead

1. Does this refer to my original creation of the article (9 years ago)? Or to my latest edit to the page (nearly 3 years ago)? Or to more recent edits by other users?

2. What is the process for responding directly to this reviewer's message, so I can resolve this issue? I believe the article, with 24 references including the BBC, should qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia without further editing by me.

Bigchip (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bigchip Greetings. Reviewer Legacypac declined the article 'Dog is Dead' in 'your sub page' which you created on 17:19, June 13, 2010. You then created Dog Is Dead article in the main space a few hours later on 20:05, June 13, 2010 and this article is not declined and is in Wikipedia (In another words you have nothing to worry about) - see your contribution history HERE. Kindly place {{Db-G7}} on top of User:Bigchip/Dog Is Dead and state "request deletion from creator" so your sub page of Dog is Dead is deleted. Pop back here if you need further assistance. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:00, 28 March 2019 review of draft by WJG222


I am trying to submit a draft for review, and it will not allow me to do that. It keeps telling me it's a draft and not reviewed, but will not go into review mode.

WJG222 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:48, 28 March 2019 review of submission by Renlock


Could you please elaborate on the non-notability opinion for Vasudevacharya. Vasudevacharya is a noted scholar on the subject of Advaita Vedanta in Australia, India, other parts of Asia and the USA. He has been interviewed by the government run Australian Broadcasting Commission and the national Indian broadsheet newspaper “the Hindu”. What do you consider would make this noted scholar more noteworthy. He is not a household name but in the area of Indian Philosophy and particularly Advaita Vedanta he is considered a world authority. Renlock (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Renlock (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renlock Greetings. I didnt go through the draft page, but I am here to help answer your question above. For a article to be merit a page in Wikipedia, the subject needs to be notable and the content need to supported by multiple independent, reliable sources which the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept and not only merely passing mentioned. Pls note home page, official site, interviews, press releases, user generated sites, sources associated with the subject and etc can NOT be used to contribute/demonstrate the notability of the subject. In addition, the content needs to be written in neutral point of view and free of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PROMOTION tone. Pls read WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR for notability guidelines and forWP:GOLDENRULE additional info. (note: pls click the blue highlighted texts for details info) cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CASSIOPEIA for your assistance. Renlock (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:52, 28 March 2019 review of submission by Pivotcyclesron


I am wondering why my content was rejected. I am happy to edit but I am not sure what I need to do from here. Pivotcyclesron (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft fails WP:NCOMPANY, we require significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources and this reads like an advert, not surprising as you seem to have a conflict of interest being a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:42:19, 28 March 2019 review of draft by OfficerMeowMeowFuzzyFace


Hi, can you please help me. Wondering what other sources I can add that would help the article be approved. I'm looking at various articles for indie level artists and the sources seem on par with what I've provided.

Also, what can I use for notability criteria in addition to them being signed to a well known and historied electronic label?

Thank you for your assistance.


OfficerMeowMeowFuzzyFace (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OfficerMeowMeowFuzzyFace Hi good day. First of all, you need to re-read the comment left by the reviewer, and secondly pls click on the blue hightlited text for they willl bring to you other pages for details information of the topics. Do pop back here AFTER you have read them (including the info of links) then come back here if you have specific questions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@OfficerMeowMeowFuzzyFace: Being signed to an important indie label is not one of the notability criteria. If you're saying the band has released two or more albums on one of the more important indie labels (and thus meets criterion #5 of WP:NBAND), then you're burying the lead. Bands aren't a dime a dozen, they're a penny a gross. Tell the reader in the first sentence or two why they should read an encyclopedia article about this band, why they are notable. If you're using other articles as examples, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best work. There's a lot of junk in Wikipedia that you don't want to imitate. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you both for the responses. I've added more sources from national publications, and details on national touring that should meet notability criteria #1 and #4. Will resubmit today.

Request on 21:45:15, 28 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Sapphire099



Sapphire099 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:41:27, 28 March 2019 review of submission by IJD3NN3I


I am asking for a re-review as this article is similar to already published articles such as the ones that are stated as in the surrounding areas. Any further issues to whether this article can not be published, please identify for myself to alter accordingly.

IJD3NN3I (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IJD3NN3I. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or that it is welcome. It is not a good excuse to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
The draft has been declined for reading like an advertisement and rejected because it fails to demonstrate that the topic meets WP:ORG. Four of the draft's references are the league itself, and the fifth is the governing body of the sport, hardly arms-length sources. The bulk of any article should be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources, but the draft shows no significant coverage in such sources. If it were resubmitted as is, I would decline it for failing to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

05:54:29, 29 March 2019 review of submission by Usernameisentered


The company, whom this page is about, is a major property developer in Bangalore India. With over 50 properties to date. I was going to expand on this with more information from more sources when i found them, but it was removed before i had the chance. I think this is notable enough to be included on wikipedia, as their direct competitors such as Sobha Ltd. have a page of their own.

Usernameisentered (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameisentered: - articles require multiple high quality secondary sources. Company articles require the highest level of sourcing quality (corporate notability). Currently the draft has 3 sources all from the company's website.
It shouldn't be submitted to AfC until you think that it meets our various requirements for being an article.
With regard to Sobha Ltd., have a look at the sourcing list. Obviously you don't need anywhere near as many good sources, but 4 in-depth, reliable, independent secondary sources would be good. Some additional content (would also be beneficial. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:27, 29 March 2019 review of submission by MSWR07

Hi, I have a question about the declined draft of my article. The reviewer said that there are not enough independet sources to prove that the article is relevant. In his opionion the mentioned sources are rather like advertisement for the company. In the German wikipedia the same article was accepted. Could you help me plesae to improve the content so that the article will be published? Thanks in advance. MSWR07 (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MSWR07 Greetings. See below
  1. Sister Wikipedia sites - Please note all sister Wikipedia sites (different languages) operate independent from from each other, thus each has their own policies and guidelines. The article which has been accepted in DE Wikipedia might not be accepted in EN Wikipedia.
  2. Proper attribution - Majority of the content in your draft page is copied in translation from the DE Wikipedia artcle - see HERE and you are not the original creator of DE article for such you need to pay proper attribution to the editors in DE article - see WP:PATT for info and instruction.
  3. Write article in your own words - Pls write the article in your own words.
  4. Neutral point of view - Article needs to write in neutral point of view, in other words, simple factual info which summaries the info in your own words from independent, reliable sources. Pls read WP:Your First Article for further info. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:15, 29 March 2019 review of submission by Blixoo

Hi,

I submitted this page yesterday, and it got rejected for not passing the NCORP criteria. I'm wondering how I could improve that, because the sources used (I think) are independent and reliable. In addition, the person reviewing said it was "somewhat promotional". But in comparison to another company in the same industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimperium) I can't really tell where I'm promotional.

Thanks for the help Blixoo (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:50:08, 29 March 2019 review of submission by 43.231.57.160


43.231.57.160 (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i want to ask to you tha who is an steniographer and what is the work of steniographer and the range of the salary 

if i am making desigion towards an steniographer is it right.

Please guide me sir

11:01:07, 29 March 2019 review of submission by Ratnesh1


I am a beginner to Wikipedia community and want to build Wikipedia profile of my company. Ratnesh1 (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnesh1 pls keep your questions in one message thread - see next section for the answer. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:26, 29 March 2019 review of submission by Ratnesh1

I want to learn about submitting article on Wikipedia. Ratnesh1 (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnesh1 Hi Greetings. Pls read WP:Your First Article and referencing and pls click on blue highlighted text for further info. Pls note that if you want to write about your company then you would have a conflict of interst and is highly discourage by Wikipedia. You need to WP:Disclose your COI in your user page and article talk page. One you HAVE READ them and if you still have questions, then pop back here.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:06, 29 March 2019 review of submission by Abhay adaka


11:09:06, 29 March 2019 review of submission by Abhay adaka Abhay adaka (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


An Ad Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:25, 29 March 2019 review of submission by Logamuthu

My Submission of Your Brain - Use it lose it was rejected by the moderator saying, "I personally like it but it is more an essay than an encyclopedic article and contrary to Wikipedia Policy!". How do I improve my submission. Mine is a non-altruistic effort to reach netizens with Brain related advice and I feel Wikipedia will be the right forum. Please advise me ASAP. Logamuthu (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a house for essays, but for encyclopedic entries on various topics. Please do not continue to work on your submission. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:45, 29 March 2019 review of draft by Mshiwolich


I'm not sure this was re-submitted correctly. I worked on it in the Sandbox and the put in these words to resubmit at the top. Please let me know. I have spent a good amount of time on this. Thank you. Mark Shiwolich


Mshiwolich (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mshiwolich: - looking at the timing of this message and the edit history I believe the answer is "yes it was submitted properly, it was just reviewed and declined rapidly". You submitted at 18:53, this message was at 18:55, and it was declined at 19:01. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 30

01:25:34, 30 March 2019 review of submission by 119.92.13.175


Hello, after my fail of my draft, I would like to know 5 reasons it has been declined. I wanted it accepted by my term just to share a review of the official gme. I want to know. 119.92.13.175 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for random game cruft. Topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sources are not reliable. Sources do not show significant coverage. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not particularly Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Theroadislong (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:37:10, 30 March 2019 review of submission by 2405:204:200B:DB8:4519:B0AE:AD3A:9526


2405:204:200B:DB8:4519:B0AE:AD3A:9526 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:27:31, 30 March 2019 review of submission by Heubergen

Hi, my very first article on the en_wikipedia was just declined as it appears to "read more like an advertisement". The review didn't go into details about which sentences or paraphrases need to be re-written so I'd like to have some help here. I tried to include different sources and make the article as neutral as possible. I didn't include any (negative) critics because I didn't really find one. As to my motivation for this article; I listen to her music and was looking for a Wikipedia article but didn't find one so I decided to start one. I contacted the management of her during the article process but ask them to not intervene with the article writing. Heubergen (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:10:29, 30 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Wmwgriffin


felt that the intent for creation of information on the von braun rotating space station had merit 
 and should be searchable on wiki..  open to responses on how to accomplish that ??? regards. and thanks in advance


Wmwgriffin (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is fragmented sentences and so is this question. Please learn to write coherently. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:05, 30 March 2019 review of submission by WikiWiki5678


WikiWiki5678 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Zee Keralam page has been rejected? Zee Keralam is a newly launched Malayalam language television channel in India. But in Wikipedia, no page are alloted for Zee Keralam. Kindly reconsider it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zee_Keralam

Needs to pass WP:BROADCAST Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:51, 30 March 2019 review of submission by X3Kemono


I believe that this band deserves more recognition for what they do. Also, I believe that people should be able to learn about the history of The Coils, along with learning about their origin and possibly having people discover a new type of music genre that they might love. Thank you in advance. X3Kemono (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence this band meets WP:NBAND Legacypac (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:48:08, 30 March 2019 review of submission by BletchleyPark


Would an article about Nataal web site and it's associated Magazine (circulation circa 3,000) be of interest / acceptable? The Web site has been published since early 2015, the magazine was first published a year ago and the second edition is due out in May this year. Nataal is concerned with Black fashion, music and culture and is primarily aimed at the Afro-American, sub-Saharan African and Afro-Caribbean reader. The Web site has nearly 600 articles spread across all 3 categories. Pages in the web site are cited 8 times in the reference sections of various Wikipedia articles.

I have 3 potential conflicts of interest

  • My daughter, Helen Jennings, is the editor and a major share holder.
  • I am a minor (5%) share holder.
  • I do not make contributions to the actual site contents, but I have been responsible for creating all of the pages from raw copy and images for the past 2 years and other technical matters.

If deemed suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, who should write the article? Obviously my daughter, as a journalist, could do a good job, but also obviously she has a major CoI.

BletchleyPark (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not suitable. Needs to have multiple reliable sources discuss the topic in detail. Don't write about stuff you are closely connected too. If some independent user determines the topic is notable they will write it up. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

05:15:40, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Tonyjaimy


Tonyjaimy (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:11:26, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Tonyjaimy


Tonyjaimy (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Stanicmi (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:13:58, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Stanicmi


Stanicmi (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:21:51, 31 March 2019 review of draft by BahrdozsBulafka


Hi there, can any admin/someone please review the recently submitted article here for approval. Thanks a lot! : - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rahul_Akerkar

BahrdozsBulafka (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BahrdozsBulafka. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed, which at the current rate is likely to happen within the next two months. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:35, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Salmanqureshi1967


Salmanqureshi1967 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Respected Sir,

I wrote an article that I think is notable for the world to know. You see I am in process of writing it and it has great significance to bringing tourism back to Pakistan. I have given the article my name but it does not mean that I am projecting my self. As the target is to tell the world that Pakistan is a wonderful place for tourism, this article relates to my work in the field of hospitality & tourism. Please reconsider it & allow my article to publish.

Hi Salmanqureshi1967. You are mistaken about the notability of the topic. The draft was correctly rejected as non-notable. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a platform for content intended to promote something, such as "to tell the world that Pakistan is a wonderful place for tourism" or "to bringing tourism back to Pakistan." --Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:25, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Aditya332

I have submitted my talk on "sequences those take other sequence terms as difference,ratio". It was declined and mentioned a suggestion to improve sequence page instead. I tried editing sequence page by adding some part of my above work. But the updates are not lasting long. Help me how to edit wikipedia as an author Aditya332 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aditya332. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page. They may help you understand the behavioral norms here and find the best way for you to contribute to Wikipedia. In general, I advise against creating new articles or making large changes to existing ones until you've built up some experience by making many smaller changes. A good way to find things that need doing is through Wikipedia:Community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:19:57, 31 March 2019 review of draft by ColorTheoryRGB


I am requesting help to add sources and re-publish this article because it has been noted by major news sources recently as a stand-alone single from the album. ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 19:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tell me

19:56:53, 31 March 2019 review of submission by Hazel2398454


Hazel2398454 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

16:33:25, 1 April 2019 review of submission by AnnSimoens


Dear friends at Wikipedia Thank you for having reviewed my article. I do feel really disappointed that it was rejected cause I spent days writing it, gathering all kinds of external references (as per Wiki's guidelines) but still: my article was rejected (for a second time) with reject reason: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Does not meet WP:NCORP."

Do you think there's a way to adjust my article in order to get it approved? Or is it simply not worth investing any more of my time in it? I am so disappointed cause I love Wikipedia so much (I even wired money to you in the last few years, which I normally only to for animal organizations, so I broke my own rule for Wikipedia :-)

There are companies providing similar services compared to the ones that SIGOS is offering, they're called Araxxe and Wedo technologies for example and they are on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araxxe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeDo_Technologies) so I don't understand why their articles got accepted and mine didn't.

I'm hoping you could give me some tips/tricks on how to improve my first own article (cause I'm still quite proud of it.)

Thank you in advance for your help. Ann


AnnSimoens (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnnSimoens this may be a borderline case of meeting WP:NCORP. I'll leave notes on the draft for you. Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

08:52:53, 2 April 2019 review of submission by 93.43.35.73


Dear @K.e.coffman

Before writing this page, I took the following page as an example: <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintiq<ref> .

Can you please let me know what can be done (added, removed, modified) in order to have this page respecting the rules of Wikipedia.

Thank you

93.43.35.73 (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the note on the draft, read the linksd policies. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:56, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Roxana Leonte


Hello. Saw that my request was rejected and I would really love to know why. When i did my research i did notice that nicknames are a part of Wikipedia’s archive. The same Gabriel Iglesias as this nickname and it can be found here. All I really want is for people to be able to know where the airplane got its name from as many people claim nowadays thta they called him like this. I am not breaking any rules of this page all i want is to inform people of the origins of the nickname Fluffy for the airplane A380. If i can change something about it, please let me know. Roxana Leonte (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a joke - which is vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:16:17, 2 April 2019 review of submission by D574h


This article was declined for a comment stating that not enough sourcing was provided. The article links several sources from South Bend, Indiana's Municipal Code, in addition to a link to the official .gov website for the flag of South Bend, Indiana with identical information. This article and the official website were created in tandem, which is why information sourced is from the Municipal Code, not just "local papers".D574h (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC) D574h (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:30:02, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Igor Kachevskyi


Kindly review the article. I added more information and some references. Thanks Igor Kachevskyi (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:37:27, 2 April 2019 review of submission by MarionPB

{{Lafc|username=MarionPB|ts=12:37:27, 2 April 2019|page=

MarionPB (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors,

I am a professional author, technical writer, and feature writer. So far I have no clear direction about an entry I have created on Peter G Demers. The subject has made notable contributions to the field of sports medicine and professional hockey. My approach and sourcing have been criticized and yet my submission meets and exceeds the approach and caliber of other pages on Wikipedia. Moreover, an image I have full copyrights to continues to be deleted.

I am appealing these changes, and requesting that the page on Peter G Demers be published, along with the image. I am glad to continue editing as needed but there has been zero clarity on what is expected. In addition, this page is modeled after existing Wikipedia pages and meets or exceeds that model.

Thank you,

MarionPB (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarionPB: I can refer you to WP:NHL, the ice hockey WikiProject, for sourcing and formatting advice, but I disagree with your claim that it "meets or exceeds" the page model; the section about his time with the Kings in particular seems quite WP:PUFFy. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I described the subject's experience as one would expect in a Wikipedia article. The person who is the subject of this article has contributed to hockey and to sports medicine in a notable way. I would like this page to successfully be published, and am willing to take the necessary steps to do so. The requirements seem to change however and the editors are condescending. I am a professional.

I also would like to know how to un-delete the photo I submitted. I have all copyright permission to the image and the pictured certificate contents. Yet the image continues to be deleted.

Do you have any women editors and writers? So far I haven't seen evidence of any.

Thanks. MarionPB (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarionPB. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are constantly changing, but the phenomenon you're experiencing is something different, what it's like to write for thousands of editors. Each reviewer may focus on something different.
What leaps out at me is the draft's heavy reliance on frozenroyalty.net as a source. It's self-published, a blog written and published by Gann Matsuda. Wikipedia policy says, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." You could replace frozenroyalty.net with a reliable source, remove all the content sourced from it, or wait until Pete Demers is dead. Without frozenroyalty.net, the draft has only two sources of any depth, Mass Live and Fox Sports. The latter is a primary source interview. To the extent that it's Demers talking about Demers, it may lack sufficient independence to help establish notability.
I recommend setting aside for now the question of the photo. The presence or absence of a photo will have no effect on whether the draft is accepted for publication.
Editors who choose to self-identify as female can be found in Category:Female Wikipedians, but given the anonymous nature of editing, many editors choose not to disclose personal information. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:27, 2 April 2019 review of draft by ACPMPRF


Should we add more detail to our article, e.g., History, Mission, Goals, Research Grants Awarded, Images, etc.? Do we have enough external/reliable links? Any other advice to improve our article is appreciated!

ACPMPRF (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ACPMPRF. Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:04, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Mpame


I have revised my article to remove any element(s) of business advertising Mpame (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


April 3

00:37:05, 3 April 2019 review of submission by Ole2128silver


Ole2128silver (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ole2128silver: - as was said, I'm afraid there clearly is no notability (or even a claim of something that would make you notable) established. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:48:51, 3 April 2019 review of submission by 96.233.42.226


O'NEIL REAL ATHLETE HE KO'D DIV1A SCHOLARSHIP ATHLETE WHO WAS 26 1/47 VARSITY HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL PLAYERS RECIEVED THAT SCHOLARSHIP. USA BOXING BEST ACCREDITOR 96.233.42.226 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


MATTHEW EUGENE O'NEIL (BORN MARCH 7,1976 IN NEWTON, MASSACHUSETTS) IS AN ATHLETE, UNIVERSITY GRADUATE, AND EX-POLITICAL CANDIDATE.HE COMPETED IN TWO USA BOXING ACCREDITED MATCHES WINNING BOTH BY STOPPAGE. HE KNOCKED OUT JEFFREY NAQUIN IN 1998 FOR A TEN COUNT. NAQUIN WAS ON THE 1991 AND 1993 LSU NATIONAL BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM. O'NEIL TKO'D ALL ARMY SUPERHEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION PRESTON HARTZOG IN 1999. HARTZOG WAS IN THE WORLD CLASS ATHLETE PROGRAM ON FORT CARSON.

THE POSITIVE RESULTS OF THE NAQUIN AND HARTZOG BOUTS WERE BROUGHT BACK TO THE NATIONAL SOCCER LEAGUE THAT O'NEIL COMPETED IN AS A YOUTH. IN 2013 AND 2014 PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS RECIEVED ITS FIRST DIV1 A BASEBALL SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THEIR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM. O'NEIL WAS SELECTED FOR THE AIR FORCE MARTIAL ARTS PROGRAM ON SCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE IN 1997 AND HE USED THE FACILITY FOR THREE YEARS MAKING A POSITIVE PRODUCTION RESULT BACK TO THE TOWN HE WAS RECRUITED FROM. O'NEIL RAN FOR CLARK COUNTY COMMISSION IN NEVADA IN 2006 AGAINST RORY REID.HE WORKED FOR HARVARD UNIVERSITY AT THE AGE OF TWENTY FIVE IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT OFFICE.HE GRADUATED FROM COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY WITH A B.S.IN 2001 AND FROM REGIS UNIVERSITY IN 2004 WITH A MBA. HE DID AGENCY ACQUISITION FOR NATIONWIDE INSURANCE IN 2017 AND 2018.

EXTERNAL LINKS http://www.maxboxing.com/news/promo-lead/you-only-live-once-just-ask-matthew-oneil http://www.newslocker.com/en-ng/sport/nigeria-boxing/you-only-live-once-just-ask-matthew-oneil/view/ https://lasvegassun.com/news/2006/oct/22/giunchigliani-rory-reid-election-opponents-said-to/

When editing in talk pages, the use of all caps is perceived as "shouting". Please do not write in all caps. Being a "real athlete" is not a reason for there to be an encyclopedia article about him. To be accepted for publication, the draft would need to show that he is a notable boxer or that he is notable in some other way. He does't appear to be, so is not a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:59:33, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Kallidai Ramesh Narayana


Any help on what changes I need to make to the draft to get it published will be greatly appreciated. If you cannot, but can send a link to some guidelines, that will also be helpful.

Kallidai Ramesh Narayana (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kallidai Ramesh Narayana. I left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that you may find useful.
Most of the sources that the draft cites are of extremely low quality: ibiblio.org, threadreaderapp, swamydesika.tripod.com, allaboutshoes.ca, ramanuja.org, indiadivine.org, fampeople.com, and anudinam.org. To have any hope of the draft being accepted, remove all of them and any content that came from them. For a topic of this nature there ought to be scholarly sources - books by academics published by university presses and articles by acadmics published in peer reviewed journals. Those are the kinds of sources to use. If you aren't sure where to start looking, try finding the topic in a printed encyclopedia and see what sources they cite. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:26, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Manacla


Hi, you said that the article does not have enough sources, but all the content of the page is taken from the two external link shown at the bottom of the page. What else should I add?

Manacla (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:49:06, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Lou Renwick


I would like an independant listing for Cragend FArm and Cragend Silo please. Cragside Estate do not own these buildings. This is not promotion but fact. I do not know how else to prove what I am writing.


Lou Renwick (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lou Renwick. The reviewer of Draft:Cragend Farm left you good advice on the draft and on your talk page (where there are also useful links left by another editor when you were editing Cragside estate in January). You need to prove what you're writing by citing reliable sources. I've added a source to Draft:Cragend Silo as an example. If you need help finding sources, a local library or historical society would be a good place to start. You don't need many sources, 2-3 would be enough for a draft to be accepted, provided that they are high-quality sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:45, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Lightsourcer


Lightsourcer (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:46, 3 April 2019 review of submission by Author Who


You wrote that the Article is not sufficiently notable. The Ballroomdancer Luca Baricchi is for Ballroomdance like Michael Barischnikov for ballet. He developed Ballroomdance in his Career to the modern Form we see in this days. There is an article about him on Wikipedia with his ex-wife ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_and_Loraine_Baricchi ) and an article for his ex-wife ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine_Barry ). The new Article is more detailed than the old one and show his career for a longer Periode of time. Author Who (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Author Who. The way to prove the reviewer wrong is to cite multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Luca Baricchi. The draft cites only one source, dancesportinfo.net, and that only for selected awards between 1993 and 2001. None of the prose in the draft cites a source. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:11, 3 April 2019 review of submission by Another irate man


How do I make this notable? It's just a number. If 42 has a wikipedia page about it, 91000000 deserves one Another irate man (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking right? Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:37, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Gedgmoss


I'm new to publishing, have a number of (scanned) old school photos I purchase (pre-internet) and looking for advice on how to share via Wiki. What's the best approach? I've tried to contact the original photographer without success.

Gedgmoss (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gedgmoss. If by "old" you mean taken before 1924, then they are in the public domain and you may upload them to Wikimedia Commons. If they are newer than that, you probably can't legally share them online (there are a few exceptions, but they are complicated, and you would need to know a lot about the history of the image - when it was taken, when it was published, whether it was registered, whether it was renewed, who took it, when they died, etc.) The presence or absence of photos will have no effect on whether the draft is accepted or not, so I recommend that you forget about images for now and concentrate on the text. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:21:13, 3 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Michael0658


My potential article about Jodi Ann Arias was rejected: 

    "The reason left by Theroadislong was: This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."

Do you reject all articles about famous prisoners or just mine?

Do you have any objective or impartial authors?

I used to be able to trust Wikipedia, however it has disappointed me too many times with faulty information and opinions posted as verified facts. Now, it replies with a patently absurd claim about an article it should have encouraged and posted long ago.

Wikipedia, please don't keep asking me to contribute. I've already corrected the defective writing of many of your authors (like the one that reviewed my article proposal) already. I will never contribute until the above decision changes.

Michael John Strickland (not an anonymous coward like the user that reviewed my proposed article.)


Michael0658 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Michael0658 Good day. First of all there is a Wikipedia policy of civility, thus kindly refrain name calling such as "calling another editor "coward", for whether to use one's real name as the Wikipedia username is subjective to an editor's choice as long as the username meets Wikipedia Wikipedia:Username policy. I am one of the reviewers of AfC in Wikipedia and I share the same view with @Theroadislong: who reviewed your submission. The content is not an article but a declaration of your views / thoughts. Secondly, Wikipedia reconigses the original creators of the articles but anyone can edits any Wikipedia pages under Wikipedia's guidelines and no editors (including the original creator of the page) own any content of any articles in Wikipedia. Most editors are volunteer and if you do not want to contribute for whatever reasons, you are feel free to do so.
The requirements for a subject to be merited a page in Wikipedia main space if the subject is notable, the content is verifiable by multiple, independent, reliable sources. I do suggest you to read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and WP:Your First Article to familiar yourself on how to write an article in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected the draft because it was only a proposal, if you would care to create an actual draft with correctly sourced content, then I will happily accept it. Theroadislong (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

Request on 02:43:31, 4 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nicolonour


I'm trying to create an entry for Efficient Power Conversion Corporation, which is a world leader in energy efficiency, but am having trouble. This is the text I want to include which comes from Bloomberg.

Efficient Power Conversion Corporation provides enhancement mode gallium nitride based power management devices. The company provides eGaN FETs, which provide designers employing various power conversion topology; full bridge, half bridge, buck converter, boost converter, PFC, flyback converter, forward converter, or LLC converter to attain performance enhancements compared with silicon power MOSFETs; eGaN Drivers that allow realization of the disruptive gains in high frequency and low duty cycle power conversion; EPC9083, a GaN-based differential mode development board for wireless power applications; demo and development boards; and wireless power demonstration kits. Its products are used in various applications, such as server and computer DC-DC converters, power over Ethernet, isolated brick converters, point-of-load converters, LED lighting, cell phones, RF transmission, solar micro-inverters, class-D audio amplifiers, and envelope tracking. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in El Segundo, California.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=99399790

Nicolonour (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:17:33, 4 April 2019 review of submission by 140Macpherson


Hi,

We have submitted new materials and would like a review or advice on how to make the article better. thank you.

140Macpherson (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@140Macpherson: Can you clarify who you are referring to when you say "we"? JTP (talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:59:15, 4 April 2019 review of draft by 2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F5:11BA:9DD3:4B6E


I posed a couple of questions to the declining editor at Draft talk:Harry Gideonse, but he never responded. I really don't understand what I pointed out.

I had similar issues at Draft talk:Francis Kilcoyne. There, the same editor seemed to be saying that names of people and institutions - unchanged - were copyright violations. 

2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F5:11BA:9DD3:4B6E (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:40, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Sonnenalle44


As I understand it, this page is being rejected based on the idea I am involved in one way or another with S.Crasneanscki. I have denied this on my page. Now, I'm not in a strong position to edit so perhaps an editor might see the significance of this page and edit it themselves to make it whatever they deem suitable for publication. All the information needed is there.

Sonnenalle44 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10:30:04, 4 April 2019 review of submission by PilotSuggs


I am asking for a review of this article as the person is notable in the media for his adventures and a list of accomplishments has been added, explaining the achievements further. (Apologies, this should have been added from the outset). I appreciate the time taken to re-review this.

Thanks

PilotSuggs (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:28:38, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Ricochet198

{{Lafc|username=Ricochet198|ts=11:28:38, 4 April 2019|page=

Ricochet198 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:55, 4 April 2019 review of submission by HotSquash London


HotSquash London (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I am requiring assistance as my article has been rejected and I am unsure why, the reason is that it isn't suitable fir Wikipedia but why? I have seen many fashion limited companies listed on Wikipedia. Please let me know why our page has been rejected.

There are three main reasons the draft was rejected. It wasn't "notable", which in Wikipedia terms, means there weren't sufficient "in-depth, independent, reliable secondary sources" (Newspapers, books etc). As a company you'll need at least 3 or 4 high quality sources. Lots of poor quality sources is not equivalent to a few good ones.
The second is that it is promotional - we dislike people linked to a company writing it, because they are generally unable of doing so in the neutral way we require.
The third issue is that your username indicates more than one person editing - if usernames have to be individual - edit it to be something like "Cool Guy1 at HotSquash London" (beginning can be whatever you want).
As a side note, I suspect you are an employee of the company. If so, please say, as there are additional requirements you need to follow to avoid being blocked again.
However - it's not worth doing that until you've found enough good secondary sources to indicate you can support an article on the company. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:09, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Another irate man


I made a lot of new changes to my article. I added more sources and made the number more notable, in contrast to the earlier revision that only had one fact about the number. I don't know what I was thinking, but I got the help of User:StaringAtTheStars , and he helped find articles with the number 91,000,000 in them, and I now have 19 references. Another irate man (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=890960022"