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 Dsmith167 (talk | contribs) at 09:38, 18 July 2019. 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


July 12

08:57:20, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Maria Sitkina

I changed the text according to editors recommendations. Please, check it. Thank you. Maria Sitkina (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:22:15, 12 July 2019 review of draft by Klichnerska

Hello. I need help editing this article. The term crowdshipping is now widely used by scholars and commercial enterprises. A collaboration between CIRREALT Interuniversity Research Center, Université Laval, and Canada Research Chair in Interconnected Business Engineering had created a research paper titled Crowdsourcing delivery. Also, crowdshipping is one of the main sub-topics, written by Alan McKinnon, professor of Logistics at Kuehne Logistics University. Such companies: Cargomatic, Jojo, Deliv have been in existence since 2012.

Klichnerska (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:32, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Cagatayd


All the information is changed. Categories added. More References shared.

Cagatayd (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It reads just like an advert. Theroadislong (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:09, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Cagatayd


More information gave about company and sector. 4 categories; Services, Interconnections, Events and References created. 8 new references added.

Cagatayd (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cagatayd: - the draft is extremely promotional, reading just as a company marketing pamphlet would. Additionally the sources provided aren't independent - they don't have reason to be content-neutral. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{SAFESUBST:#Daniel Unubi Ezekiel:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by Daniel Unubi Ezekiel


Daniel Unubi Ezekiel (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:03, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Hrdina Impéria


Greetings. I have recently wanted to translate few articles in English to Slovak, as the topics seemed interesting and there wasnt any information in my language. Problem is that there is lack of sources in Slovak of said topic (for example, Gastraphetes). Is it acceptable to just straight up translate english article using the same sources (essentially copying them over) or should I just refrain from creating such new pages, for which I lack sources in relevant language? Hrdina Impéria (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrdina Impéria: - so long as the various important facets of translating articles is followed (citing/linking back to where you got it from, ensuring you aren't machine-translating etc) then it's generally fine to use the same sources (I don't know Slovak editing requirements, but there's no issue on our side). Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:32:07, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Ryozzo

Please if someone could review the state of this article. It was rejected Apr 2019 but then submitted for review by the person that rejected it.

I'd like to make sure that it is in the queue to be reviewed.

It has been three months and I just want to make sure it is in the proper state to be reviewed and not marked as rejected.

Thanks Ryozzo (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryozzo: I've took a look at the page and yes, it has been submitted correctly. However, the backlog is currently about 4 months, so you probably have to wait another month. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannik Schwaß: Thanks so much.

21:05:49, 12 July 2019 review of submission by Vicgerami


Vicgerami (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am pretty new to Wikipedia as the only completed profile I ever submitted was for trans activist, Ashlee Marie Preston. That process went pretty smoothly. Then I submitted a request for the most high-profile LGBTQ Civil Rights Attorney & Activist, Peter Perkowski. Last night I noticed from my phone that an editor with the username: Athaenara tagged my submission for deletion. I rushed home to respond from my laptop and wrote a note to them explaining why Peter's profile was worthy of a Wikipedia page. But my submission was deleted immediately with the reason that I was paid for creating the profile. This is not true and I explained that in my dispute post.

I am confused as why someone would and can make such a claim and it only takes a false accusation for my work to be deleted. Anyone who looks up Peter Perkowski will see the significance of his work as among other things, he is currently suing the Trump Administration in four class-action lawsuits on behalf of trans service-members.

I am not very good with Wikipedia's system and confused with all the steps. I don't know what I can do next in order to save Peter's profile. Please help as I appreciate it.

Thank you and kind regards, vic

Hi Vicgerami. You've also asked about Draft:Peter Perkowski at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, and received solid advice there. Please don't raise a matter in multiple venues simultaneously. Slow down and study the information you've already been given, which is dense with links to further reading.
The draft was speedily deleted because an experienced reviewer and another administrator agreed that it was unambiguous advertising. A draft usually has to be egregiously promotional to be deleted that way. Perhaps the most common cause of promotional writing is some kind of conflict of interest. People writing about themselves, their family, their friends, their employer, or for pay, often have trouble being objective. Athaenara left a note on your talk page to make sure you are aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines around conflicts of interest. Simple inexperience with the detached, formal style of writing needed for an encyclopedia can also result in promotional text, particularly if one has an opinion about the subject.
On your talk page, the last sentence of the deletion nomination notice tells you what to do if you want to retrieve the deleted material, contact the deleting administrator on their talk page. If you're interested in writing about LGBTQ rights, an even better approach would be to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Creating new articles from scratch is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a new editor can undertake. The LGBT project has a cleanup list of 7,892 existing articles that are tagged for improvement. If you spend a few months improving existing articles, you will be better equipped to create new ones. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:31:17, 12 July 2019 review of draft by 2RBonisson


Hello, It has been over a month since my re-submission and I am wondering if I need to do anything to get a response. I have made edits along the way. Do I need to stop editing in order to get a re_review. 2RBonisson (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2RBonisson: The current backlog is about 4 months. Please be patient, the reviewers do this in their free time. To your draft, I suggest that you remove the bold syntax from section headers, since the Software behind Wikipedia is already highlighting them so they don't need to be bold. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

03:59:07, 13 July 2019 review of submission by Philippineshd


Philippineshd (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:51:32, 13 July 2019 review of submission by Andrew nyr

This article fixed the mistakes and is ready for re review. Andrew nyr (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:57:50, 13 July 2019 review of draft by Falconite007


Hello, I submitted my draft again after some revisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Supernode_Proof_of_Stake It's been pending for about a month now. I'm just a bit confused since the last few times the reviews took about a week's time. Hope I did not make any mistake while submitting.

Falconite007 (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:49, 13 July 2019 review of submission by Resource2222


I have received a message about making changes to a page on Kalyn Ponga and a page on Article Creation. I did not make either of these edits. Resource2222 (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:43, 13 July 2019 review of submission by Daniel Unubi Ezekiel


Daniel Unubi Ezekiel (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:41:11, 13 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mizumakipswada


Trying to get an article published, added in quotes and properly cited the sources but no word on whether or not the page has been published as of yet.

Mizumakipswada (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted it for review yet, but before you do you will need to find a number of independent reliable sources, your draft Draft:Jean-Marie Haessle has none so far.

23:10:58, 13 July 2019 review of draft by GipsyG


GipsyG (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi. why so long to review this edition of the draft? thx.

Hi GipsyG. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for 7 weeks. The current backlog is 16 weeks. Reviewers are volunteers and are not required to go through drafts in any particular order. Some fish among the newest, perhaps looking for ones that can be quickly failed or accepted. That may explain why your first version was declined on the day it was submitted. Work on something else while you wait (Wikipedia:Community portal lists ways to help) and try to find solace in the fact that there is no deadline. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

00:31:41, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Kendoma


Kendoma (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


01:15:29, 14 July 2019 review of draft by Debraannclark


I'm assuming that I have met all the qualifications for getting this article approved. It has been MORE than 2 months now. I would appreciate an expedited approval/publishing of this article or a reason why it's taking so long. I understand you're backlogged, but this has been going on forever. Thank you!

--Debraannclark (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debraannclark (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined as hopelessly non-notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:19:02, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Carlis Rowe


Carlis Rowe (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)I am requesting a re-view to understand why the rejection in order to fix it.[reply]

Hi Carlis Rowe. You (if you are the Carlis Rowe you wrote about) are not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Rejection of the draft is meant to be final, to convey that you should stop, that no amount of editing can fix the problem. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for review

01:27:13, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Rumbidzainokutenda

Requesting for review , i have corrected errors which were highlighted . Please let me know if there are other parts i should add or correct . Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:15:35, 14 July 2019 review of submission by 183.83.78.82


183.83.78.82 (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:11, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Ayushssengar


Ayushssengar (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


07:51:34, 14 July 2019 review of submission by Harvestsparrow


Harvestsparrow (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Halle Sparrow Arbaugh has no reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:51, 14 July 2019 review of draft by Gyllila


Dear Madam/Sir,

Could you tell me how to find out who decided to redirect the search for “convertible money“ to “gold standard”? As much as I know, the two terms are related, but not the same, thus I decided to create a page for “convertible money”.

My submission has been declined twice, because the reviewing users thought that “convertible money” is not widely used and not of public interest. However, if it were so, then nobody would have created a redirection page for “convertible money“ in first place. I guess that’s because they are different users and thus differently well informed, therefore I’d like to directly contact the user or users who have created the redirection. Maybe they can create a page on their own or give me more references so that I can better create the page.

Can you tell me how to find them? Many thanks! Gyllila (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyllila: - hi there. Skysmith created the redirect...and impressive 11 years ago. Most editors of that era aren't around, but Skysmith does occasionally edit, but only rarely. Have you tried setting out the specific differences talking to the reviewers. The sources would need to set out a fairly substantive difference to make it a distinct article - but additional sections to the gold standard article might be an alternate possibility. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that - much better answer underneath! (please no duplicate questions) Nosebagbear (talk)

11:51:37, 14 July 2019 review of draft by Gyllila


Thank you for the reply. However, can you please be more clear about the reason? Is it declined because it only contains definition or is it declined because of lack of public coverage? For the first, it’s no problem to add the theory and modeling part, but to the latter, I don’t know how public is public enough for you. “Convertible money” is automatically redirected to “gold standard“ on your site, why did you create this redirection if it’s not of public interest? Maybe another user did that? Can you please tell me how to contact her? Because “convertible money” is only related to “gold standard “ but not the same, it would be misleading to cover them in the same page. In my previous research I never found any source which equates convertible money with gold standard, but I’m also open for different statements which fulfill the criteria you have mentioned to me.

Best regards Gyllila (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gyllila. If you click on Convertible Money you'll be redirected to article Gold standard, but in the upper left corner of the page, under the page title, will be the text (Redirected from Convertible Money). If you click that link, you'll go to the Convertible Money page without being redirected. You can investigate its history like any other page, by clicking the view history tab near the top, to right of centre. The page was created in November 2005‎ as a one sentence definition. This suggests, incidentally, that the expression may not have been first introduced in Guo (2018). The page was turned into a redirect in May 2006‎ by an editor who now edits infrequently. You may leave a message on their talk page, but it's unlikely that you'll receive a quick reply or that they will remember one edit made 13 years ago out of their 23,000 edits.
A redirect does not mean that "convertible money" is equivalent to "gold standard". It only means that Wikipedia doesn't have an article named "convertible money", but that some relevant information can be found in gold standard. Redirects are not deleted if it is plausible that someone might search for the term. People do search for it, but very rarely, only 50 times in the past six months, and there's no way to tell what they wanted information about, perhaps convertibility, perhaps gold standard, perhaps convertible money. One can't assume from the existence of the redirect that there's a public interest in having an encyclopedia article dedicated to the term.
You may continue with the draft, but it would need to cite more than the work of one economist to be accepted. It would also be good if the draft were more than a definition, although a definition might be accepted as a stub article as long as it is clear that the expression is not a neologism. According to Google Ngram Viewer, the expression first appeared in books in the 1870s, its peak usage was from about 1905 to 1910, it saw a modest resurgence from the mid-1930s to about 1960, and a blip of usage in the 1990s. Writing a new encyclopedia article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating things an editor new to Wikipedia can attempt. You would be more likely to succeed at it if you spent some time becoming familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, perhaps by editing existing articles in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, if that's your area of interest. You can always return to convertible money later. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:46, 14 July 2019 review of submission by 2605:E000:FEDB:2500:DD5C:E516:52BD:1A35


2605:E000:FEDB:2500:DD5C:E516:52BD:1A35 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)I am not sure what I am doing wrong. Should it be posted under a different Catagory?[reply]

Your submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is totally inappropriate in tone, it has no sources and appears to be autobiographical. Wikipedia only reports on what reliable sources have said. Theroadislong (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


July 15

00:13:48, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Mattcoopz

I have added more depth to the references including an international article on one of the founders. Is there enough detail in this article to get it published or am I needing a lot more to get the first publish approved?

Mattcoopz (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattcoopz. Rejection of the draft is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable, so you should stop. No amount of editing will make an article about it acceptable. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:08:28, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Plextority


HOMAY8N (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:22:49, 15 July 2019 review of submission by MANaina


MANaina (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:52:45, 15 July 2019 review of draft by Annalog95


Annalog95 (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello !

I would really need help to acknowledge that my article is a translation of a French existing article and change the French reference mark-up to English mark-up.

How could I do it ?

Thank you in advance for your help,

Regards,

Anna

Hi Annalog95. The copyright attribution has been done for you this time. If you translate material again, you can read more about the procedure for attribution at Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:34, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Softball beasts


Hi there. I'm trying to create an article for my softball club which has been declined due to unverifiable sources. The source I'm citing is the results printed on the website of the federal governing body for the sport in my country. I'm not sure what further source I can cite that would be more verifiable than this. Could you possibly help point me in the right direction? I was modelling my article based on another club in my town that has started this year and only cites news articles, yet their article for the club was accepted and published ( Basel Dragons AFC).

If you could help or suggest a route to investigate what sources are acceptable for a sports club it would be very much appreciated. Best regards, SB Softball beasts (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Softball beasts, Since you are one of the member of the subject, you have a conflict of interest here. Please note that Wikipedia strongly discourage editor with COI to create or edit the affected page as it is hard to write the content in nuetral point of view. Pls declare your COI in the article talk page and your user page. The sources we need are independent, reliable such as from the newspapers, books or reliable journals. The sources you provided are not independent since they associated with the subject. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:21:42, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Choudharyg677


Choudharyg677 (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:21:16, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Benjamindavidharvey


Benjamindavidharvey (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:49:48, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Redmercw


Redmercw (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir/madam --

I recently asked for help in getting a timely review of a draft Wiki page that has been pending for over 10 months, and I received this "sharp" reply from "Worldbruce." Please note that my message below was drafted in an effort to solicit help, nothing else. "Worldbruce" did not explain if the review can be expedited given the fact that it has been rejected multiple times over the last 10 months. If nothing else, can you offer guidance re: whether the current draft will stand a chance of being accepted?


"Hello -- can you please provide an estimate of when W. Patrick Murphy draft page will be reviewed? It has been pending for 10 months, and I really need someone's help with getting it approved. Please help! We have revised this page countless times.

Thank you very much.

Christian Redmer

Hi Redmercw. It was submitted for review 8 days ago. The current backlog is 4 months. Your interests ("I really need ... it approved") may not align with Wikipedia's goals. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)"

14:39:09, 15 July 2019 review of submission by 105.189.206.149


105.189.206.149 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made an English page about this referee. I just translated all langages in English. Why this topic is not notable in wikipédia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.189.206.149 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:14, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Pmurray123

Hello. I am looking for specifics on why Draft:VS. System 2PCG was rejected and what I can do to make sure it is published in the future. Thank you! Pmurray123 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmurray123: - it was declined (not rejected, which is similar but indicates the reviewer thinks it's a permanent decision), on the grounds of notability.
In short, the sourcing you have isn't good enough - you need multiple sources that are secondary, reliable, independent and in-depth. Your sources don't meet all those conditions. The game may not be big enough to have generated that level of suitable coverage, I don't know. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:17, 15 July 2019 review of draft by Iattp


Hi there, thanks for taking the time to go over the article on Ljupčo Santov Gymnasium Kočani so quickly. Regarding the need to cite sources, I basically translated it all from the Macedonian page:

https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%A3_%E2%80%9E%D0%89%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%87%D0%BE_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%E2%80%9C_-_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8

I do work at the school, but only in the capacity as a Peace Corps volunteer. A lot of the Macedonian page was NOT included, as it was quite subjective and contained outdated and false information. Is there something in particular that needs citation? I could do some research and try to get information from the ministry, but it's very hard to get that kind of stuff out here in Macedonia.

Thanks,

Nick

Iattp (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:33, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Nanawo99

I just wanted to know the reason my page was rejected. Thank you for your time.

Nanawo99 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanawo99: - the reviewer's specific reason is next to the yellow ! under the red box. Your page had no sources, thus it was impossible for it to be accepted. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:15, 15 July 2019 review of submission by Liff182


Liff182 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:17:17, 15 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ryn 112


I have been advised that the detail I have placed on the wiki page that I have submitted for Mark Leake cannot be accepted as it infringes copyright regulations. The detail that has been written was taken from Mark's own university people page with his permission and run past him before placing on the webpage to ensure that he was happy with the content, is this not enough to allow it to be used? Thank you for your support

Ryn 112 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryn 112. The source page states "© University of York", so Leake doesn't have the power to grant a license to reuse it. There are mechanisms by which the University could "donate" copyrighted material (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials), but the effort probably isn't worth it. Material written for places other than Wikipedia was written for a different purpose, so it is rarely suitable for the encyclopedia. Such text almost always has to be rewritten anyway.
Also note that the bulk of any article should come from independent sources, so not from Leake or his employer. Furthermore, a draft should not be "run past him ... to ensure that he was happy" with it. It is not his article, but an article about him. If you're concerned about making him happy, you have a conflict of interest, and it would be a bad idea to write about him on Wikipedia at all. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:59:29, 15 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Fede-isr


 Hello, I do not understand why my article was not published. I do believe it contains sufficient references to credible and reputable sources. Furthermore, this persons role in the financial technology industry, particularly in its regional development in Latin America  merits an encyclopedia article. If in fact the neutrality of the entre is the reason why it was disapproved, please advice on how I can improve it. Thanks!

Fede-isr (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fede-isr The draft is full of empty marketing-speak used to promote the subject without imparting or plainly summarizing verifiable facts.
  • "advancing and creating opportunities for ... technology solutions to gain recognition in global markets"
  • "initiative presented financial technology companies, the opportunity to present and incorporate their solutions into Citi's core digital capabilities, accelerating the bank's development through Crowdsourcing solutions and generating an Open banking strategy."
  • "platform has provided fintech integration services"
  • "The core idea behind the program is to increase collaboration and enhance inter-operability between players in the new connected ecosystem of solutions and in the process foster the rapid growth of the financial industry globally."
  • "in order to provide fintech innovation programs designed to accelerate the digitalization of the financial industry and promote financial inclusion through innovative technologies."
Teaching good encyclopedic writing is a bit beyond the scope of this help desk, but you may find it useful to study Wikipedia's featured articles about companies and businesspeople. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:24, 15 July 2019 review of submission by FpsJimbo


Resubmitting for approval, the first draft I made I lacked vital information, and was submitted with place holder templates, since then I have put every effort to make it a notable entry for Irish MMA fights and across the world over.

Kinda ask for your approval of this wiki page.

Regards, James

FpsJimbo (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 23:05:50, 15 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Koodre


I would like to review and publish Articles for creation: Andre Koo as it has been revised. Thank you!


Andre Koo Jr. (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


July 16

00:40:08, 16 July 2019 review of submission by AlfansoLeone

Not sure why my submission was rejected. Subject is mentioned on multiple 3rd party websites with impartial, factual information such as competition scores, athletic participation, and current occupation. Subject is credited with numerous feature films, television series', and commercials.

AlfansoLeone (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AlfansoLeone: None of which demonstrates notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia). Examining the cited sources:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
California Birth Index Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Birth certificates are primary sources, billions of people have them
Jeremy Goldstein Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Wikipedia is not much interested in what the subject says about himself
local44.org Green tickY Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Apparently supplied by Goldstein, so not arms-length; also copies IMDb (which is not reliable)
maxpreps Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN High school volleyball stats are not significant coverage, hundreds of millions of people played a high school sport
U.S. Practical Shooting Assoc. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Not significant coverage
Hecho Studios Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN An employer, doesn't mention Goldstein
Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
I concur with the reviewer that this is a hopeless topic, no amount of editing can make it acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:24:26, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Tidushuyin

I'm trying to update the new album for the group, Avalon. I am part of their street team. I have included a second reference to the new album that is releasing this fall. Tidushuyin (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Tidushuyin#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:51:30, 16 July 2019 review of submission by 2.247.250.134

Some time ago, we submitted a Wikipedia article about our company for independent community review. I know we have to be patient, but I wanted to ask about the status of the process. Is there anything we can do to speed up the review? There was a scam targeting us. While we have reported it to the Arbitration Committee, I was worried this might have slowed down the whole thing. 2.247.250.134 (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently declined by Theroadislong as an advert for a non-notable company. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:53, 16 July 2019 review of draft by Pequena Princesa


I have submitted this article twice. When I resubmitted, I addressed the three comments made by the declining reviewer: (1) use of YouTube references - all are gone now (2) use of the subject's website as a source - removed (3) use of placeholders for photos - removed. I now have all independent, reputable sources not at all related to the subject. Yet now another reviewer has declined the article, telling me that I need independent, reputable sources not at all related to the subject. There is a comment about articles tangentially referring to the subject: that may be true of 2 or 3 out of 14 articles but certainly not all or even most. It seems that the goal post keeps on moving, reviewer to reviewer, and every time I comply with one reviewer's demands the next reviewer makes more of his/her own. This last reviewer's comments are simply not true, as if he did not read the sources and simply copied the grounds for declining. Is there any form of appeal? Pequena Princesa (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:03, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Adinfraheight

We need to publish our company name with wikipedia. as our company has more than 2000 customers but not recommended by wikipedia. Adinfraheight (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adinfraheight: - for if you return: Wikipedia does not recommend anyone. Companies have to meet high standards of notability - please have a read of company notability. As was presumably said in your block notice, you'll need to satisfy paid editing disclosure rules before progressing. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:13, 16 July 2019 review of submission by DoeEyed

Have updated the information with more external links to various sites (not the band's own site or Discogs as requested). DoeEyed (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:11:42, 16 July 2019 review of draft by Navsright


Navsright (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just need abit more help with the citing issues I have on my page I am trying publish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Calibre_UK

14:49:32, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Colaguy101

The rejection reason is given as no secondary sources to confirm. I can answer any questions as the article is about my own profile. I am an author of books, hence I can answer any questions related to them. I am the secondary source for the article. Colaguy101 (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:20:55, 16 July 2019 review of submission by 89.91.144.191


89.91.144.191 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please deleted this draft page because this article is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Request on 15:36:31, 16 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Intern1FAG


To whom it may concern,

I've been trying for a while to publish my page, The Fine Art Group, on Wikipedia. Unfortunately it keeps getting rejected - mostly for a lack of significant coverage.

However I believe that I have used plenty of reputable third-party sources to evidence my article, including Bloomberg, The Art Newspaper, Vogue, Christie's, and Antiques Trade Gazette.

Any advice that you can give on how I can improve the chances for my article to be accepted would be greatly appreciated!

Kind regards,

Sophie 15:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sophie 15:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

16:51:01, 16 July 2019 review of draft by Livingstone Imonitie


Livingstone Imonitie (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Livingstone Imonitie: - I'm not sure what your question was, but I've reviewed your draft in any case. Unfortunately I've had to decline it for the reasons stated (both generally in the red box and more specifically by the yellow "!" beneath it) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:18, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Dnck26

I'm assuming my draft was denied because I have a COI. If not, then why was it rejected? Either way, how can I still get a page created for the business I am interning for? Dnck26 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dnck26 I declined it because it was a blatant advert. Unless the company has been reported on in-depth in multiple independent sources we cannot have an article about it. Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dnck26 - as a secondary note, I've dropped a notice on your talk page. As an intern you count as a paid editor (actually paid or otherwise) - as such you need to disclose your link on your userpage. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:08, 16 July 2019 review of draft by Williamword


Hi - for the draft of GFP Real Estate, would like to understand how to change to get this approved or how it reads like an advertisement.

"Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

The topic is relevant and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

The article is factual and references the following sources:

5 references for New York Times 4 references for Commercial Observer (notable real estate industry source) 3 references for The Real Deal (notable real estate industry source) 1 reference for the Financial Times 1 reference for POLITICO

plus assorted other industry articles and sources for 20 references total. One reference was to their company website to confirm the corporate address. Could that be the cause for rejection?

The article was written neutrally, conveying what the referenced articles outlined. Not sure what needs to be edited out to make it acceptable in this instance.

thanks much William

Williamword (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is certainly not written neutrally, it is full of trumpery "one of the significant developers within New York City" "the firm has acquired 10 properties with the acquisitions comprising more than 2.7 million square feet and valued at over $1.3 billion" "visionary philanthropist" " industry's most influential people". Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:10:05, 16 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tannerbyer


To whom it concerns,

I submitted a draft of a Wikipedia page as mentioned above, but it was declined primarily because of notability purposes. I am confused because I included many reliable secondary sources. At this point, I am wondering if it is worth the effort to rewrite and resent a draft for potential publication if you don't like all the sources I have already provided. Looking for any guidance, thank you.

Tannerbyer (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:49:05, 16 July 2019 review of submission by Irish Birdcatcher


Irish Birdcatcher (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC) My article was deleted, (on Trumpator the horse) and I know it was a short article but it has reliable sources and its a proven real horse. Its not a joke about Donald Trump.[reply]

July 17

07:24:05, 17 July 2019 review of submission by Vidyutpatra

Added additional information to show why this person has done enough for Africa to justify a Wikipedia page in his name. He may not be covered in European or American media, but he has done a lot for Africa. There are a lot of non-tricial mentions included from multiple independent sources and news sites. Vidyutpatra (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:16, 17 July 2019 review of draft by Krassissimus


These are my first steps on the English WP. From the German WP, I have created a draft translation about the global network Ecovis International. Could you please tell me, whether the draft needs any improvement? I would also like to know the proper steps for publishing the draft and how to link it to the original German article. Thanks, Krassissimus (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:02:45, 17 July 2019 review of submission by EPICGAMER890


Why did you decline the submission, is it because there's not much info?

EPICGAMER890 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:51:51, 17 July 2019 review of submission by Dfsp94


Dfsp94 (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

My article Draft:Urbantz was denied due to not notable and against WP policy I think that the subject is relevant and notable. I also tried to write the article in the most impartial way I could resorting to viable sources, I might have failed in some points, it seems.

What advice could I get to rewrite the article?

Thank you.

14:15:02, 17 July 2019 review of submission by Tproveau


Tproveau (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC) I got this message: Tproveau I have tagged your draft as a copyright infringement, it has been copied and pasted from https://www.vsc-library.org/guidelines/ and https://www.vsc-library.org/about/ Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am working with a group at WHO to establish the wikipage; it's not a copyright violation as I have their approval.

Approval needs to be a *lot* more formal since by definition anything on Wikipedia can be reused pretty much anywhere, please see WP:PERMISSION for the procedures.Naraht (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:54, 17 July 2019 review of submission by 12.190.13.132


Hi,

I'm not understanding why PMG isn't a notable topic. We have been on notable websites that I've linked in my description and are part of a growing business area in the low-code platform space. We are equals to similar sites such as Appian. We can add more links to relevant research reports to justify PMG's request for a posting if need be. We have been included in multiple publications stating that we're the top players in the low-code and service catalog industries. Please let me know how I can help!

Best, Sharon

12.190.13.132 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of "we" and the nature of your edits gives the impression that you have a an undisclosed financial stake in promoting the topic, but have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements.
If you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message and declare any other conflict of interest you may have. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:58, 17 July 2019 review of submission by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:55B0:EB35:E5CB:7838

Oops I forgot to make a reference to the game.

2600:1700:93B0:1350:55B0:EB35:E5CB:7838 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied below. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:15, 17 July 2019 review of submission by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:55B0:EB35:E5CB:7838

2600:1700:93B0:1350:55B0:EB35:E5CB:7838 (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Please Help I forgot to make references 2600:1700:93B0:1350:55B0:EB35:E5CB:7838 (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

replied below. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:45:13, 17 July 2019 review of submission by Kc1985


First of all, I don't appreciate the rude tone of the comment left by the reviewer DGG on my page. I'm very familiar with what wikipedia is and how it works so their comment were completely unnecessary. I've provided ample verifiable and independent references for this subject and all of them are NOT just press as the reviewer mentioned. If someone can provide some actual assistance as to how I can improve this article and get it up to the standard to be moved to the live space instead of leaving potentially biased and condescending comments on my talk page, that would be greatly appreciated.

Kc1985 (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic does not appear to be notable. Interviews, IMDb and photographs of magazine covers are not suitable sources for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:14, 17 July 2019 review of submission by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D0C:2765:FA23:3D9D

help please, I forgot to add one reference

2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D0C:2765:FA23:3D9D (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you forgot to add any references, and still haven't. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the topic. You're more likely to find suitable sources if you wait until the game has been released. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:18, 17 July 2019 review of submission by Viocox24


Viocox24 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viocox24. You also asked about this draft on the reviewer's talk page. That is the best place to start. They may say something that you hadn’t considered, or at least give a more detailed explanation that may prove useful. If, after discussing it with them, you think the reviewer was mistaken, then you may get a second opinion by resubmitting the draft. To do so, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:39, 17 July 2019 review of draft by Alexiveresch


Hi Wikipedia editors, I believe AwardWallet deserves to have a wiki page, just read about it and you will see that this is a flagship (pioneer) product in the space of miles and points. I know I am biased, but no one knows the history of the service as well as I do. How can I get outside help to help to get this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AwardWallet) published?

Alexiveresch (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexiveresch: See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


July 18

02:47:20, 18 July 2019 review of submission by Ruby838

Hello, this is the second time I request a re-review, cause last time I didn't get any response or re-review. I supposed there was not enough reference the first time, so I provide some links where the content was collected. If there's any mistake in the content or I'm still in the wrong direction, please give me some advice, thank you. Ruby838 (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:09:04, 18 July 2019 review of submission by Anki 84

Please explain the reason for rejection. This article is about a Tennis Academy in UAE which provides spanish methodology in tennis education. Anki 84 (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:09:29, 18 July 2019 review of submission by QuantumBinary


QuantumBinary (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:38:40, 18 July 2019 review of draft by Dsmith167


I resubmitted my entry for F.J. Beerling more than 50 days ago. How long does it nornally take for a resubmitted entry to be re-reviewed please? Dsmith167 (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=906798448"