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 TheoMax42651 (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 18 November 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


November 12

02:18:15, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Pavlko

Hello, I am trying to create an article about a philosophical and physics idea about Time, proposed by myself. I only have a single external reference which is a Research Gate link where I proposed originally the idea. My draft was rejected for this reason. Obviously the idea is not known at all, so I cannot add another external reference for it. My main goal is the possibility of discussion of this idea and the draft is written in this mood. Thanks, Pablo Bounous. Pavlko (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlko. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss an idea you've come up with. You're welcome to do that elsewhere, but an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, it summarizes what secondary sources have written about a topic. After reliable secondary sources (such as books by professors of philosophy published by academic presses) discuss your idea, then it could be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:39, 12 November 2019 review of draft by Tvega52


Reviewers continuously are declining the my submitted draft for "advertising" type words but have not stated what they mean by this. I have stated the facts of the company objectively from 3rd party sources and have removed all bias. Tvega52 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvega52: I have tried to salvage it, but on reflection you're best blanking it and focusing on Draft:OANDA instead which is in a better state. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:33, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Juanestebanp94

Is it possible to have someone checking again my article please? i've made some changes and want to know if it's ready to go public.

Thank you in advance.

Juanestebanp94 (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanestebanp94: I've read the draft and the references you've provided. Overall, the draft has the feel of an advertisement. Looking at the references, these are either based on company news releases or are mere mentions of the software. There is no in-depth, independent coverage of the company. Most of what is written is presumably from your personal knowledge of the company and its products, whereas for a Wikipedia article readers can only tell if what has been written is factual if they can verify it using the references you provide. You would need to find references that confirm most of what you've written. All in all, the company doesn't appear to be a suitable topic for inclusion in an enyclopedia right now. If you're looking for new publicity for the company, Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:43:09, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Cb912

Hi! This draft has been recently updated to reflect some changes since it was last submitted. I had requested advice earlier this year from the help desk. I see that a reviewer scope_creepTalk' left comments confirming notability in April. "He seems to pass WP:SIGCOV that is the policy that ensures that the person is widely known."

Can this be re-reviewed? Thank you! Cb912 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cb912, I have put it back in the review queue for you. Please be patient, the review queue is rather long at the moment. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:25, 12 November 2019 review of submission by RWNYC19


Hello, Please could the request to publish a page for Reuven Wimmer be reviewed. This was submitted as Reuven Wimmer currently has a Wikipedia page in Hebrew and wanted to do an English one as well. Is there a way we can do this? Thank you.

RWNYC19 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you can provide some reliable independent sources and who is "we", Wikipedia accounts are for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:35, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Winston16

I have now deleted the source that you were unhappy with from the article Winston16 (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winston16, The issue here is that the subject is likely not notable to be included on WIkipedia. Notability is how we decide who can have an article. Usually that requires at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject signifigant coverage. Think newspapers, media, books, etc. Your sources do not currently meet that standard. If such sources cannot be found, the subject cannot have an article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:14:09, 12 November 2019 review of draft by Claudette De Ville


Dear Madam, dear Sir, I am very disappointed my draft about the work and the life of the artist Pol Fraiture has not been accepted. I am the widow of Pol Fraiture and I wrote the text. It is not a translation and all my sources are reliable. Both what I wrote and the sources can be checked. I first created an article in French on Wikipedia, and it was checked and published. The English page I have submitted is a different text I wrote. I do not see my draft anymore and I do hope it has not been deleted! It took me so long to create it and to add the sources references. Thanks in advance for your answer, Kind regards, Claudette De Ville Claudette De Ville (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Claudette De Ville: The draft was moved from User:De ville claudette/sandbox to Draft:Pol Fraiture. It's still there. You can see the page's history. It has not been reviewed yet, it is in the queue and someone will get to it eventually. Since you have conflict of interest, you need to WP:DISCLOSE it. I am however going to say that the draft will very likely be initially declined because it is not written in a neutral encyclopedic tone. For example, stuff like "passionate artist dedicated to his art" is completely unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I should also warn you that it will be very difficult to review, because all the sources are offline and not in English. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:09, 12 November 2019 review of draft by Ubiquitouslarry


The reviewer states that the references in the article “don't show notability at a sufficient level for a biography on Wikipedia. They show the details of Guo's business dealings but don't demonstrate notability as per the guidelines.”

Guo is not just a business woman. She is also a computer engineer. Guo built the software that powers Scale AI.

If Scale AI was her only claim to fame, I would have created a company article and mentioned her involvement.

But Guo is also a Thiel Fellow, worked at Quorum, was the first female engineer at Snapchat, and has built a slew of popular apps. She currently uses the money she earned with Scale AI to invest in the projects of other engineers. None of the preceeding is integral to Scale AI.

I am trying to get my head around what criteria for notability that I missed.

Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitouslarry I am inclined to disagree with the reviewer here. The . Nordic Business Forum. story about the fellowship, and the Marie Claire story alone are looking like pretty good evidence of notability to me. The basic criterion here is the General Notability guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Sources here seem to be largely reliable, and many of them are independent, so the issue is coverage. Many of the cited sources include only brief mentions of Guo, but that should be ok, and may even be required to verify facts relevant to her, but there need to be several sources that deliver [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage}}. Just how much coverage is significant is something of a judgement call, but a single mention is pretty much never significant coverage. Several paragraphs or more devoted to the subject in a given story is much more likely to be judged to be significant. I have not checked over all the sources in the article yet. If ther are, or could be added, one or two more with coverage comparable to the two I mentioned above, that might be sufficient. MurielMary, would you care to respond to my views as the reviewer who declined this? Captain Eek, please see Help:Citation merging for the bundled citation format used in this draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, Ah, thank you for pointing that out. I have used merged citations before, but had never seen it done that way before. Thanks for letting me know, I rescind any criticism of the ref style. I still think the investments section is unencyclopedic and probably promotional however. But I do agree with DES, she seems like she might be notable, but an indepth look at sources is needed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek, I merged the citations to avoid the visually disruptive citation-trains at the end of sentences. DESiegel, thank you for the citation-merging article. It prompted me to remove the first bullet from each list which makes the reference listings less disconcerting. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek, I agree that the investments section with the descriptions are a bit overkill. My intention was to show she has invested in companies she understands as opposed to unrelated companies that simply make money. Her education led to her career choices which led her to to her investment choices. None of the companies have Wikipedia entries, so I added in short definitions for reference. Maybe a short listing of names and links to their respective sites would be enough.Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

Request on 08:02:20, 13 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Efratmag


I would really appreciate your guidance as a new Wikipedia writer, regarding both my submissions: >>“Itamar Medical”: This is a translation of an Hebrew page. The original article contain only Hebrew references. You mentioned that the reason for declining this article is (among other things) the lack of references. The thing is I’m not sure what is the right approach in this case - adding new references although they do not exist in the original article? >>“Peripheral Arterial Tonometry”: I originally submitted the article on September 9. Then, after it was declined, submitted the revisioned article on October 4. I know you mention the process can take 8 weeks or more, but still wanted to verify you received it.

Efratmag (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:05, 13 November 2019 review of draft by Michaelmonet44


Hello. I just published the changes to my draft after receiving feedback and am reaching out for help to make sure that the updates I made meet the expectations. Please advise. Michaelmonet44 (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelmonet44 (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:07, 13 November 2019 review of submission by Nilima sen


Nilima sen (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MR DAVID MORENO WIKIPEDIA Dear Sir, I was told to submit more references for which i have mentioned the names of more books written by Abanindra Maitra and the online links, these books have his biography,and i submitted for re review. Thanks for the reply. Regards. Nilima Sen ````

Request on 16:07:04, 13 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Infomaster0002


I am trying to publish an article and it has been rejected for not having enough coverage on the topic. I would like some assistance on specific types of sources you guys look for so I can improve the article. Thank you!

Infomaster0002 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infomaster0002, Howdy hello! We look for sources that are reliable and independent. The form those take is usually news articles in the news media, magazines, or papers. Books and journal entries also are good. Websites sometimes work, but never use the website of a subject's article, or a closely related company/organization. To ensure notability, you usually need 3 sources in the news that also give significant coverage. Hope that helps! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:52, 13 November 2019 review of draft by FStroev


I translated my first article. This is Alexander Dorosinsky, winner of the 2004 Estonian rally. Earlier, I wrote an article in Russian and published it on the Russian Wikipedia. Then, more experienced participants helped fill out and refine the text, and after that I began to translate. Strictly following the instructions, I published a draft and applied for transferring the draft to the main space. Ten days later, no reaction. And I’m a little discouraged, because on the one hand it can be normal, on the other hand, I just couldn’t click on some other necessary buttons and now no one sees my application. It seems to me that the case is obvious (even if the article is based on Russian-language sources). I would be grateful for your help!

FStroev (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FStroev, Howdy hello! Don't despair at the slow response, the average wait time for draft review is quite long at the moment: about 8 weeks. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:06:33, 13 November 2019 review of submission by Zhxhong


Zhxhong (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael M. Saigh (born December 5, 1953 in St. Louis, Missouri) is an American inventor, former stockbroker and business professor from St. Louis, MO.

Early Year Michael Saigh was born in St Louis, Missouri. Saigh was the one of nephews of Fred Saigh who owns the St. Louis Cardinals (1947–53). He attended Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa Peoria, and graduated with a business degree in 1974, at age 21. He got MBA 

and Doctoral degree in Business from Webster University in St Louis, Missouri.

Inventions  Many of Michael's inventions and creations are used daily by millions of citizens around the globe. In the mid 1980s he set out to invent and patent the first electronic book (the early foundation of today’s handheld electronic e-readers, such as the Kindle). His early inventions include video on demand, books on demand, and various technologies protecting and managing digital rights.

In addition, his vast portfolio of inventions and patents include: wireless hospital information technology, automated logistical distribution for the retail industry, innovative alternative energy technologies, new smartphone and cellular protocols, high-tech entertainment applications, and leading edge crime prevention and security networks and related technologies for emergency responders.

Business Life Michael has established many businesses include Equine Smartbit LLC., Liquid Rarity System LLC. He was awarded as Entrepreneur of the year in New Mexico in 2002.

@Zhxhong: This page is for specific help with your draft(s). You simply copy-pasted the contents of your draft here. Do you have a specific question that is not answered by the reason outlined in the rejection and all the linked guideline? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


November 14

02:06:45, 14 November 2019 review of draft by StarFremwell


I wish to add an Infobox on my draft article for a book. I'm not sure how to create one with an image, or what categories should be in it. I also wish for some advice. StarFremwell (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StarFremwell, Firstly, please make sure you have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic first. If you can't find this, then the book can't have a Wikipedia article, as it would be impossible to verify the contents.
To answer your question, Template:Infobox book is used to add an infobox. There are details of the parameters on that page. To add it to an article, you add
{{infobox book |name=example name |author=example author}} and so on to the article.
As an image for the book will be copyrighted, you can only add an image to the infobox once the article is published, under the provisions of fair use - see WP:NFCI for details.
I don't really know the details of categorisation, so I'll let someone else answer that one.
Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:50:04, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Crocatoot

What is wrong with this page and why has it not been approved? Crocatoot (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crocatoot, Not enough reliable sources that review or cover the game. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:40:59, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Olimbek zayniddinov

Please explain that my project does not fit the article Olimbek zayniddinov (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olimbek zayniddinov, Your article was rejected, as there was no content other than a sandbox test message, and some section headings. If you wish to write an article about Samarkand economy and service institute, you should either write an article and submit it to AFC, or ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Education.
However, to have an article, any subject requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If you don't have this, please don't attempt to write an article, as it would not be possible to verify it to Wikipedia's standards. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14 November 2019 review of submission by FairlyFlatFoot

I have been working on a draft for Adrienne Haslet >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adrianne_Haslet<<. I submitted it for review to go live, but the reviewer still believes there is not enough coverage to maker her notable enough for an article. I dont understand this, and disagree. I came across many articles in reliable sources that are completely focused on her, and are not at all passing mentions. Please see my draft and look at the many sources that support the content. If you agree that the article is not yet worthy of submission into Wikipedia, please tell me what more I need to do. And if you think this woman will never be Wiki worthy, then perhaps I should give up? Thanks so much for your help.FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:53, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Olimbek zayniddinov


How do I know if this DRAFT (project: Samarkand Institute of Economics and Service) has been rejected or accepted? Olimbek zayniddinov (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Olimbek zayniddinov: You should expect to wait roughly two months for a review. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:51, 14 November 2019 review of submission by RWNYC19


Hi, I noticed you have reviewed this page and declined it again. I wonder then how we can add an English version to an already existing Hebrew Wikipedia page? Thank you. Please can you give me some more information.

RWNYC19 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RWNYC19: The guidelines and policies that Hebrew Wikipedia has are their own and not necessarily the same as those on English Wikipedia. We can only really advise you about English Wikipedia. You would have to follow their procedures for creating articles. However, it's highly doubtful that they would accept an English version of an article. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:25, 14 November 2019 review of draft by 2600:1702:1410:AA20:853C:9ED7:E2B2:2C4C


Need help submitting draft for review. Each time I try to submit for review, I am redirected to a page that directs me to press the Publish Changes button, but the button is not active.

2600:1702:1410:AA20:853C:9ED7:E2B2:2C4C (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you clicking the blue button which says "Submit your draft for review" ? Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted it on your behalf. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:28, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Wowletmebe

Draft:DK

Please review and confirm if any adjustments are necessary to make this article compliant. I believe I provided sufficient information alongside the appropriate references and the individual in question is notable.

      • I do apologise for the pasted content genuine mistake.

Please review the draft article if you have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowletmebe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captains note: The whole article was copy pasted here, I have undone that, as that not how we do things here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wowletmebe: I have submitted the draft to AfC on your behalf. Please be patient and wait for a review. The process takes an average of 8 weeks at the moment. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please check the additional sources and resubmit this draft for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowletmebe (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:37:20, 14 November 2019 review of draft by TheFallenMoon


While waiting for this draft to come under eventual review, I wanted to know if there is anything I can currently do to improve it. The same applies to Draft:Name and Number EP. Thank you for any help you can supply. TheFallenMoon (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheFallenMoon, Peters 1914 is...way too short. There is basically no information or sources. You need at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. For Name and number, same thing: need sources. You have to prove that both meet the WP:MUSIC notability requirements. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:33, 14 November 2019 review of draft by MemeTrooper

Hello, I had submitted a draft artivle and it was declined due to not having significant coverage with reliable, secondary sources. May I please have help with knowing what a reliable secondary source is so I know what else I have to include? This is the submission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MediBang Thanks.MemeTrooper (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MemeTrooper, Can you show me the best 5 sources you have for the article? They should be reliable, independent, and give significant coverage to the subject. Leave a note on my talk page preferably. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MemeTrooper (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:50:02, 14 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tina Rosco


Article draft for creation currently being re-reviewed. The first time I submitted it, it was declined within hours. This time, it has been days. Is this normal? I know it says I may have to wait 8 weeks, I just want to know if the hours vs. days review time is normal. Thanks.

Tina Rosco (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Rosco, Howdy hello! The amount of time before a review is quite random, its somewhat unusual to get feedback within hours, so be thankful. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and there are about 3,000 of them waiting for review. The average wait time is 8 weeks currently, although volunteers are working hard to reduce that time. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Captain Eek! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Rosco (talk • contribs) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

08:16:43, 15 November 2019 review of submission by 2409:4062:19B:1D17:2933:352E:B259:61DD


2409:4062:19B:1D17:2933:352E:B259:61DD (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are WP:NOT a lyrics database. This would not be approved in its current state. Such an article needs reliable sources, and prose in English. As is, it seems purely promotional and will likely be deleted, especially as it says "Find our song", showing a clear conflict of interest. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:12, 15 November 2019 review of draft by 92.21.222.252


92.21.222.252 (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the draft and tell me if the sources meet the notability criteria.

The queue is over eight weeks long. Please be patient. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wrong context I am not trying to skip the queue please advise on my sources and whether they meet the notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowletmebe (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:32, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Aliso4ka2013

Hello! I tried to publish my article 3 times. The main reason why the article has not yet been published is in reliable references. I think I fixed this problem by adding more references showing significant coverage. Could you kindly check the article, please? Do I need to add more references? Are there any options for the article to be reviewed earlier? Thanks in advance!

Aliso4ka2013 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aliso4ka2013, Your article is in the queue and awaiting review. Please be patient, as the average review time is about 8 weeks at the moment. I'm afraid there is no way to be reviewed earlier, as that would unfair to the other people who have been waiting in the queue. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:19, 15 November 2019 review of submission by SM1844


Hello. This is my first time creating a wiki page. I kept resubmitting it after making some changes to see what exactly needed to be changed but it was a little confusing. Could I get more specific advice and examples on what needs to be fixed and how? The neutral tone requirement was my biggest issue-- I tried to be as neutral as possible so if this is still the issue could I get some help with that? Any other critiques are welcome! Thanks so much. SM1844 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SM1844, As I see it, you are lacking sources. Few of the sources seem to give the subject significant coverage. The prominent collectors section is entirely unsourced and is also unencyclopedic, I suggest that it go. The external links should not be in the body, they should either go at the end, or be formalized as references. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


16:53:45, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Interstellarity

I am working on the sections Background and Mixed martial arts career. I found this source and am having trouble expressing this in my own words. Can you help me please? Interstellarity (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Interstellarity (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:10, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Jacknickels


Jacknickels (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC) We feel that this page should be submitted into Wikipedia[reply]

Jacknickels, Who is "we"? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:19, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Jacknickels


Jacknickels (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC) We believe as Wisconsin Soccer Experts currently employed by USA soccer Associated, that this wikipedia article Samuel Abreu should be reinstated as a current wikipedia article. Abreu is currently up and coming in the soccer world, and is very well known with over 1 million social media followers. Thank you very much, Jack Nickels USA Soccer Associate[reply]

Jacknickels, Lotta issues here. For starters, accounts are individual use. There is no "we" behind an account. Only one person is allowed to use an account. If you have been paid by a subject, or received any form of compensation (such as being an employee of USA Soccer and were expected to make these edits in the course of your work) relating to the edits you have made, you must disclose that per WP:PAID. Furthermore, to prove notability, you need more and better sources. Coverage in newspapers, the media, etc. As is, it seems that the subject is likely not notable. There are 8 billion living people, and thus very very few are actually well known enough to be included. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:34, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Tedfmyers


Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Please forgive me if I have made any mistakes, as I am new to contributing to wikipedia and may not be aware of all the rules regarding article creation and editing.

My latest submission was rejected on the basis of WP:NCORP. I've reviewed the page on notability for corporations and organizations, and believe that it should pass these guidelines. To back up this claim, I found nine (out of the nineteen references in the latest article version) that pass the guidelines of being significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. These are the references I believe fulfill these categories:

(references 7,8,9,11,13,14,16,17, and 19 in the original article) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Please let me know if you agree with me, or if I have made any mistakes in my reasoning. It should also be noted that I have added a few references since the article was rejected.

References

  1. ^ Kim, Jed (February 23, 2017). "Changing carbon from waste into gold". Marketplace. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  2. ^ Soltoff, Ben (October 16, 2019). "Opus 12 is one startup on a mission to convert CO2 into useful products". GreenBiz. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  3. ^ Switalski, Caitie (October 31, 2019). "Not Only For Vessels: Fort Lauderdale Boat Show Connects Environmental Entrepreneurs With Funders". WLRN Public Radio and Television. Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  4. ^ Fekri, Farnia (April 28, 2017). "Kendra Kuhl Is Building a Device That Turns Pollution Into Products". Vice. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  5. ^ Satell, Greg (April 5, 2018). "Why Some of the Most Groundbreaking Technologies Are a Bad Fit for the Silicon Valley Funding Model". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  6. ^ Langholz, Sasha (July 11, 2019). "Berkeley-based team wins prize for carbon dioxide reduction technology". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  7. ^ Schiller, Ben (March 8, 2017). "The First-Ever Roddenberry Prize Awards Companies Pushing Us Toward A Star Trek Future". Fast Company. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  8. ^ Tindera, Michela (Oct 17, 2016). "Ashton Kutcher, Top VCs Pick Winners Of For-Profit Change The World Competition". Forbes. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  9. ^ Service, Robert (September 19, 2019). "Can the world make the chemicals it needs without oil?". Science Magazine. Retrieved 14 November 2019.

Tedfmyers (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

06:10:09, 16 November 2019 review of draft by 117.228.101.79

I have references and citations but i don't know how to do it, i cllicked on links provided by wikipedia but it is too technical, editing is not my thing plus i want my article in an wikipedia manner not like an essay( the reason why it was declined), so i request you to research on my article, i have provided two links or you can google search it, there are sources, the subject "Baba Nagnath Yogeshwar" is worthy of wikipedia page but i am just too illiterate to edit and present it like wikipedia page, so please make the neccessary changes yourself and give consent to the draft, thank you.

117.228.101.79 (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have exactly one source. You need far more sources. Another editor is unlikely to take up this draft I'm afraid, unless you can find one. You may wish to add this to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:54:57, 16 November 2019 review of submission by Irie lwah

I am asking for a re-view because it is my first time creating a page here on Wikipedia and would like to be guided on how exactly is a Wikipedia page supposed to look like.

Irie lwah (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irie lwah, Unfortunately, the subject does not appear to be notable. Notability requires good sourcing, usually a fair number of reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. This just seems to be an average person, like you or I, and thus no particular reason for them to have an article. Furthermore, the article is written in a promotional tone, is not neutral, and not written like an encyclopedia. You may wish to edit other areas of Wikipedia to get a feel for our policies and practices before making more drafts. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music would be a good place to start. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:54:53, 16 November 2019 review of submission by VeryRarelyStable

Well, I can concur with the inquirer a couple of days ago asking why one draft was taking days when others they'd submitted had only taken hours. My page Tomahawk Beach took less than an hour to approve and Allans Beach about thirty seconds. Draft:Smaills Beach is at six weeks and counting. Are reviewers watching the back end of the queue instead of the front?

That's not what I'm inquiring about, however. I've been watching how fast my draft has been crawling forward up the queue as older articles get dealt with. It's spent about two weeks now on the tenth page of submissions. At this rate I calculate it will be approaching six months old by the time it reaches the front. It may be over six months. It may, for that matter, be over six months without substantive edits from me, because I've about reached the point where I need other eyes on it before I have any changes to make. If I'm not much mistaken that would make it automatically a candidate for speedy deletion. Should I do dummy edits every couple of weeks or so to forestall this fate?

VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VeryRarelyStable, Howdy hello! Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, as most reviewers choose to review a random draft. Brand new submissions, and very old submissions are slightly biased however, due to the way the review interface works. However, I see that TheRoadisLong has already reviewed the draft in question. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just after I posted the above, yes... —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:08:17, 16 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Sonu4200



Sonu4200 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, neither can Instagram or Facebook so you are left with zero sources with which to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:21, 16 November 2019 review of submission by 103.139.9.69


103.139.9.69 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have enough sources. You need reliable and independent sources with significant coverage that show the subject is notable. Such sources must also be cited inline. But as far as I can see, the subject likely just isn't notable at this time. You may be better served by finding an existing article on a subject that interests you, and editing that. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:29:01, 16 November 2019 review of draft by Barbabeau

Trying to get this page up, but it seems with every submission there is an increasing amount of credits demanded, with zero specifics. When I'm told to put in more "secondary" sources, and I do, I'm told I still need more--like, how many more? I have 30 sources from newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Now I'm told I need a national or international award of some kind? How many? From where? If I had known a national or international award was required, it could have saved me a lot of time. Is this across the board, or just for singer/songwriters? Little help? No idea what a "tea house" is.

Barbabeau (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbabeau, Howdy hello! The Teahouse is a great forum for asking questions, and where we send a lot of content questions. This board however works for most AfC questions anyway. In terms of sources, the issue you might be facing is signifigant coverage. If a piece just name drops her, but says little else, its not a good source. A musician doesn't have to have an award, but having one is usually a quick route to notability. For this artist, you must show that they meet at least one prong of WP:MUSICBIO. I highly recommend you read that link, and see if she meets any of the criteria. You can help us speed the process along by posting here you top three to five references, i.e. the references that you think are the best, they are independent, reliable, secondary, and give the subject significant coverage. If responding, please add {{ping|CaptainEek}} to your reply so that I see it. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:53, 16 November 2019 review of submission by Bpurkaple

We substantially reworked the article and added more specific references. Bpurkaple (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bpurkaple, Who is we? Accounts are individual use. There is no "we" behind an account. Only one person is allowed to use an account. Additionally, if you have been paid by a subject, or received any form of compensation relating to the edits you have made, you must disclose that per WP:PAID. While the article has been cleaned up somewhat, I do not see how it is notable for inclusion. It seems to be a neologism, and one that is not widely used. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek:

CaptainEek,Sorry. I mostly write articles for scientific journals and use the formal "we." It is a habit from training that I carried over into this different format. I am the sole user of this handle and this is my work. I do not get paid for my work on this topic. It is voluntary and not part of my day job.

While the topic is unique in primary care medicine, it is not a neologism to the field. It is a philosophy in the medical field that is prevalent so much so that at the North American Primary Care Research group had an entire half-day of the conference spent in discussion of this topic alone with an additional three other speakers discussing this topic in different presentations throughout the rest of the conference. It is in the same vein as person-centered care, which also has its own wikipedia page.Bpurkaple (talk)

20:37:42, 16 November 2019 review of submission by OTFTYT

also rolling sky is a valid topic bc its a game i found and hasnt been writen about before so OTFTYT (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTFTYT, I take it this regards Draft:Rolling Sky. Having looked at another version of it in your sandbox history, and the current draft version, your issues are multifold. Primarily: sourcing. Every article needs sources to make it verifiable. You have no sources currently. You need at least 3 that review the game to make it notable, and preferably more. We don't write about anything, as that would make Wikipedia enormous and unwieldy. We have to choose what we write about, and thus we have to ensure that articles are notable. We do that by ensuring the subject has been written about in the media. You will need to show that to get the article approved. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we are working on another one. Appoligies :CaptainEek.

20:43:05, 16 November 2019 review of submission by Bluest111

If I may know, why was my article not suitable for publishing? Bluest111 (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bluest111, It seems to be an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged. We only write about notable folks, those who have been covered in the media. For instance, I don't even have a page despite being a long time Wikipedian. Someone like Beyonce does on the other hand, as she has been covered by the media. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


21:20:54, 16 November 2019 review of submission by BFP1

I have a very untidy External links reference * Paintings by William Oliver Williams at Art UK. On 30 October OxonAlex tidied a similar reference up by removing 2 spaces (it was something about getting everything on the same line). Could it be indicated precisely what was done to my original reference? The 2 versions look the same to me BFP1 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done you were missing a bracket like this "]" after Williams. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Theroadislong|Theroadislong. Much appreciated BFP1 (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Request by Wowletmebe

Draft:Egbunike (surname)

Please confirm if this article needs any additional information. Also can you please submit this for a review if this is fine.

Wowletmebe (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason my request for revuew is being ignored? Please assist

Wowletmebe (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wowletmebe: - I've submitted on your behalf. It looks okay, but I can't do reviews on this laptop. For future note, give it 36 hours before following up - Sunday in particular is the quietest day on Wikipedia Nosebagbear (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, appreciated.

Wowletmebe (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:05:39, 17 November 2019 review of submission by Callyhannah


This keeps getting rejected. Hazel has just won the Adelaide 3 star for the 3rd time. She is one of 5 riders in the world to win an international olympic level event 3 times. Can someone please help me.


Callyhannah (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:34, 17 November 2019 review of submission by Bobbyshann

Hi There I Just update the page with more details. Please review for approve. Thank you Bobbyshann (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbyshann, The article seems to be about an average person, like you or I, and thus no particular reason to have an article. The sources aren't properly formatted or used in the first place (see referencing for beginners), and most of them aren't reliable (such as blogs). Furthermore, the tone was promotional, and seems to have original research, which we do not allow. Because it is not notable, it will likely be deleted. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:45, 17 November 2019 review of submission by One Red Line

Would appreciate some feedback on the page above. Previous submission was rejected because it sounded like a marketing/advertising spiel, which is not the intention. Have rewritten, but would appreciate if someone with more experience could look it over. Thanks! One Red Line (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:47, 17 November 2019 review of draft by Brettler555

It is the opinion of this author that the edited draft complies with the standards of merit for this individual to have inclusion. What more can I do to conform. Or else, shall I add submit to the top of the work. Thank you for your indulgence.


Brettler555 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brettler555, Your references are very malformed. Please read referencing for beginners to see how to fix things. From what I can tell, your main issue is that your "ref" tags aren't closed. I.e. you open them, using <ref>. But then you don't close them using a ref with a slash, such as </ref>.That is not the only issue. The sources are not all up to snuff. IMDb is not a reliable source and cannot be used. Blogs are not usable as sources either. Additionally, please remove the image boxes, as the images have been deleted. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:03, 17 November 2019 review of draft by JayShah2002


JayShah2002 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

when will my article be reviewed JayShah2002 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)jayShah2002[reply]

JayShah2002, Reviews are averaging 8 weeks at the moment. However, I see you have recieved some feedback on your draft, which you should definitely take. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:00, 17 November 2019 review of submission by Davisbro3812712


I have changed the feel of the page - could you please take a look into this. Help me add some stuff - so it doesn't make me look like a fan. I mean I listen to his songs - but not really a fan.

Davisbro3812712 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

10:15:04, 18 November 2019 review of submission by Mpastorleary


Mpastorleary (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:16:16, 18 November 2019 review of submission by 130.0.29.116


130.0.29.116 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:20:35, 18 November 2019 review of submission by 130.0.29.114

I'm the manager of Kiameti. I think now it deserve to review. Kiameti now it's famous on Shkodër AL. AND HIS RECOGNITIONS IS GROWING UP DAY BY DAY

130.0.29.114 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:26:21, 18 November 2019 review of draft by TheoMax42651


If the article focuses more on the lawsuit vs Lt Col Sam Schism would that address the concern? Also, the information about his career were drawn from two different books that were published and his primary military records; therefore, guidance on how to reference those items would be helpful.

Thank you,

TheoMax42651 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=926787435"