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 Tentator (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 25 April 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


April 19

00:25:00, 19 April 2020 review of draft by Evvekk


This draft was declined due to notability, but I believe the subject qualifies for notability under WP:MILPERSON criteria 2 (subject is an Admiral) and criteria 5 (commanded United States Navy Dental Corps). Additionally, the subjects were notable enough for special recognition by both of his almae matres. Evvekk (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evvekk, This should have been accepted. I'm approving it now. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:54:17, 19 April 2020 review of submission by Adam Catch


Adam Catch (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Catch, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's looking for his other sock. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the archive: 07:16, 19 April 2020 Mz7 talk contribs blocked Adam Catch talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{checkuserblock-account}}: Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adam Catch). Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:16, 19 April 2020 review of submission by Futbol10p


This coach is a professional soccer coach within the National Independent Soccer Association (NISA) and also has notable accomplishments plus legitimate references for everything.

Not recognizing NISA as a professional league but recognizing the USL League One and USL Championship is highly suspicious and seems like there may be potential collusion with USL league representatives as there is more vague information for USL1 then NISA available.

https://www.nisaofficial.com/news/2020/02/16/nisa-receives-ussf-pro-league-membership

The collegiate programs this coach worked for should also be notable enough to qualify for publishing to live site.

Futbol10p (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futbol10p, We did not create the guidelines surrounding whether a certain league is considered fully professional or not. We simply follow the rules set out by them. If you have issues with the current standard of notability, you may want to discuss it at either Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Until any of their rules change, the subject of your page is currently not notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:39, 19 April 2020 review of draft by Per W


The answer from the reviewer was: "No evidence that this power cable passes the notability threshold. " I cite two sources: a technical description and a newspaper article. They provide substantial coverage and are independent. I found other newspaper articles about the cable, especially when it does not work.

  • Should I provide these article somewhere?
  • Should I look for more detailed descriptions of the cable?

Per W (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 1292simon, you are more than welcome to comment! Per W (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per W, Add a couple of the newspaper articles and resubmit it or ping me when it's done and I'll look at it and likely approve it. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:18, 19 April 2020 review of draft by Puremusician


Hi, I'm trying to submit an artist wiki page. It has been declined maybe because I put it under article category. How can I fix it? Puremusician (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puremusician, You need to show with reliable, secondary sources WP:RS that your subject passes WP:NARTIST or WP:ANYBIO Sulfurboy (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:48, 19 April 2020 review of submission by Puremusician

I have tried to submit an Artist bio page, it has been declined maybe because it was under article category. I don't know how to change the category, please help. Puremusician (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puremusician Your draft was declined because it has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support its content, as the reviewer informed you. Wikipedia articles should summarize what such sources state, showing how the musician meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. Please see Your First Article for more information. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:47, 19 April 2020 review of submission by G. Moore

I am working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals. Our project goals include having a list of hospitals for every Country/Major Administrative Division of a Country. There was no list for Indonesian hospitals. I started an article on List of hospitals in Indonesia, since there were already several articles about hospitals in Indonesia in Wikipedia. It was reverted to a draft article because it wasn't complete and the task seemed to big to the reviewer. Since then, I have added all of the major hospitals in Indonesia, along with references and discussion of health facilities in Indonesia. I would like to move this article to the main Wikipedia workspace now that it is more complete and substantive. Not all hospitals are notable. However, this article lists all major hospitals and a few clinics and medical centers as well. As notable hospitals are discovered in the list, links can be made to create the articles on notable hospitals. I have put a lot of effort into this, as I think it will be important to know about Indonesian hospitals during the corona virus pandemic. REF: Draft:List of hospitals in Indonesia

G. Moore 13:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to G Moore 13:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G. Moore, Looks good now. I've approved it. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:02, 19 April 2020 review of draft by 151.20.130.162


151.20.130.162 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:52:46, 19 April 2020 review of submission by 1.186.198.197

enough notability present 1.186.198.197 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1.186.198.197:, but to interpret as a question on the grounds you give, I've looked and confirmed the reviewer's judgement. The sources you give fail to meet each of the four requirements to show page notability: in-depth, reliable, independent, secondary. Social media is both unreliable, non-independent and non-secondary. Wikis, including ours, aren't reliable (and depending on who wrote it, non-independent). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:53:50, 19 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by MissRight44



MissRight44 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MissRight44, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:54:51, 19 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Keirvt


An editor using the handle, Sulphurboy has declined publication of Draft:Australian Speleological Federation Cave Diving Group article on the basis that the organisation that the wiki article does not meet the criteria of showing significant coverage. The aricle shows the organisation is part of the Federal body of Australian speleologists an organisation of about 1500 members across all states of Australia. https://www.caves.org.au /https://www.caves.org.au/ The Cave Diving group has been in existence for many years and references the Federal body's web page, its code of ethics and the national and international achievements of the diving group. The ASF will reference the CDG page if it ever get published.

The draft wiki page has been authorised by the Australian Speleological Federation (ASF) . Although the proposed wiki page is short and simple the page underwent scrutiny by the Federation oganisation and rewrites.

The draft wiki page references the parent organisation and it project based exploration in Australia including cave diving exploration over many kilometers under the Nullarbor Plain as one example.

I cannot understand how this page does not meet the requirements of wikipedia. Please could you be more explicit in the reasons for denial or perhaps review the editorial descision.

Keirvt (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keirvt, I suggest reading the linked policies in the decline message. Particularly, we need to see WP:SIGCOV of the subject in reliable, secondary sources to show that it passes WP:NCORP. We do not care at all whether or not the subject has approved the creation of the page. We're you hired by the organization to create the page? What is your association with them? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:14, 19 April 2020 review of submission by Mukilteoedits


Hello, I posted this on the Teahouse, but now I'm wondering if I should have posted it here? A few weeks ago I asked for the page Draft:Scott Disick to be unSALTed. It is my first time working with a SALTed article. The main page has been nominated for deletion four times in the past, but I believe the article is now ready for creation, since Disick's fame has increased. I received feedback that the articles I used were only passing mentions of Disick. This simply is not true. I cited more than 100 sources in this article, and while some of them do contain passing mentions, many do not. For example, Chicago Tribune, E! News, Architectural Digest, People, and this one HuffPost, among others. Additionally, notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP, and the most recent community consensus was to allow new draft, and you can find at least two other editors (alongside myself) who have commented on the main page talk page requesting that an article be made for this subject. Additionally, on Talk:Kourtney Kardashian there are several discussions in which people have suggested he receive his own article. I believe he meets WP:ENT parts one and two. He has been a main cast member in more than 140 episodes of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, has his own show on E!Network (new since last discussion of his notability), and has guest starred on a number of other shows. In reference to point two of WP:ENT, he has a large fan base (23.5 million Instagram followers; 6.8 million Twitter followers - more than Adam Sandler, Gwen Stefani, the White House, etc.). Finally, the current redirect does not make sense, because he is no longer dating Kourtney Kardashian. He also meets WP:GNG, because he has significant coverage (which a quick Google search will show). I don't know how to improve the draft, and I think the editor simply did not approve it due to the past nominations. How can I go about getting this draft approved?

Mukedits (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mukilteoedits, Neither the draft nor the article space look to be salted, so I'm not sure what the problem is that you are running into? Sulfurboy (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sulfurboy:The draft space is not salted, the article space is I believe? I already requested the draft to be unsalted and was able to create it. I asked for the draft to be reviewed and approved but it was denied; however, I don't think it should have been and another editor agreed. Can you provide feedback on why it was not approved? I don't think the reviewing editor properly considered the draft (but I'm not trying to throw shade). Mukedits (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mukilteoedits, Not sure why you're asking me. I didn't decline it. And I'm not seeing any page protection on the mainspace article. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, I thought this was a help page? The feedback said I could post here if I needed help? I'm asking you because you responded to my question asking what the issue was. Also the mainspace article Scott Disick is protected, but it currently redirects to Kourtney Kardashian which is not protected. The reviewer did not respond to my request for further feedback from him and I need to know the next steps for moving forward with getting the article approved.

April 20

09:26:23, 20 April 2020 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:ACEA:385F:12FF:10C4

I am requesting a re-review because I have made the required changes that I understand needed to be implemented. I have ensured that all information is factual and not promotional. 2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:ACEA:385F:12FF:10C4 (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have ignored DGG's advice, which was to not resubmit. Unfortunately nothing substantial has changed: this is a promotional profile for a non-notable individual. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 11:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:46:30, 20 April 2020 review of submission by Sworrubt


I've been advised that this article isn't notable, but the eight other departments in the Faculty of Science and Engineering at The University of Manchester have Wikipedia articles - this is the only one without one.

Sworrubt (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sworrubt, Please see WP:INN Sulfurboy (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:27:00, 20 April 2020 review of draft by WikiMacaroons


I'd like help with improving this page. It was the second I created and the second to be rejected for one reason or another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bill_Stickers_is_innocent

WikiMacaroons (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMacaroons, What did you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy I was told my article perhaps did not qualify for Wikipedia due to the cites. What do you think? WikiMacaroons (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMacaroons, You only have one source and it's an entry on a phrase dictionary. That isn't enough to pass any of our notability guidelines. I would recommend reviewing the links in the decline message that Kylie already provided on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy Thanks for your guidance. Do I send you a barnstar? Sorry I'm a bit of a newbie, only like a hundred edits WikiMacaroons (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:07, 20 April 2020 review of submission by 106.204.207.43


106.204.207.43 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:44, 20 April 2020 review of submission by Muneer19


Muneer19 (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can i know why is it rejected i can i first looked his all the documents and then i started to make this page he has his page on instgram also namely as mb_enterprises_ you can ask him for documents or details so can you please help me in making this page

17:13:26, 20 April 2020 review of submission by Rohitmadanjha


Rohitmadanjha (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It includes a lovely photograph (probably not copyright free though), the subject is not shown to be notable. Facebook is never a reliable source and cannot be used to establish notability and Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics that have been reported on in depth by multiple, independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:06, 20 April 2020 review of submission by Rohitmadanjha


Rohitmadanjha (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rohitmadanjha, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:26, 20 April 2020 review of submission by MissRight44

While creating this article I looked up that article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Esports_Federation, it has less appropriate references than I added to my work. And I am really annoyed with the fact that my work was rejected. Don't you consider "The Herald" as a good news source? Please, give me some advice, so I can have my article published. I have proofs-articles from such websides: The Herald, The Chronicle, Pindula, Zimbabwe News. I'm looking forward for hearing from you!

MissRight44 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MissRight44, It is abundantly clear that you did not read the linked policies that were provided six or seven times over. If you had, you would have learned that The Herald article would be considered WP:ROUTINE coverage. The article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. I would recommend going forward that you edit pages of existing articles that may interest you as to familiarize yourself with our processes, as creating new pages is one of the most difficult tasks you can do on Wikipedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:50:19, 20 April 2020 review of draft by 151.20.130.162


Hi, why this page has been rejected? Thanks


151.20.130.162 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left a decline message on the page itself, are you able to see that? Did you have a specific question about those linked policies? Sulfurboy (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:56:32, 20 April 2020 review of submission by Gkatt655


Gkatt655 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I delete it myself or let you do it?

An admin will come along and delete it shortly. Going forward I would recommend editing already existing articles about topics that interest you. Creating new pages is a very difficult task. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

02:16:22, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Articlegooroo


I'm sort of a standstill now. I initially created the Beyond Better Foods article because it seems a clear candidate for something that should be included in Wikipidia. I cam across it in another article - Lisa Lillien, a known influencer. I figured that as the org is a large, national company with products that have been reviewed by impartial parties (dieticians and nutritionists), as well as large national health and fitness mediums that review all kinds of products on a regular basis, this seemed to make sense. The company's notoriety seems to be clear - it has massive distribution, multiple products and flavors, and has been discussed online, in print, on news channels, and more. It is regularly mentioned as one of the defining organizations that recreated the frozen food aisle, alongside Halo Top, Arctic Zero, and others.

When I initially created the article, I received feedback that there weren't enough sources for it, and that some of the links provided were press releases. I've since removed those, and have provided a number of new links and articles, summarizing their content in the process in the article.

The feedback that I am now getting is it reads too much like a press release or an advertisement, yet I don't see how. The facts are this is a positively reviewed product that changed the industry here. I've also received feedback from the people that rejected it which is referencing content that is no longer in there (some of the press releases). They have since been removed - how do I let them know that?

I tried to also be as impartial as possible, putting negative press that I found as well (they currently have a lawsuit). Other than that, I didn't find much in that area.

Lastly, I based this model on other articles I found that have already been published (like Ben & Jerry's, Dippin Dots, Halo Top, Häagen-Dazs, etc). I don't understand what else I need to do here...can someone please help? Clearly my edits aren't working, so could really have someone else illustrate, on this article, what needs to be done to correct it. Almost everything can easily be found online and is readily available so, yeah.

Please help. It would be most appreciate for article and company that seems to merit this. I'm a bit tired of continuing this :/

Thanks,

Articlegooroo (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articlegooroo, The article has been rejected which means it unfortunately will not be considered further. Please note that creating new pages is one of the most difficult tasks one can undertake on Wikipedia. Further, WP:NCORP is one of the toughest standards for notability. So you had two major things working against you. Many experienced editors go months or years without creating their first page. I would recommend editing existing pages of topics that interest you so you can get a better feel for what we look for in pages. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulfurboy,

I appreciate you responding to this, however, it doesn't really address any of the points and the questions I've raised here. A constructive response to this is rather than just saying, "No, this is working against you and that's a tough situation", it would be more constructive to say, "I (either) agree (or disagree) with the merits and claims your making." Then, if you agree, the next step would be to support a fellow contributor of wiki with constructive criticism on how to improve the article, and not just say, "it's rejected". If there's one thing I learned in life, its to always keep trying and not give up! To me as a writer and contributor that is working on improving, the best way to learn is not just to abandon this, but rather find what needs to be improved and to actually improve it! This way I'd be both adding to what Wiki is about, AND improving as a contributor. Do you see? I imagine its taking as much time to go back and forth and respond here rather than just helping me understand, maybe by example, of what needs to be shifted for this to fit the standards that you're stating aren't being met. Because I'm honestly completely befuddled here.

I understand that you seem very committed to rejecting this and illustrating where I need improvement. GREAT! You've done it 4 or 5 times. That's very helpful, and for each round I've shifted and changed the article. I hope that demonstrates that I am actively working and putting time into this, and trying to learn what actually NEEDS to happen for this to be approved. So in the interest of helping a fellow contributor from an experienced contributor, are you able to let me know or advise a bit clearer on what I can do to shape up this article? Maybe through some examples, or by actually shifting the language so I can understand this? This will REALLY help as I move forward to continue to add, contribute, and tweak articles all around wiki (which I've already been doing too).Articlegooroo (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articlegooroo, Again, the article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further at this time. Multiple times you tried to push a press release through as a wiki article, as such it got rejected. The rest of your comments are pretty laughable. You were shown support and constructive criticism multiple times and you chose to ignore it or not put in the time to read our policies. You also were given a myriad of outlets for help, you chose not to follow up on that. I sure don't need a UPE telling me how I can be more constructive. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:08:41, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Itzbasid


I want to request on guide of how to fix my article love to make more article but this is my starting point, and I have issue with citation and reference please I need your guide on it. Thanks

Itzbasid (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Itzbasid, As already suggested to you, the first step would be a read of WP:REFB and H:FOOT. If you still are having issues with properly formatting your sources, you may want to pay a visit to the WP:TEAHOUSE Sulfurboy (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:12:58, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by PHansen.Research


Hi, I need help making the History, Aim & Scope section of my draft article for Democratic Theory read more encyclopaedically. I don't have heaps of experience writing encyclopaedia articles so if someone could help me (or even do it for me) that'd be great. PHansen.Research (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PHansen.Research, Did you need help with something specific? Asking people to write your article for you is a bit untoward. Please see WP:BUILDER. If you just wish to suggest someone should write an article about a subject, you can propose it at WP:SUGGEST Sulfurboy (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PHansen.Research: Here are some simple instructions (almost like a recipe) for how to write an article that won't be rejected. Right now, you're focusing too much on material that is not going to get it approved and so doesn't belong. Just find at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the journal Democratic Theory (not just people who work for it or with it), but are not affiliated with, connected to, or dependent upon Berghahn Books or the staff of Democratic Theory in any way. Summarize those sources, then paraphrase the whole thing. That's literally all you have to do. The "History, Aim & Scope" section is dead weight at this point. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:24:15, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Fact Initiative


I need assistance because my account is about to be deleted and also my article was rejected and I am being directed as using it for promotional. This is a Non-governmental organization and we focus on preventing the spread of fake or misleading news, gossips and stories across the continent.


We will request you approve our article and not regard the account as being promotional.

Thank you.

Fact Initiative (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the page since it was a WP:COPYVIO of your about page, and blocked your account because accounts are for individuals, not groups. When you rename your account or get a new one made, you can find instructions on how to create an article that won't be rejected or deleted in this link. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:41, 21 April 2020 review of submission by No sense of humour


Sorry, the title of the page you created is not correct. The page I created was specifically for "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering Optical Activity". This is a physical effect for chiral scatterers of light.

The editor has renamed the page to "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering", perhaps to shorten it. But this is actually incorrect because "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering" is also a physical effect, one that does not require the scatterers to be chiral.

I can create another page for "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering"... but the one I already created should be properly renamed to "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering Optical Activity" not just "Hyper Rayleigh Scattering".

Thank you! :-)

No sense of humour (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@No sense of humour: This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. After a draft is accepted and published as an article, it is outside our scope. It was published as Hyper Rayleigh Scattering Optical Activity, but subsequently moved several times by different editors. Being edited mercilessly comes with the territory. The most effective place to discuss the optimal title for the article is it's talk page, currently Talk:Hyper–Rayleigh scattering, where some discussion of the matter has already taken place. I recommend that you post there, pinging the participants in the previous discussion (see Help:Notifications for how to do so). --Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:28, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Doodiepoodie


Hello- I got help from the IRC - and have made the changes Doodiepoodie (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I got help from the IRC - and have made the changes

Hi there,

At first I did not agree with the conclusion of the reviewer!

Then I went to the IRC channel and spoke to a user named Majavah who walked me through the issues.

I have fixed these which were (a) putting the main point in the start (b) removing copyright issues (c) removing blogs and other opinion pieces

Please have a look?

Doodiepoodie (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doodiepoodie. I have reviewed the updated draft, and concur with the first reviewer. No amount of editing can fix the problem that he is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Most professors and entrepreneurs aren't. Pick a different topic to write about, we have over 6 million existing ones to choose from, nearly all of which need improvement. See Wikipedia:Community portal if you're unsure where to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Worldbruce - thank you, I will explore the others!

12:26:13, 21 April 2020 review of draft by Magiseif


The article was declined because citations were not put in footnote. However, I believe the only references that are not in footnote are the paper awards. Is that what is meant? I want to make sure I address the comment and not get this article rejected again so any help would be great! Thank you. Magiseif (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magiseif. You are correct about which statements do not cite a source. In addition, external links, ones that take the reader away from Wikipedia - like Magy Seif El-Nasr, are not allowed in the text. They must be removed, converted into citations of references if that is what they are, or collected at the end in an "External links" section (where there shouldn't be many links). Most importantly, Wikipedia is mainly interested in what other people have written about her, not so much in what she says about herself. At present the draft cites only sources written by Magy Seif El-Nasr. Only independent sources demonstrate notability, and the bulk of any article should be based on such arms-length sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:46, 21 April 2020 review of draft by Babbglin


Hi I wanted to fix a link in the article regardng extensible metadata platform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Metadata_Platform) There is a list of software and one of the entires is called "Diffractor", this incorrectly redirects to the article "Diffraction grating" (please note that the term "diffractor" is not being used in this article at all) which has nothing to do with the software called "Diffractor". So I created a new article about the software but it got declied due to page "Diffractor" already existing and redirecting to Diffraction grating. In order to pubish the article for review again I have to cite sources. Which I can't really see how to do. The software has a website (https://diffractor.com/) wich I included in the article. There isn't much more that I can do.

I'm new so I have no idea how to fix this issue :) Thanks!

Babbglin (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Babbglin. I've fixed the original problem on Extensible Metadata Platform for you. You can read about the underlying issue at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The Diffractor tool may not be notable (may not be suitable for a stand-alone encyclopedia article). Even if it is notable, I recommend against pursing a draft about it because creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can attempt. There are many easier and more rewarding ways to improve the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:40:07, 21 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Boston4you



Boston4you (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:17:05, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Noeljg20


Hello, I am trying to create a page similar to the already approved Renesas Microcontroller families RL78, R8C for example. Could you please let me know what would need to be modified in order to create the "RZ microprocessor" page? Thank you,

Noeljg20 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:20:30, 21 April 2020 review of submission by Deldel1010

Could you please advise on how to get a business page on wiki without sounding I guess salesy Deldel1010 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:02:46, 21 April 2020 review of draft by 51moont


51moont (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC) I just submitted full text but it is showing blank page. Could you check?[reply]

16:36:22, 21 April 2020 review of draft by Alexajacome


Alexajacome (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how else to change my article. I reviewed some sentences yesterday that appeared bias but my paper is a summary of a documentary on Amazon prime that accurately depicts what the documentary entails. I do not know how to change it or how to avoid it being deleted.

17:46:01, 21 April 2020 review of draft by SeònaidVilmar


Hi! Curious how I can improve "verifiability?" Sources include Cosmopolitan, the Associated Press, as well as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus (these being the world's two foremost book review trade publications) -- as well as newspapers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pablo_Starr

Also, not 100% sure where the "non-neutral" point of view is?

Thanks for the help!

SeònaidVilmar (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


April 22

02:23:56, 22 April 2020 review of submission by 27.34.28.32


27.34.28.32 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@27.34.28.32: - that draft is both promotional "The Best Web Hosting Company In Nepal Which Provides Cheapest Web Services In Nepal" but also the functioning sources don't provide anything close to notability for a person. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:50:57, 22 April 2020 review of submission by Ishfaquerinas


Ishfaquerinas (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ishfaquerinas, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:11:59, 22 April 2020 review of submission by MrTaghizade

Why page submission declined?

MrTaghizade (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The decline notice tells you this have you clicked on the links? Your submission has zero independent sources so notability cannot be established. Theroadislong (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:13:47, 22 April 2020 review of submission by ThisIsACreeper0101

This article is about an Indian gamer and YouTuber. It was created many weeks ago, but had not been submitted for review. So I'm submitting it now. ThisIsACreeper0101 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThisIsACreeper0101: I submitted it for you. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:59, 22 April 2020 review of submission by ArtistofWNY

Draft:Alberto Rey

Hello, I submitted this draft article for review a few days ago and it was tagged as employing inconsistent language with that of Wikipedia standards. I would very much like to know what parts of the draft appear this way and would like to make the necessary corrections to get the page approved. I was surprised the article was tagged for its language as I made no evaluations of the subject's success, nor any qualitative assessments of his artwork. I believe I used neutral language and reported merely what he has done in his life, without judgment, praise, or criticism. I have worked very hard on this draft over the past few months (as I'm sure many people writing their own draft articles have), and I would love to be able to get some feedback to better my chances of getting the article approved. Thanks for your time, ArtistsofWNY.ArtistofWNY (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArtistofWNY (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the reviewer, @Sulfurboy: - that notice is, as you point it out, expansively broad, and could use some clarification on the specific failure point. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping Nosebagbear. ArtistofWNY, The personal life section is fine. However, there's quite a few troubling lines in the works section. Whether it was your intention or not, the article provides commentary in many parts that comes across as WP:OR for a few reasons.
The overwhelming issue is the few dozen cites of the book "Life Streams: Alberto Rey's Cuban and American Art". You often just cite this book at the end of paragraphs, however, page numbers are never provided which makes verifying of many claims nearly impossible. I actually have a means of seeing this book and would like to see a few of the claims verified.
While central themes or inspirations of this artist may be readily apparent to you, many claims are not fully supported or provide non-dispassionate opinions, here are few examples:
"The 2001 black and white 16mm film “Seeing the Dark” (6:30 run-time) encapsulates Rey’s return trip to Cuba and signaled a change in viewpoint to cease depicting his home country in nostalgic methods."
Who says it encapsulates his return trip? Who said it signaled a change? Who said he ceased depicting via nostalgic methods?
"The Black Lace Series spurred from fascination of Catholic rituals, sainthood, and the artist’s exposure to Santeria, a Cuban synthesis of Catholic and African religions. The duality of personal items such as veils worn by women for modesty in church can also be seen as seductive in other contexts."
Who said any of this? If it's stated in the book it needs a page number.
"His marriage in 1989 reinvigorated his interest in depicting religion and its influence on marriage. "
Who said this?
"Desiring to reconnect to his Cuban identity as an American with no actual memories of his country"
Who said this desire? Who said he had no actual memories? Again if this is sourced from the book it needs a page number for verification.
"Moved by the passing of his sister, Mayda, and his father-in-law, Neil Strong, Rey’s series confronted death directly by depicting sick, dying, and deceased steelhead fish. " A source was provided at the end of the paragraph, but the source failed to verify this statement.
Again, the problem likely is that you've done a lot of research on this subject, so some of this information just seems obvious to you, however, facts, particularly those surrounding a subject's motivation, should not be assumed and need to be properly backed by sources.
Please understand this is a bigger issue because the subject is still alive. We have pretty strict guidelines that direct us how to handle biographies of living people. Particularly, if there are claims, such as motivations for their work (particularly when they involve intimate matters such as the death of loved ones) they need to be properly cited or removed until they can be properly cited. The subject is undoubtedly notable, and I know you've put a lot of work into it. However, you can't just cite a 300 page book as a whole to support two thirds of an article. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I see. Thank you for all of the clarification. I have access to the book and will start providing the correct page numbers and references. Your commentary has helped a lot and I believe I know how to take the article in a better direction now. Thank you! ArtistofWNY (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:12, 22 April 2020 review of draft by Parislav


Parislav (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why my article is not being published. I have 10 sources from reliable places, such as Fox5, Newsday, USCF, etc. Everything is true, I am the person in this article, and this happened. The USCF validates these claims as well. I don't understand, please help. The link to this should be article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Parislav/sandbox I have personally experianced these events, along with thousands and millions of other people.

Per WP:NCHESS, chess players who are only NMs are rarely considered notable. If and when the subject becomes a GM, they would be considered notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:10:05, 22 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Jrthpt


I received the notification that my submitted article "The Flow System' was not approved due to "This is a promotional essay"? This is a new organizational transformation model that is competitive with Agile and Lean methodologies. It is new but taking root and is being incorported into peer reviewed articles and book chapters as we speak. It is an empirical model. It is not commercial as a number of other Wiki articles (see examples listed below):

Examples: Flow - Journal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(journal)

CFXJ-FM Canadian Radio Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFXJ-FM

An Indie game created in Flash - Flow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(video_game)

A trade name of the Caribbean telecom Cable & Wireless Communications (CWC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(brand)

Calligra Flow - A free diagramming software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calligra_Flow

These examples are purely commercial. The article on The Flow System is descriptive in nature as it introduces a new system of understanding for organizaitions operating in complex environments (e.g., today's envioronment with COVID-19).

Notification received is copied below: Your submission at Articles for creation: The Flow System (February 9) AFC-Logo Decline.svgYour recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by DGG was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is a promotional essay, not an encyclopedia article DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I request the articles titles 'The Flow System' be approved.

Thanks, John R. Turner


Jrthpt (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jrthpt, Unfortunately the article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further at this time. The article read like an outright advertisement and nothing like a formal, neutral encyclopedic article. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:57:54, 22 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Yazil Ehtesham



Yazil Ehtesham (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles require significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, your draft has none. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see the submission is only self promotional. Yazil Ehtesham promoting himself, clearly saying Yazil Ehtesham is an famous Photographer aslo know as YAZIL_EHTESHAM_404. I don't think this submission deserves a place on Wikipedia. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:52, 22 April 2020 review of draft by Maizbhandariya

requesting a second review for the article Shakir Ali Noorie

Maizbhandariya (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

02:55:41, 23 April 2020 review of submission by Santamoya34

Literally I am talking about protests in the name of Juniatta and people are saying it “isn’t a relevant organization” even when it is one of the biggest groups going after the Islamic Republic at this time like why? Just because it isn’t relevant in American or European news doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant in the Middle East

Santamoya34 (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santamoya34, No one said the organization is not relevant. What was said is that the sources provided do not demonstrate notability. I would suggest reading the linked policies in the decline message. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:57:32, 23 April 2020 review of submission by Valleyguy56


Can you please explain the criteria you choose for references, links, etc. and why in some instances you require tens of references while in other articles, there are not only very few references, but also articles that are less than a paragraph long? Notoriety seems to be at each reviewer's discretion. The person I'm trying to have listed is a renown television historian who has worked with the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences' Emmy broadcasts, supplied archival clips to HBO, "Entertainment Tonight", network news broadcasts and various other specials since the 1980s, and has appeared on radio and television many, many times over the years as an expert. He is also quoted and referenced SEVERAL times in other articles that HAVE been published on Wikipedia (do your own search and see the results), has a huge resume on IMDB, and currently an independent filmmaker who IS listed on Wikipedia is doing a full- fledged theatrical documentary on his life and career. If those do not qualify the subject as worthy for an article in Wikipedia, then half of who you have listed do not deserve to have articles either. Wikipedia has often been criticized for stating incorrect facts and information in many of its current articles. This is one instance where everything stated is one hundred per cent accurate and worthy of an article. Yet, your editors constantly strike it down. Please strongly reconsider your decision.

Valleyguy56 (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valleyguy56. Wikipedia's criteria are explained in its policies and guidelines. Links to the ones most relevant to the draft are in the pink "declined" boxes at the top of the draft and on your talk page.
Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. Quality is more important than quantity. If a subject can't be demonstrated to be notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia) with three sources, then more than three will not help. For example, an article about Lucille Ball can be justified by these three independent, reliable, book-length biographies: Kathleen Brady (1994) Lucille: The Life of Lucille Ball, Hyperion; Stefan Kanfer (2003) Ball of Fire: The Tumultuous Life and Comic Art of Lucille Ball, Alfred A. Knopf; and James Sheridan and Barry Monush (2011) Lucille Ball FAQ: Everything Left to Know About America's Favorite Redhead, Applause. The only reasons to cite more than three sources are if there are facts worth including that can't be supported by the first three sources, or if there are significant viewpoints of the topic that aren't represented in them.
The current length of an article is irrelevant to the question of whether it should exist or not. A one-sentence article like: "Lucille Ball (1911-1989) was an American actress known for her role in the television comedy I Love Lucy", would be perfectly acceptable. That's because the stub would have the potential to be expanded into a full and complete encyclopedia article eventually, something we know is true because at least three independent, reliable, book-length biographies exist.
Notability is not directly about achievements, it is about high quality sources. So nothing Shostak has done that you list above has any relevance to notability. Of course independent writers and publishers are unlikely to produce detailed works about a person unless they've done something, so accomplishments are indirectly important, but only sources carry weight in discussions. If the filmmaker completes their documentary about Shostak, then the documentary should make a good source.
Over the past eight years, five reviewers with a combined experience of nearly a quarter million edits have considered and reconsidered the topic of your draft and found it not worthy of an article based on current sources. If you're genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia, please strongly consider editing a different topic. The articles about the people you name drop in the lead of the draft, for example, are all rated less than "good" by the community, so there is much scope for improvement. If all you're interested in is pushing a topic that Wikipedia doesn't want, you'll have a hard time finding a sympathetic ear. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:20:26, 23 April 2020 review of draft by YXJackhuang


I want to create a Wiki Page named "Yulong Li", but when editing it, I found the title of this page is my username/Sandbox("YXJackHuang/Sandbox"). How can I change it into "Yulong Li", the correct form? Thanks!

YXJackhuang (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YXJackhuang, Looks like Robert got it moved over for you. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:48, 23 April 2020 review of submission by Mayank.b2

Respected sir/mam,

I made a mistake earlier but even after making all the required changes why my article is rejected. I am first year university student worked hard on my article for my university assignment. Please review the updated article once and do the needful. Please it's a humble and sincere request. Mayank.b2 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is entirely promotional and has been rejected, Linked In is not a reliable source neither are blogs or their own website, please find another topic to edit. Theroadislong (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:45, 23 April 2020 review of submission by Zggala

It is the second time this biography has been rejected. The first time, it was declined because of the lack of references that make this person notable. After making some alterations, I have added articles and references from sources such as newspapers. Please let me know, what else can I do so as to be published. Thank you!

Zggala (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at the Teahouse; please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:52:59, 23 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Boston4you


Why do they Reject this article if Matthew Lugo is a 2nd round MLB draft pick by the Boston Redsox and I have added many reliable sources. Boston4you (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boston4you, Please see WP:NBASEBALL for the requirements for notable baseball players. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:48, 23 April 2020 review of submission by Parislav


Parislav (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


What are you talking about? How is this not well known enough to become a topic? I was featured on Fox (The largest news channel) and several huge New York newspapers such as Newsday. I am well known throughout the country. Look me up, and you will find pictures. I am #8 out of at least 10000 14 year olds that play chess in the US, which is incredible. Also, I am in the 99.8 percentile of all chess players, which makes me a well known topic. I also have competed on the world stage in chess.

As explained to you previously, NMs are usually never considered notable unless they have won a national title. WP:NCHESS The news coverage you are talking about is wholly local and would not be substantial enough to or sustained long enough to establish notability via WP:GNGSulfurboy (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:38, 23 April 2020 review of draft by Sophie Merchouk


Hi,

I'm requesting advice to get my draft article on Skyline Communications approved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skyline_Communications. It has been rejected several times, and after checking some similar articles on Wikipedia, I'm starting to believe that the main reason for decline is my link with the company in question. From the start, I've been honest to disclose that link and, to the best of my knowledge (I'm new to Wikipedia), I've followed the guidelines and rules, as well as the advice the reviewers gave me. So, basically, my question is: what more do I need to do to get approval for this draft?

Thanks a lot in advance for your reply!

Sophie Merchouk (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Merchouk, Its been pointed out to you multiple times what needs to be done. The biggest key thing which you have not done is remove the press release sources. You actually ADDED back some after a fellow reviewer was nice enough to take the time to remove them. You have to keep in mind that WP:NCORP is one of the toughest standards to pass and extra scrutiny is given to paid editors. You have continually ignored reviewers requests and added back info that was removed.
Which means, in effect, multiple people have been nice enough to volunteer their time to help you get paid for yours and instead of addressing the issues, you now are coming here and accusing reviewers of being biased in their reviews... Sulfurboy (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I merely have been asking questions to the reviewers of the draft, just because I wanted to make sure that I followed their advice correctly, and have always done so in the most polite way. I do understand why this draft is being reviewed more critically, and I respect that. I certainly have not been ignoring reviewers' advice; as said, I've always tried to adjust the draft according to their suggestions.

As for the comment that I added back some of the 'bad' sources a reviewer removed: I went step by step through the edits that were made by this reviewer, in order to make sure that I did not accidentally add back sources that were deleted. Because I was actually grateful for this help. I merely added some other sources where this particular reviewer added a 'citation needed' mark. And those do not include self-published or self-distributed press releases, nor do they include any sources this reviewer removed.

I do not mind if the draft is rightfully rejected, but it is very frustrating to read a message like yours above that basically says I'm an ungrateful editor who ignores all good advice and help, when that's just not true and my intentions are in fact the complete opposite of that.

Anyway, just wanted to reply with my point of view. Won't take up any more of your time or ask any more questions. Have a nice day.

Sophie Merchouk —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:22, 23 April 2020 review of submission by KennyParis

Hello, I have made new changes to my draft and i have included as much reliable sources as I could with articles mentioning them but I'm not sure my draf has been resubmitted again ? Many thanks for your help KennyParis (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KennyParis, I've resubmitted the article for you. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:12:09, 23 April 2020 review of submission by Iwahab


Iwahab (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Mujeeb is a content creator of pakistan many people including me search for him on wikipedia but there is no information availabe so after contacting him i put his information here on wikipedia but unfortunately it didnt got approved I request you to have a look at it one more time

Hello, thanks for your contribution. Unfortunately, a fellow reviewer has rightly rejected the article due to the subject not having a chance of being considered notable at this time. I would encourage you to make work on some existing articles to help familiarize yourself with what we look for on Wikipedia. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:11, 23 April 2020 review of draft by Maizbhandariya


What else is required for getting it live Maizbhandariya (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:53:09, 23 April 2020 review of draft by Keirvt


I am trying to make a submission and have just added references to the organisation I am trying to write about. An earlier verion of the submission contained a logo used by the ASF-CDG. The image is derivative from a logo used by its parent organisation (which is the idea) but is wholly authorised and relevant to the article.

I am unable to upload the images again and would very much like to see it included. Please how am I able to achieve this?

Keirvt (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Request on 03:57:05, 24 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by S.K.Upadhyay100



S.K.Upadhyay100 (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S.K.Upadhyay100, Di you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:10:06, 24 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Continental clip Traditional Poodle haircut


Hello, It is my last hope I am failing here. I do not understand why everybody is thinking that I am advertisement. I am sorry for my language English it is my second language so I maybe have not very perfect English.

I need help, please. I am actually crying here. I am student and i have an assignment task to create little small wikipedia page, if I not do it I have failed. and i have to repeat the course for another year i an crying here . I am not a business I am a person this is not the advertisement . I have Read books they was real paper books i processed information and most of my referencing from the actual books i have read. I am very new for wikipedia and I created my own home made illustrations, I am ex dog groomer with 15 years of experience, now student but I have a lot of knowledge about poodle grooming and I wanted to share it. I never had have time to figure how to fix if as my new pages just disappearing in 4 seconds. I have any mistakes because it just gets deleted. I believe when i finish this article it would be helpful to anyone wants to groom a Poodle in continental clip. I am very new to Wikipedia, it is my first article it that i do not know how can i fix all of the problems or what is that problems are ... I am just have to do it for my studies. Can you help me pretty please???? I have image which i have created myself with all detailed mapping for Continental clip but i can not add it to the article can someone show me how to do the image ,please? Kind R. I have tried but any of my articles getting deleted in 4 seconds i never had have time to work on one i am only starting and it is gone . Continental clip Traditional Poodle haircut (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continental clip Traditional Poodle haircut, We do not approve articles just to help people pass a class. Our requirements for notability do not change for any individualized circumstance. I would recommend you have your teacher read WP:ASSIGN. Also, if English is not your first language, you might want to consider creating a page on your home language's wikipedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy Just noting that it could be for an English class, so editing their home language version would not help. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continental clip Traditional Poodle haircut I'm sorry for your difficulty. It is extremely unfair to you for your teacher to make you write an entire Wikipedia article as a class requirement. This is because it often takes a long time, well beyond any deadlines set by a teacher, and other aspects that are beyond the student's control. Feel free to show your teacher this message and direct them to read WP:ASSIGN as noted by Sulfurboy.
In the case of your draft, you have cited the technical aspects of the style of dog grooming you discuss, but that is not enough. Wikipedia articles must do more than tell about a subject; they must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. You haven't done that with your draft at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:03:37, 24 April 2020 review of draft by Dr.sergio.rs


Hi, I would like to understand the process better. I understand the comment of the reviewer. However, there are clearly some topics - such as the one proposed in the draft - that are of interest of a rather niche audience. How is an administrator deciding what is 'significant' and 'independent' coverage? In academic work, citations from other (independent) articles certainly count as independent coverage. Thanks a lot for your input!


Dr.sergio.rs (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr.sergio.rs. Academic journal articles or chapters in books from academic publishers, by authors other than Sergio Sparviero, would be independent. Significant coverage is less of a bright line, but reviewers have many years experience judging it in many thousands of cases. For example, Jabloński and Jabloński's 2020 chapter "Conceptualization and Operationalization of Social Business Models in the Digital Economy", is significant coverage with respect to Business Model Canvas. It also cites Sparviero, but all it says about The Social Enterprise Model Canvas is two sentences referring to two figures from Sparviero. That doesn't constitute significant coverage of the template. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Worldbruce.

08:50:43, 24 April 2020 review of draft by NiciWest


Hi there, I'd like clarification on why the article for Georgia de Chamberet is being rejected please. The subject appears to have lots of external sources. Is someone able to specify please? Best, Nici

NiciWest (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NiciWest Hello. Is there something specific about the advice you have already been given that you do not understand? I can say that many of the sources seem to be from the person themselves, which does not establish that this person meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NiciWest You say she was "managing editor of the Quartet Encounters series" this is not supported by the source and would in itself confer no notability,

You say "Chamberet was one of the original founder-members of English PEN's Writers in Translation committee" this is not sourced, you say "She launched the BookBlast Celebrates Independent Publishing initiative via online journal The BookBlast Diary in 2016." this is not sourced. "he was a judge for the The Saif Ghobash Banipal Prize for Arabic Literary Translation" this is not a notable prize and only has a primary source. "publishing world writing in translation, including titles by Aharon Appelfeld, Stig Dagerman, Giorgio Bassani." is just unsourced name dropping. Please be aware that you need to disclose any conflict of interest too. Theroadislong (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:30, 24 April 2020 review of submission by Deshaanandii



Dear Team,

I would like to know the exact reason as to why the article was declined, request you to please help me so that I can start following your suggestion and make the content more suitable for publishing. Since this is my first ever post would like some support from your end, rest ensured will publish high quality content for the audience Deshaanandii (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deshaanandii You were given the exact reason by the reviewer- you do not meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable actress, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No amount of editing can change that. Please read the autobiography policy to see why writing about yourself on Wikipedia is not advisable. Wikipedia is not social media where people tell about themselves, this is an encyclopedia. If I am in error and you are not Deshaa Nandii, you will need to change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]



11:44:42, 24 April 2020 review of draft by Glammazon


Glammazon (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing an article on the superhero lnferno and l need to find reliable secondary sources online.

Glammazon Are you asking a question? We can't find your sources for you. I suggest that you reverse your submission of the draft until you find such sources, otherwise it will be declined again. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Glammazon. You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References useful. The listed references are not necessarily online, but an article may cite offline sources. If you need help accessing an offline source, WP:RX may be able to help, although with much of the world locked out of libraries right now you might have to wait a month or eighteen. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of my new article on the MLJ character Inferno is in question. Can you help me?Glammazon (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comments should be placed in the same section, please do not create a new section(just click "edit" in the section header if using a computer). We can't help you confer notability on your subject, you must find the sources with the information required. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:59, 24 April 2020 review of draft by Via Leopardi

i just wanna ask if what Proof of citation needed to my article when is everything valid on the criteria and measurement you required... like it’s all came from a reputable newspapers

Via Leopardi (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:15, 24 April 2020 review of submission by 210.6.22.101

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jiri_Prochazka_(martial_artist)

Has there been any update on this? I have resubmitted. I have already explained how this Martial Artist is a significant figure.

The MMA notability criteria has been met

1.Have fought at least three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER);

Has fought 12 times for Rizin FF which is considered a top tier organization.

The list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability#Current_list_of_notable_MMA_organizations_and_promotions is outdated. If rules are consistent then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Lee should not have a wikipedia page because she has only fought at ONE Championship which is second tier according to the list


or 2.Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization

He is currently Rizin FF Light Heavyweight Champion and has vacated the title to fight for the UFC which is a top tier organization.

210.6.22.101 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:02:21, 24 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by BrandiBostonTea


Hello!

A Wikipedia page draft of mine was recently rejected due to our references not proving that we have been significantly covered/are eligible for a Wiki page. Of the 22 references on our page, 12 are from news sources, but unfortunately half of them don't have web links because they are from the early 2000's (we had scans of the articles on our computer files, but there is no way to access the articles from the news sources' websites). Is there a way to keep these sources in while having no way to electronically prove they exist? Would we be able to link to the news site in the reference as a way to prove the the news site exists/is legitimate?

Thanks!

BrandiBostonTea (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" Wikipedia accounts are strictly for single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is that the draft is stuffed with promotional marketing, puffery "Due to the stadium's status as one of the most iconic landmarks in Boston", "The orchestra's missions were to highlight the city of Boston's rich history ", "The organization's Breaking Down Barriers Initiative ", "15,000 tickets were put on sale for the concert and sold out within four days", "with the full blessing of the King Estate.". etc etc. I suggest you give back any money you have received for editing this, because you have done a very poor job! Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled post about Victor Mbarika

Greetings! Please I need clarification on what an orphan article is? I removed the orphan tag placed on Victor Mbarika because it is linked to ICT University's Wikipedia page but a user "GSS" reversed it. I had earlier checked the rules guiding the use of that tag and discovered its appropriate to remove the tag from the article. Please clarify this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opeinoluwa101 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Opeinoluwa101: This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Pages in article space are outside our scope. You are correct that the article is no longer an orphan. Another editor removed the orphan tag on 20 April, but if you still have questions about it you can talk to GSS directly on their talk page, or ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk, where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Please remember when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), to sign your posts. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:00:01, 24 April 2020 review of submission by Erikgwagner

Hello, I have been trying to get feedback on this article draft. What would you recommend I do to have it reviewed? Have a great weekend, Erik EW 22:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikgwagner (talk • contribs)

@Erikgwagner: There is now a gray box at the top of the draft. It contains a blue "Submit your draft for review!" button that you may click to put the draft into the pool to be reviewed. Wikipedia has very little appetite for new articles about small private companies, especially startups whose history consists of raising venture capital, so don't expect it to be accepted for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:42:10, 24 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by NgetVuthyPNN


VEHA is famous branding in Cambodia. You can check our website https://vehanews.com/. Also we have good communication in social media. Also in google search https://www.google.com/search?q=veha+media&rlz=1C5CHFA_enKH891KH891&oq=veha+media&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i59j0j69i60l3.3673j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

NgetVuthyPNN (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NgetVuthyPNN Your draft does nothing other than state the existence of your company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources say about article subjects. You offer no sources at all. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

11:29:46, 25 April 2020 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:3706:4500:17A:481B:5C22:8EAB

Hi, could you please tell me what the issue is with the Olivier Varenne page? 2A00:23C7:3706:4500:17A:481B:5C22:8EAB (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is(as the reviewers have said) that Varenne does not seem to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No amount of editing can confer notability, it depends on the sources. Much of the draft seems to be about the exhibits at his museum and not him personally. If there are independent sources that have chosen to give Varenne significant coverage, please offer them. You may also want to read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:28, 25 April 2020 review of submission by Glammazon


Glammazon (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because l corrected the links after reading the last notice. The one for Comics Plus leads to an error message on that site, so from there you go to Comics, then you scroll down to M.L.J., then from there go to Zip Comics. You can also type "Zip 10" into the search engine and get there faster. Inferno has always had a special place in my heart, because he's the only one of the Mighty Crusaders to have been a villain.Glammazon (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glammazon All sources are still 404 error pages. No other improvements have been made. Topic is not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Glammazon (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC) i went back to Comics Plus and found Zip Comics 10 at "Archie/MLJ." Sorry for any inconvenience.Glammazon (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Glammazon (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ojak,mRoadster, you win. I went back to both comics archives, wrore down the actual links, and corrected the ones in my entry to match what l'd written down.Glammazon (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But none of it confers any notability to the subject, it has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:54:54, 25 April 2020 review of submission by Leszy1


Leszy1 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC) I want this dream to come true and it is my first page i ever created in wikipedia.[reply]

14:22:36, 25 April 2020 review of submission by Amplewebsol2019


Amplewebsol2019 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:25:55, 25 April 2020 review of submission by Johnpaterno


Johnpaterno (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:26:59, 25 April 2020 review of draft by Funmilola Olojotuyi


Funmilola Olojotuyi (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Funmilola Olojotuyi, My draft article on El Nukoya has been tagged for speedy deletion for violating copyright policy. Kindly provide tips on correcting this and avoiding repeating future error. Funmilola Olojotuyi (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... write things in your own words and don't copy and paste content. Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:07, 25 April 2020 review of submission by Johnpaterno


Hi I have some references that identify the legitimacy of the artist, can you please review the article again? Thank you Johnpaterno (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:29, 25 April 2020 review of submission by JessFranborough


I have edited and resubmitted the article for Droeloe and I'm requesting a re-review. I have added in the article proof that Droeloe is notable and provided notable sources. Referencing the music notability criteria under criteria for musicians and ensembles, Droeloe meets the criteria of being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable. Droeloe has also met the criteria of having performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, as Droeloe's song "Jump" was featured in an Apple Inc. advertisement for the Apple Watch Series 2 in July 2017. Droeloe has also met the music notability criteria as they have been on international concert tours. Is there any advice you can give me to have this article approved and published? Thank you. JessFranborough (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JessFranborough (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:40:51, 25 April 2020 review of draft by Tentator


KylieTastic declined my submission with the comment: "See Wikipedia: Notability (academic journals)". I do not understand the meaning of this criticism. My article is about a notable and respected taxonomic journal which is one of the most famous among Russian journals on this subject. The journal is indexed in Scopus and a number of other databases. Wikipedia contains many articles about much less notable journals. Why was my submission declined? Tentator (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=953154177"