Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 578: Line 578:
Thank you so much
Thank you so much
Janine di Giovanni
Janine di Giovanni
*{{u|Janinedigi}}, you need to explain the edits you are requesting on the talk page of the article, presumably that's [[Talk:Janine di Giovanni]]. Please see [[Template:Request edit]] for help on formatting your request. Many thanks, '''<span style="font-family: Arial">[[User:StraussInTheHouse|<span style="color: red">SITH</span>]] [[User talk:StraussInTheHouse|<span style="color: blue">(talk)</span>]]</span>''' 18:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:02, 10 April 2019

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


April 4

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


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

"Efficient Power Conversion Corporation provides enhancement mode gallium nitride based power management devices ... The company was founded in 2007 and is based in El Segundo, California."

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

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

Hi Nicolonour. You may only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here. Moreover, text written for someplace else is rarely suitable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. You may use information from elsewhere, but must recast it in your own words and structure.
If you are considering taking another stab at writing an article about Efficient Power Conversion Corporation, I strongly advise against it. The company does not appear to be notable (it does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards). --Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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


Hi,

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

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

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

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


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

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

2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F5:11BA:9DD3:4B6E (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To attract the attention of a specific editor to a discussion, you need to notify them in your post. See Help:Talk pages for an explanation. Names of people and institutions, particularly if long, can trigger false positive copyright warnings from automated tools, but they are not violations of copyright. If that was all that caused the editor to tag the draft for copyright investigation, then you should be able to persuade them through discussion that they were mistaken. Otherwise, you can wait for an administrator or copyright clerk to complete the investigation (I'm not sure what their backlog is right now, but it's often weeks or months). If there is no infringement the text will be restored. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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


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


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

Thanks

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

21:03:46, 4 April 2019 review of draft by Thedavidshow


I have a couple of questions. First of all I believe... even in the very first draft of this article that I've written, it met all of the notability requirements for a chain of shops. If you look up ANY chain of shops... all but the largest of them are lucky to have anything more than a notice in the local paper of when one or more of the stores opened. Take The Gadget Shop, for example. Two sources. One of them a rather questionable online source. But nobody should expect a five page article in the New York Times from a gadget store. Or this one: MicroWarehouse ONE source... repeated. And they're out of business. (So I doubt there will be future sources). Or Bally Shoe ... Again, I'm not knocking their notability, they are shops that either exist or have existed and someone thought enough of them to write articles about them.

I wanted to write about this chain or barbershops. I think I provided a dozen sources from the very beginning. Then I was drinking my tea one morning and noticed that Prince William of England visited the shop and so I added People Magazine, ABC News, and the Daily Mail to the list of sources. I've written a few articles over the years (on my old account from years ago that I no longer remember or have access to) so I'm well familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and practices.

I guess my question is: When is this article going to be approved? (It's been well beyond two months since it was submitted in January. And it absolutely meets and exceeds the notability requirement.)

Thedavidshow (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:09:08, 4 April 2019 review of draft by DondeEstaElBurro?


DondeEstaElBurro? (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth did you tell me that my article's topic (2019 Paris apartment fire) wasn't significant enough, when Wikipedia published someone else's 3 sentence stub (February 2019 Paris fire) ABOUT THE EXACT SAME FIRE!?

Hi DondeEstaElBurro? good day. I have noticed you have added some content from your draft article into February 2019 Paris fire page and we thank you for that. Reviewer Legacypac declined the draft under Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT where by the subject "might not be notable" Additional development / aftermath /wider implications of the fire would secure the notability of the subject. Even the February 2019 Paris fire page / or any articles that are in Wikipedia main space, they would still be subjected to be nominated for "article for deletion" if editors think the notability of the articles are in questions. Do note articles in Wikipedia are always in "working in progress" status. I hope I have answered your question and thank you for your contribution. cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:35:49, 4 April 2019 review of draft by Ejpastor


Thank you for your guidance already! I am making this Wiki about a very notorious local artist and am working on expanding the references. I am sure he meets the criteria described in WP:NARTIST but proving it is another issue. I have reached out to arts festivals and fairs to find proof he won awards (he had, but it may not have been published somewhere). The Robert E. Wood Legacy Committee was formed immediately after his 2012 death, but information from the Committee is not considered a secondary source. Would newspaper articles about the Legacy Committee or Memorial exhibitions be considered as secondary sources to prove his notability? Thank you! Ejpastor (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Ejpastor (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Ejpasto Hi good day. We are after independent, reliable sources (secondary reliable sources) whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and in length. If the newspaper mention about Robert Wood with majority of the content in any article that would be sufficed. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 5:37 pm, Today (UTC+8)

April 5

01:35:34, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Jgcolcord


Looking for an update on the status of my article. There are no copyright issues. Anything quoted is now public domain. I am still fairly new to all of this, so I apologize if is this is not the place to inquire. I just don’t want this article deleted without cause, and I’m not sure where to turn. Jgcolcord (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jgcolcord good day. Reviewed and accepted. Pls note any copied prose should from public domain is still need be attributed. You could do a dummy edit and state in the edit summary and also stated in the article talk page. Pls see proper attribution pay for info and instructions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:14, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Ernesto Dionisio, Jr.


Ernesto Dionisio, Jr. (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:14:08, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Egmputu2


My submission name "CSS CORP" has been pending from more than two months. Please let me know how long it will take to get reviewed?

Egmputu2 (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:52, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Marinkovukovojac


I would like to publish this page even though the detail is not yet complete. The detail comes from a detailed review of 1000s of images of Austrian army records and will take years to complete. However, I would like to provide interested persons with the details I have discovered so far. The page was removed to draft as I was told there were not enough citations. The nature of the page is that the detail, in the vast majority, is from Austrian Army records that were imaged by www.familysearch.org and available online although none has been transcribed. I have made improvements and hopeful the page now meets the citation requirements. Please advise. Thank you

Marinkovukovojac (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marinkovukovojac Good day. Articles in Wikipedia do not need to be a "completed" in order to merit a page in Wikipedia main space as long as the subject is notable and the content claimed could be verified by multiple independent, reliable sources. To say that, your draft need to rework a bit for one the content need to be written in neurtral point of view, describe the content in a simple, direct, factual manner instead like "essay" style. Also pls provide inline citation on body text. Pls read WP:Your First Article and referencing to familiar yourself on how to write an article in Wikipedia and info and instructions on how to provide inline citation. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:09:37, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Chris7turner


Following further review and advice from @dodger67, removed all content except History section. Almost all sources referred to this section. Page now appears to be entirely factual and supported by a number of 3rd party, independent sources.

Chris7turner (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:17:30, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Hcs2019


Page has been updated with additional sources and citations to increase the notability of page. Hcs2019 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:53:54, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Hcs2019


I have removed some of the direct links and added in additional sources - how would you suggest this page could be improved? Hcs2019 (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:36, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Another irate man


I made a lot of new changes to my article. I added more sources and made the number more notable, in contrast to the earlier revision that only had one fact about the number. I don't know what I was thinking, but I got the help of User:StaringAtTheStars, and he helped find articles with the number 91,000,000 in them, and I now have 19 references.

Another irate man (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Another irate man. The topic is not notable. Continuing to push it may be seen as tendentious editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with you, Worldbruce, because I believe the number 91 million is an incredibly notable number, and it frequently pops up in numerous headlines, as listed in the article. I highly doubt you even looked at the article, as your response indicates through it's short length and unintelligent comparison to tendentious editing. I would highly recommend actually looking at my article and the changes that were made to it before you judge the notability of 91 million.
Another irate man (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The draft consists of random disconnected trivial facts about mentions of the number, nothing there suggests any notability. See this article 6000 (number) for an example of what is acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:36, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Potatowrite


Hi, I'm hoping to get some additional feedback and help on this article. I've cited newspapers, magazines, and other materials to show the relevance of this particular company, but I'd love to know what types of information would be seen as helping the case to create this article.

Potatowrite (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:33:23, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Hansjeet


we do have allot of newspaper articles which covered his hockey events/career not his personal life. However these newspaper articles do not include the source or the date. If we do no have this information does that mean we cannot publish? Hansjeet (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Who is "we"?
2) A valid citation is to a specific source. If you can't tell us what newspaper, what date, and what page, how can we check the reference? Random "clippings" which do not include this information cannot be verified, and thus cannot be used (especially in this era of Photoshop and other image-editing programs). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

05:13:43, 6 April 2019 review of submission by Deliriumone


Deliriumone (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 05:13:43, 6 April 2019 review of submission by Deliriumone hey i want to know why my page didn't get accepted?[reply]

Hi Deliriumone. The reason is explained in the big pink box on Draft:Delirium and the corresponding big yellow box on your talk page. In short, the topic is not notable (doesn't satisfy the the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia). As their career progresses, that may change. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:29, 6 April 2019 review of draft by Lily.rayyan


Lily.rayyan (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I need to know if the artocle is good? I need to complete it

Hi Lily.rayyan. The draft does not meet Wikipedia's needs. The posting on NASDAQ.com is a press release, which does not help demonstrate notability because it is not independent. The reliability of swedishstartupspace.com and venturemagazine.me is unclear, but the former is trivial coverage of a round of capital raising, which does not help demonstrate notability. Searches of about ten English and Arabic news sources in the region found only one more press release on alawaba.com and a brief mention in a list of startups in The Jordan Times. That degree of coverage is insufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:59, 6 April 2019 review of draft by Dylan Malyasov


Dylan Malyasov (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:50:55, 6 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Michael Owusu Ansah


Please i'm trying to get this person (Shatta Rako) Full Biography on Google so i needed to write them here.But unfortunately the content couldn't meet your requirement.Please helpme get his Biography here.


Michael Owusu Ansah (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no interest in getting people on Google, your draft is about a person who is not notable and is a copyright violation so has been tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:45, 6 April 2019 review of submission by Jessarchivetn

Hi, I recently took over the drafting of the Dylan Walshe page. I run a fan page of the artist & started to create this article. I have gone through many other artist entries & Walshe would have considerably more achievements & sourcing than a lot of lesser known artists I read about on there. The feedback I get from editors varies so much & just seems random at times. Was wondering if you could maybe take a look & advice me on how to complete it? Walshe has done several notable & major tours. Has released several records & has worked & recorded with some of the biggest names within his genres. Thank you

Jessarchivetn (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

07:17:37, 7 April 2019 review of submission by Charlie1276

Because it is only a short page containing nothing bad and he has really wanted a Wikipedia page so more people can find him.

Charlie1276 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:27:08, 7 April 2019 review of submission by Jakubdonovan


Jakubdonovan (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your company is not sufficiently notable yet. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:04:49, 7 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dylan Malyasov



Dylan Malyasov (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:36, 7 April 2019 review of draft by Arunudoy



I couldn't understand why the submission was declined as the reviewer said, "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."
The Draft was created all 'Third Party' sources, picking from scholar.google.com and journals, books.
The references were mentioned.
The Draft may be a "Stub" but can't be an ARTSPAM i.e. an advertisement. Couldn't understand the logic behind calling it as an 'advertisement'.


 20:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

22:38:08, 7 April 2019 review of submission by TundraGreen

I recently had a page rejected. But my question is not really about that particular page, but rather about the general criteria for accepting pages. I spend a lot of time looking at random articles in Wikipedia. A large fraction of the pages I hit are obscure (in my opinion) sports figures. The criteria for sports figures specify only that they played in at least one game in a major league of some sport. Meanwhile the criteria for academics has a list of potential criteria that restrict pages to only a few of the most outstanding academics. I will close this comment with a statement that clearly reveals my bias: I think Wikipedia, and our society in general, pays way too much attention to sports and entertainment figures in comparison to the attention we give to doctors, scientists, and others who are making a real contribution to the world. TundraGreen (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TundraGreen Good day. I could understand your sentiment and thoughts; however, for a sportsman to play in a major league is not small achievement as compare to millions of their peers who fails to get that recognition and that is same for scholars/academics. In Wikipedia the subject needs to be notable that has gained significant attention (sources) "by the world at large" and over a period of time to merit a page in Wikipedia. It is true that sportsperson and entertainers are the interested subjects in "mainstream" news as they are considered exciting/fascinating topics by most ppl, and in contrast many scholars and academics do not receive such attention by ppl to have any articles/sources to talk about them in general. We do accept articles of scholars/academics who do not meet the criteria if their work have been cited significance amount of times by others (info from google scholar citation) or their work has significant influence in their fields. Cheers and thank you for your contribution. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CASSIOPEIA Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand that Wikipedia reflects the world we live in, I don't particularly like some aspects of the world we live in, but I can see your point. TundraGreen (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TundraGreen I understand where you coming from for a person who loves rocks and numbers (a geophysicist and mathematician). Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CASSIOPEIA So a baseball player whose claim to fame is playing in four innings over two games (Frank Rosso) is more notable than a full professor with numerous published OpEd pieces, and leading role in the discussion of the affect of language on reception in the world. I hope you are having fun, I am. TundraGreen (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TundraGreen I think you have misunderstand my message above. I apologies for my short message and did not illustrate my point in details. It was not meant to be put down (I almost change my major to geology on sophomore year in college as I was fascinating with the subject) but agree with your sentiment and understand your position. Personally, I do wish to see more Wikipedia articles about academics/scholars. Hope this clear up the misunderstanding. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:55, 7 April 2019 review of draft by Vwang2014


How do you edit an infobox that has been submitted to Articles for creation? I want to insert a photo. Vwang2014 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vwang2014, Good day. First of all you need to make sure the image/photo you upload need to be adhere to Wikipedia:Image use policy and do read Wikipedia:Uploading images for info. Go to HERE to upload the image. See below the summarise version of the above. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. copyright - if the photo is not in the public domain, or under a free license such as GNU Free Documentation License or CC BY/BY-SA), fair use or Freely licensed, then the photo can NOT be allowed to uploaded to Wikipedia except if you are the copyright holder (the photographer) or photograph which you have taken of a image (statues/building/art) which is over 150 years old.
  2. image format - prefer npg or jpg format
  3. upload to Wikimedia - HERE
  4. release copyright for anyone to use the image - you need to declare to give non-exclusive license under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) for anyone to use your image (in the upload image "release right section" as per item 3 above.
  5. Once the upload is done, then insert the image naming on to the infobox image line item.

April 8

15:07:45, 8 April 2019 review of submission by Hcs2019



Hi, I would like a re-review - I have edited wording and added in several additional sources, would someobody be able to take a look? Thank you!

Hcs2019 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still reads like blatant advertising to me. Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:08:56, 8 April 2019 review of draft by CERWriter


CERWriter (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I submitted an article through the Sandbox and it was rejected because it appeared to be a "test edit" vs. actual article draft. The Wikipedia submission process is incredibly confusing to me. Will you kindly point me in the right direction as to where I can resubmit the article for consideration?

Your draft has no content apart from the words "Portacool, LLC" so there is nothing to consider yet? Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:27:14, 8 April 2019 review of draft by Huckfinne


I have started this article by cutting and pasting from Local_anesthetic#History and then added a lot of references from the peer reviewed medical literature. I don't know anything about the referenced websites. It is a very basic history, so certainly it may overlap with some websites. It is also possible the material I took from Local_anesthetic#History was previously copied from a website. Huckfinne (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Huckfinne (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

04:23:34, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Krutika Samnani

What necessary changes am I suppose to make in my article? Krutika Samnani (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:52:40, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Teemaction

Hi all, I submitted my draft a couple months ago and wanted to make sure I was patient with the review process but now that it's been put in the "Very Old" category I wanted to check in to see if there is anything I could do to help it along. Much appreciated!

—T–MACTION (TALK) 04:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teemaction. Look at the newspapers section of Wikipedia:Notability (media). Which, if any, of those criteria do you believe The Mugdown satisfies? --Worldbruce (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce— thanks for getting back with me and apologies if this is not the correct place to respond. Although the sourcing shows the publication to have been referenced in other reliable sources, I think the most likely criterion would be the final point for "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets." In my mind at least, being a well-established publication at the second-largest university in United States would classify it as "non-trivial," in the likes of peer publications such as The Michigan Every Three Weekly or The Zamboni. Thanks again for your time and assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teemaction (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Teemaction: If you want to argue that they're a significant publication in a non-trivial niche market, beef up the lead to convey that.
Understand, though, that criterion 5 is usually understood to mean a market whose views are underrepresented in mainstream media. Newspapers found notable under that criterion are typically those run by and for the Black community, the Latino community, the LGBT community, etc. A Bengali-language paper published in New York City or a Mennonite paper in Indiana would have a decent chance, but a satirical student paper will have an uphill battle.
Both of the peer publications you mention were nominated for deletion. The first was kept by a narrow margin (one editor recommended delete, two recommended keep) and using arguments that would be considered weak under today's standards. The second was kept only because participants couldn't agree on how to get rid of it (one editor recommended delete, four recommended redirect, but without consensus on where to redirect it to). If you can't persuade a reviewer that The Mugdown is notable, add a sentence about it to Texas A&M University#Media and create a redirect from The Mugdown to there. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:16, 9 April 2019 review of draft by Krutika Samnani


I can see a side box consisting of details of company. How can I make it? Also, I've given a draft for review, when will I get the revert? Krutika Samnani (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate question - responded below Nosebagbear (talk)

07:32:44, 9 April 2019 review of draft by Krutika Samnani


I have submitted an article for re-review, when will I get the revert? Krutika Samnani (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Krutika Samnani#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:13, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Liff182


Hello, I believe this article should be published. You have flagged it due to 'notability' criteria.

The basic criteria states:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

This is the case for John Roberts in this article.

He has had significant coverage in multiple published sources including:

The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/11/10/private-schools-now-taking-legal-insurance-teachers-amid-rise/ Schools Week: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/profile-john-roberts-chief-executive-edapt/ The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/hundreds-of-teachers-sign-up-for-no-strike-service-offering-alternative-to-trade-unions-9093603.html

Could you please clearly outline what needs to be done so it can be published?

Thanks, Andrew

Liff182 (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Liff182#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:15, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Liff182


Hello, I believe this article should be published. It has been flagged due to 'notability' criteria.

It states, "An organisation is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

That is true of this Edapt article.

The organisation has had significant media coverage and meets all of the criteria which are sourced accurately in the article.

This includes news articles in national newspapers such as The Independent, The Telegraph and education sector publications such as Schools Week and LKMco.

Could you clearly outline what needs to be done so this article can be published?

Thanks, Andrew Liff182 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Liff182#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:32, 9 April 2019 review of draft by Krutika Samnani


I have given a draft to rereview, when will i get the revert? Krutika Samnani (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Krutika Samnani: - please stop making duplicate messages, they won't lead to a quicker response.
Currently we are awaiting a response to the question on your talk page with regard to paid editing disclosure. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:06:08, 9 April 2019 review of submission by WomenInPhys

The draft was rejected because of a "lack of reliable sources". However, all information given is taken directly from the pages referenced and can be found there (I just double checked). The sources should be reliable, as this information was taken directly from the online presence of the program and does not contain any subjective opinions about it, just facts given by the funding body itself. In fact, the (published) German wikipedia article has a very similar information content and references almost the same sources. The sources are non-English in parts, but according to the guidelines that should be allowed. Perhaps I am missing some finer detail, but in that case it would be nice to elaborate on the reason for this admittedly quite vague rejection. WomenInPhys (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:15, 9 April 2019 review of submission by WomenInPhys

Thank you for the comment on the draft in reply to my question above. The draft was rejected because the DFG was not a reliable source for an article about a program financed by the DFG. I would like to refer the reviewers to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz_Prize, which is a prize awarded by the DFG and an article supported by references exclusively coming from the DFG webpage. My point is, that while in general I certainly agree that it is not interesting what "they have said about themselves on their own website", the DFG as a government body is the most reliable source for knowledge about a government-funded program. For many similar programs, like the Fulbright Program or the Clarendon Scholarship, which are all published articles, the official body that provides the funding is indeed a reliable and in fact probably the only source available - just as it is here. I thus would argue that this rejection was perhaps a bit rash and not entirely in line with previous policy for such cases.

P.S.: I hope this is the right place for making this kind of argument, I don't know if I am supposed to leave comments on the article and/or if anyone reads those. WomenInPhys (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WomenInPhys. There are several flaws in the "article X exists, therefore my draft Y should be accepted" argument. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not static. What was okay thirteen years ago may not be okay today. Wikipedia's processes are not static. The Articles for Creation process you are participating in did not exist thirteen years ago. Articles are not static. The current version of an article may, because of misguided editing, no longer meet criteria that it once met. More generally, the existence of an article does not necessarily mean it has been "accepted" or is welcome. It could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why among experienced Wikipedians your argument will provoke only eye rolling.
Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa.
You write that "all information given is taken directly from the pages referenced and can be found there (I just double checked)." Please provide a quote from cited reference https://www.dfg.de/foerderung/programme/einzelfoerderung/emmy_noether/ that supports your assertion in the first sentence that the program was introduced in 1997. Please provide a quote from cited reference https://www.dfg.de/foerderung/programme/einzelfoerderung/emmy_noether/ that supports your statement in the second sentence that the program is named after German mathematician Emmy Noether (as opposed to some other Emmy Noether). The submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.
You write that "this information was taken directly from the online presence of the program and does not contain any subjective opinions about it". Examples of opinions in the draft are "the program aims to ..." and "the program is very competitive". Often a program's publicly stated aims are different from what a dispassionate observer would describe as their aims. Statement's like these must be attributed in-line, they may not be made in Wikipedia's voice.
An organization can be a reliable source about itself, but Wikipedia is not a mirror of their PR or communications department. Articles should be based mainly on independent secondary sources. Moreover, the fundamental criterion for including a topic in Wikipedia is whether they have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by independent reliable sources. Rewrite the draft using mainly several independent reliable sources, such as https://books.google.com/books?id=oGuADAAAQBAJ&pg=PA46. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:25, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Template:Royaler123


I believe I have added a lot of new information and have a lot of sources now that the first round of games has been completed.

Royaler123 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:02:00, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Nallegood


This article is about a real sport created recently and is the only article about it. Nathaniel Tucker Allegood 18:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nallegood: Which is precisely why it is an inappropriate topic for Wikipedia, which aims to cover only subjects that have already attracted significant attention from the world at large. An encyclopedia is not the place to publish new information or "get the word out" about anything. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:23:27, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Marcsallis


Marcsallis (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:23:27, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Marcsallis



I have added the things that were requested - i.e. the company's website and other examples. I have also kept the language fact based with supporting sources. This is a simple entry for a record label that has been releasing music for the last decade and run by a substantial source, Dhani Harrison.

Please let me know what I can do to get this entry approved as it is a very simple entry I'm trying to do.

Thanks! Marcsallis (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:03:28, 9 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by CERWriter


Hello. My draft was just rejected on the grounds that it didn't have enough sources; however, a competitor company with the same number of sources has been published on Wikipedia. I'd like to understand your rules better. Will you kindly explain the difference? Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genie_Company

CERWriter (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC) CERWriter (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CERWriter: I can offer some clarification. I declined your draft as it failed to meet WP:NCORP criteria, which requires that subjects have accrued significant, in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited in your draft are reliable, but all four contain a significant amount of primary information (one is an outright interview), and two of the sources cited are standard business announcements/press releases; these latter types of sources do not constitute significant coverage (per NCORP), nor fulfill WP:CORPDEPTH. In short, the draft currently has cited only on reliable, quality source (the Dallasnews source [1]), and even this derives much of its content from an interview with a company founder. As for your citing of a competitor's article, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; if you feel that subject is not notable, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent The Genie Company to AFD. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:55:46, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Maccabean


Maccabean (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC) As widely noted, OrbitRemit is a major player in the digital remittance market: https://journalbitcoin.com/global-digital-remittance-market-size-share-and-forecast-2019-2026-moneygram-orbitremit-tng-wallet-transfergo/ The company is also referenced in the Deloitte FAST 500 listed in Wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Technology_Fast_500[reply]

If it's still not notable, please advise what I'm missing here.


April 10

07:24:53, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Nitin Singh PPP



Nitin Singh PPP (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant advertising. Not acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:33:47, 10 April 2019 review of submission by 140Macpherson


I have submitted new materials and would like a review or advice on how to make the article better. thank you. 140Macpherson (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 140Macpherson. Rejection is intended to convey that no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. Without taking any position on the changes made to the text since the rejection, adding press releases from sites like content-technology.com, proaudio-central.com, and tvtechnology.com makes the draft worse. Independent sources are needed. Perhaps there is significant coverage out there somewhere, maybe referring to the company under one of its other names, and probably in Italian, but like you and the draft's three reviewers, I haven't found it. I'm afraid the topic is a lost cause. Set it aside and edit something else; Wikipedia has millions of topics to choose from, most of which need improvement. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:28, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Vyas vatsal Template:Vyas vatsal


Hello Team,

Our company "AGS Transact Technologies Limited" had a Wikipedia page, which was blocked and removed by your team because of third party editing.

Due to which we drafted a new article for creation and submitted it to you guys for approval.

The draft was changed many a times as per your comments but somehow it is still not approved. According to us, the information that we provided is relevant and does not advertise/ promote our product.

Kindly help us in improving the quality of our article and approval process at earliest, as you know it is important for any company to have their digital presence on Wikipedia.

Thank you

Vyas vatsal (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vyas vatsal. AGS Transact Technologies has a long history of disruptive conflict of interest editing, but that is not why it was moved to Draft:AGS Transact Technologies. It was draftified because its sourcing is inadequate to demonstrate notability. The solution to the problem is not to create a blank-slate draft, Draft:AGS Transact Technologies Limited, but to improve the original Draft:AGS Transact Technologies.
Before you attempt that, declare your connection to the topic on your user page and the talk page of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:26:40, 10 April 2019 review of draft by MelissaGallery


Hi,

I am writing my first article and I would like to know how to change the title. The article is about "Rosie Sanders", a botanical artist, but the title of my article is currently "Rosanne Sanders". "Rosie" is her artist name. I would like to change the title "Rosanne Sanders" in "Rosie Sanders". Is it possible?

MelissaGallery (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelissaGallery If you would like to do it yourself, see Wikipedia:Moving a page for how to move the draft to a new name. Otherwise, a reviewer will determine the name if and when they accept the draft for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - MelissaGallery the draft is now at Draft:Rosie Sanders. SITH (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:14, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Rob-ALVB


Hi, I'm wondering how much longer it will take to have this article approved and live? I submitted it 54 days ago. Thank You! -Rob

Rob-ALVB (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current maximum review time is over two months. Please note that a review does not necessarily mean an accept. SITH (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:54, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Meathgaa


The article is no longer a blank slate. There are many included references of a reliable nature which both backs up and provides further details of the article. Meathgaa (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted per request. SITH (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:43, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Abhi garg98


i just want to add the info into the wikipedia .it is necessary and for welfare.i am donating to wikipedia in every form. atleast i need to publish a page only. that's why, i need to re-review and publish it Thank you! Abhi garg98 (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

14:33:28, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Beejeoma


Hi, I would like to know why the article I published was not approved. This will guide me in future contributions. Beejeoma (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:45, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Mehroofkm


Mehroofkm (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehroofkm, both User:Mehroofkm/sandbox and Draft:Smitam are simple, promotional copyright-violations of https://www.smitam.org/about Sam Sailor 17:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:32:28, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Srahul353


Srahul353 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srahul353, the draft was rejected earlier today by reviewer StraussInTheHouse, whose assessment I agree with. Sam Sailor 17:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Srahul353, the problem is the draft is a one-line description: a name, nationality and occupation. It was followed up by content, but it was functionally unreferenced (IMDb is not considered a reliable source). If you want to resubmit, you need to flesh out the content and show Babu has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Thanks, SITH (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:42, 10 April 2019 review of draft by Sethmains


Hi. I am new to Wikipedia, so there is a lot that is new to me. I submitted a draft of an article on Ely Playter that was sent back for revision. Most notably, there were questions about my sources. I was hoping to receive some advice on how to cite historic sources (old newspapers, archival material, etc.) for which there is no web address. Is that possible to do in Wikipedia? One of the sources I used was Findagrave.com, which I know is questionable, however, it provided an image of Playter's gravestone which verifies his birth and death dates as well as evidence of his wife.

I also added a number of links to archival collections related to Wikipedia subjects. Some were deleted as "vandalism" while other weren't. I was just curious to learn how this could be construed as vandalism.

Thanks.

Sethmains (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:46, 10 April 2019 review of draft by Janinedigi


Janinedigi (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can you please help


I hope you are well and you can help. I have two very large changes to make to my Wiki site - or to add.

I have been named a 2019 Guggenheim Fellow (Non Fiction) announced today on Page A5 of the New York Times (I can also send the letter that told me I have received one) https://www.gf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-York-Times-Ad-2019.pdf


and I am currently also a Senior Fellow at Yale University Jackson Institute for Global Affairs http://jackson.yale.edu/person/janine-di-giovanni/

and a 2018 Edward R. Murrow Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations


Please can you add these? My page is locked so I can not do it

Thank you so much Janine di Giovanni

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=891873049"