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
BCBADPHD (talk | contribs)
17 edits
No edit summary
Line 511: Line 511:


:{{Ping|BCBADPHD}} You asked me about this on my talk page, and I have given you a reply there. It is to do with the areas of the draft that indicate that it has been copied and pasted from elsewhere. I describe these to you there. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span>]] [[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span>]] 21:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|BCBADPHD}} You asked me about this on my talk page, and I have given you a reply there. It is to do with the areas of the draft that indicate that it has been copied and pasted from elsewhere. I describe these to you there. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span>]] [[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span>]] 21:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

== 21:53:22, 26 September 2015 review of submission by BCBADPHD ==
{{Lafc|username=BCBADPHD|ts=21:53:22, 26 September 2015|page=
Somnambulism Alert Dog
}}
Hello,
I created the entire page based on the format and structure of other pages on Wikipedia that are on a similar topic (i.e., service dogs). I felt it would be helpful to have clear headings that describe the background information on the medical condition the dog is trained to assist with as well how the dog is trained. If it looks as if it is copied from an external source, that is actually a compliment I believe as it looks professionally created but that is what I do for a living and wanted to make the post fit with the other pages on similar topics which in this case is service dogs. I can remove the headings etc if needed.
[[User:BCBADPHD|BCBADPHD]] ([[User talk:BCBADPHD|talk]]) 21:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:53, 26 September 2015

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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


September 20

Request on 06:06:13, 20 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Thenewsmakers


Good morning, I am writing because my draft was rejected stating that the subject was not notable enough. I need to work on my referencing better. Would you please assist me on how to reference better. Thank you.

Thenewsmakers 06:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

no Declined I have added a full comment to the draft. Fiddle Faddle 10:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:35:18, 20 September 2015 review of submission by OneMind604


Greetings to whomever this may concern, 

I have recently re-submitted my page for the 3rd time and have been declined once again, this is expected.  I was only given valuable and in depth information on some things I needed to change on the article at hand, via  the 'talk page'.  I feel my article passes all the required criteria and prerequisites but I am still getting declined with very vague and general reasons that are not helping me towards getting the article published.

 If somebody could give me a more detailed response as to why the article continues to get declined, this would be greatly appreciative.  The more information I have, the more I will be able to submit to Wiki to build the community.  Thank you in advance.

Blessings, OneMind

Opinions of other reviewers are especially welcome, as I've commented about the draft before at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 September 8. I've left a detailed response to this latest question on Draft:Los Poetas. Worldbruce (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

09:27:59, 21 September 2015 review of submission by Mystywave18


What is your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 09:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:16:53, 21 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mulan Pearce


Hello. I need help editing a wikipedia page. I have submitted an article for creation about 5/6 times and it has been rejected everytime. Reason being I require more sources. Some pages have just 1 or 2! How much more do I need to get the article approved? Kindly response ASAP as it has dragged on too long

Mulan Pearce (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Out reviewed the material and gave you excellent advice. My opinion is that following that advice and then resubmitting it gives this draft an excellent chance of acceptance. I have not checked the referencing. So you are aware, for a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. IN addition, those links in the text need to go per WP:External links. Fiddle Faddle 09:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:27, 21 September 2015 review of submission by Eric Inglert


I would like to remove my request to make (i.e., publish) this as an article at this time, because the reasons for publishing have changed. In addition, the article is not ready to be published. Is there a way for the original applicant to remove the request to publish?

Thanks.

Eric Inglert (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Inglert: It has been removed from the pending queue. Worldbruce (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Worldbruce. Eric Inglert (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eric Inglert, just so you know, there is only one valid reason for adding anything to Wikipedia; to improve the encyclopedia. External considerations, motives or reasons are of no relevance at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Roger (Dodger67) for sharing your thoughts. Eric Inglert (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With a different title and lead this may actually be a candidate for main namespace anyway. I think it is about the website, not about the current title. Anyone fancy adopting it? Fiddle Faddle 14:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:21, 21 September 2015 review of submission by Amitkumarsultania


Amitkumarsultania (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:01, 21 September 2015 review of submission by Vkjainautor


Vkjainautor (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC) I am not advertising, these are the lifetime achievement. Please guide how much of my submission is worth including in the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkjainautor (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see a submission by you anywhere. Please enlighten us. Fiddle Faddle 09:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:25:38, 21 September 2015 review of submission by PLDPR

1) Is it just the resources that need to be adjusted? Or does the content need to be edited too? 2) Would the likelihood of approval be higher if I included this topic under an umbrella topic like the Gold Rush?

Please offer any other advice you can think of that would help get this content approved. PLDPR (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted with rationale on the article talk page. Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:14, 21 September 2015 review of submission by Nupur2000


Kiran Kamath has huge contribution in bollywood music. So can you please consider the article once again or help me with suggestion what else I can include to make it eligible

We will not write the article for you. What we will do is to give you guidance. I hope my comment on the draft itself is of some use to you. Fiddle Faddle 09:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:53, 21 September 2015 review of submission by Cmurphey80

I submitted DiCentral for the third time to be reviewed. I waited almost three weeks just to have it turned down for the same reasons. To update the article I completely rewrote as I went through competitors that do have wiki pages to make sure it fit the notability guidelines. I followed several companies to get my third party resources. Sps Commerence, Opentext, and Trilogy Company. If they are accepted and we are not, I can't figure out what the difference is. Please advise.

Cmurphey80 (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. The best articles to look at as examples are in the WP:GA list, but even they do not set a precedent. I have left you a very full comment on the draft. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:44:12, 21 September 2015 review of submission by Culinary84


I do not understand why it has been denied. I have a (2) after Richard Grausman as a mistake. How can I remove this? Culinary84 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left you a comment on the draft. Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


September 22

13:48:21, 22 September 2015 review of submission by Abubakar Mikail Olawale

My First article creation was flagged to be deleted, i would like to create a professional football page please help!!! Abubakar Mikail Olawale (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be that professional footballer. Please do not write about yourself. Get a website or use Facebook instead. Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your resumé Fiddle Faddle 14:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:44, 22 September 2015 review of submission by Llloookkkjjj


I have used a number of secondary sources and ,I believe, referenced them in the correct manner. What specifically is the issue with the article? Am I wrong In thinking a newspaper is a secondary source? I do not understand.

You need to look at whether Mr Smart passes WP:BIO. If you believe he does you need references meeting, broadly, WP:42 to verify that. Those two things, together, are all that is required. It may be that Start fails the first, or to may be that you cannot find the second. Either disqualifies him. Fiddle Faddle 14:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:15, 22 September 2015 review of submission by Justus727

I recently created an account and an article (entitled "Stephen Tsang"). After submitting the article for review, at the top of the page it says "This is a misplaced articles for creation submission. If it is not yet ready for article space, please consider moving it to draft space rather than marking it for deletion..." How can I move it to draft space? It won't let me move it (I'm assuming because my account is too new). I don't want to change the name of the article. How do I prevent it from being deleted before it is reviewed? Why is it already flagged for deletion before being reviewed?

Justus727 (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the articles for creation template, added a template indicating a problem with some of the wording, and added a category. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to need to re-write some of it in your own words, too, as it is too closely paraphrased from the sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you have done any of this...Where are the templates you mentioned? How can I move this draft to my sandbox? Thanks. Justus727 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I view the copyright issue as too great not to be dealt with before any other action is taken, and have flagged the article thus. There is sufficient other text to avoid summary speedy deletion in my view. There are instructions now in the large banner which replaces the article text. Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:24, 22 September 2015 review of submission by 205.178.205.11


205.178.205.11 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you fix a problem with their page.

Please be more specific in your question. Which page and what problem? Fiddle Faddle 17:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:13:12, 22 September 2015 review of submission by 141.123.243.102


I'm not understanding how an entity (Secular Talk) that is rated by Google to be in the top 1% of YouTube news channels, (on the same list with CNN, Associated Press, NY Times, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, etc.) is not "notable" enough.

141.123.243.102 (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:02, 22 September 2015 review of submission by Bgondringer2


Hi, if you could please help me with specific reasons why my article keeps getting declined, that would be helpful. I don't understand why my sources aren't verifiable and why I haven't proven the senator's notability. I've combed through the link to understanding verifiable sources and I don't know why mine don't meet that criteria. Could you tell me specifically what is wrong with them? I keep getting told it's not good enough but with vague explanation. I can't improve the article if I don't understand what's not working. Thanks

Bgondringer2 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Brittany Gondringer[reply]

One outstanding issue is the total lack of inline citations. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for how to add these.
Another is the rather promotional wording:
  • "works to create a more modern and robust democracy for all Nebraskans"
  • "engages youth through substantive community service learning and leadership programs"
  • "providing a strong voice for working Nebraskans"
Is some of this copied from somewhere? See Wikipedia:COPYPASTE. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:24:16, 22 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bgondringer2


My article on Sen. Adam Morfeld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adam_Morfeld) keeps getting declined. I could use assistance on how to improve this article. The primary critique is that my sources are not verifiable. I have used articles published by an unbiased, well-respected, third party newspaper so I don't understand how to make it more clear that the senator is noteworthy and therefore a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure what exactly I am supposed to change in order to make this correct so if I could have a clear explanation of what to do, that would be great. I've already looked through what makes sources verifiable and I believe I am within those bounds. If I am not, please explain why. Thank you.

Bgondringer2 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Brittany Gondringer[reply]

Bgondringer2 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked your references, but I have pushed the draft back to you for some further technical work, with a comment on the draft explaining it in some detail. Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:21, 22 September 2015 review of submission by Smrondeau


Hello, I am glad to see that my article was accepted. However, I am a bit puzzled about why it was given stub status? I read through the criteria for a stub status article, and it seems that insufficient reference source citations explaining why the subject is significant are usually missing from the article. I am puzzled because I cite several secondary sources, including Opera Canada, the Canadian Encyclopedia and AllMusic, among a couple others. I would like to see this article be pushed up to at least start status and would appreciate additional direction to make that happen.

Thanks! Sophie

Smrondeau (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion to have with the reviewer who accepted the draft, please. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly re-rated the article as Start-class in all projects. Hopefully the accepting reviewer User:Sulfurboy does not mind too much. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You as the main contributing editor and page creator should not establish the status of your own page for potential inherent bias reasons. I will be reverting your edits. I would encourage that you page whatever projects you attach to the article for the project people to rate the page. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article history linked above, I don't agree that I am a main contributing editor nor creator of the page. I have put the Start level assessments back in place. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

00:41:38, 23 September 2015 review of submission by Greenzeiger

I'm working on my first article which recently got rejected due to lack of notability. Right now, I've got two sources referenced which if I'm understanding this correctly would be considered secondary sources (The Phoenix Masonry and the Museum of Fezology sites). I was wondering if the reason it was rejected is because these aren't really considered secondary? Alternatively, is the issue that, while they are valid secondary sources, their content isn't specifically focused sufficiently on what makes the organization notable? I'm just trying to understand exactly what I need to supplement them with. I've got a bunch of reasonably substantive newspaper citations I could add, but as I understand it, those would be considered primary. I also have an article about the organization in a printed fraternal encyclopedia, but I guess that is tertiary. Would either of these help or do I need to find more sites/publications like the first two I mentioned?

Greenzeiger (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied with a full comment on the draft itself. Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent:Thank you for the super helpful response. What I should do to improve the article is becoming more clear to me. A couple follow-up question: is it generally considered a good idea to take the items out of the article which don't have clear secondary source attribution yet out and just start out with a shorter article until secondary sources can be found for all the facts asserted? Also, while the Fez Museum site is indeed an individual hobbyist, the Phoenix Masonry site, while rather amateurish in its web design, is actually an entire organization (see http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/by-laws_of_phoenixmasonry.htm), though I do not think it would pass muster as being notable in and of itself. I also note that it is used as a source in various other articles such as Freemasonry, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, or Imperial Order of Muscovites. In light of this, do you think it could be kept or should I remove it and all material sourced from it? Greenzeiger (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep the official site as a reference for simple facts, using WP:PRIMARY as a rationale. The wordpress site needs to go, in my view. The challenge you have is to decide what are facts that are unlikely to be challenged. These may be stated with some confidence almost without need of referencing (referencing is ideal though). Those susceptible to challenge require references.
I'm not sure how helpful that has been. Others may wish to weigh in here. I have been known to be mistaken!! Fiddle Faddle 17:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:12:58, 23 September 2015 review of submission by Rwbest


Speedy deletion of World primary energy production is not justified. It does not duplicate Energy development. I know this article. It does not list countries producing most of primary energy, divided into fossil, nuclear and renewable. Is it not interesting to see that India is a big energy producer, 36% renewable? Energy development does not provide this fact. Rwbest (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwbest (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This forum will not help you with that issue. You will need to take this up with the person who nominated it for deletion and/or the person who redirected it. Fiddle Faddle 10:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:51:27, 23 September 2015 review of submission by Sandeep mash


Hi We, from the Team of Sandeep Maheshwari have been trying to create the Wikipedia page on the name of Sandeep Maheshwari. We have submitted it nearly 4 times, the last one with proper references and citations. However, it was declined and the reason provided was that it does not show subject's notability. Kindly let us know how to proceed.

Best Regards Team, Sandeep Maheshwari [redacted email address]]

Please note WP:COI and our policy that one account may have only one editor. I will look at your submission, however. Fiddle Faddle 12:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this for speedy deletion as a blatant piece of advertising. Please get your own web site for your task. Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:33:54, 23 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 195.157.55.217


The article I recently submitted as Articles for Creation has been declined because the references do not adequately support the subject's notability. I am looking for advice and guidance as to how I can improve the referencing and whether it is a case of more references being added or whether it is the quality of the current references that aren't up to standard. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. 195.157.55.217 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:05, 23 September 2015 review of submission by JRLisk


How can I add a title to a citation? JRLisk (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JRLisk: I've set the first one for you as an example. Basically in the cite template, between the "|url=whatever" and "|website=whatever" parameters, put a "|title=This is the Title of the Work" parameter. To have any chance of advancing, the draft will need sources independent of Friedhoff. Companies that employ him are not arms-length from him. Worldbruce (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:01:28, 23 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Rkvisit


i am the developer of the page www.ellaridgeview.com and the legal domain owner and the partner of the business.And when i added content from that site to the wikipedia page.My edit was rejected saying it got copyied contents how to resolve this???

Rkvisit (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Donating copyright material, but recognise that material written for a promotional website will not be suitable for Wikipedia (0.95 probability). Better by far, if the organisation passed WP:CORP to wait for someone else to write about it, or to write totally flat text backed by references.
We delete apparent copyright violations to protect the copyright owner. While you will find this frustrating you will appreciate it when you consider why we do that. Fiddle Faddle 21:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:09:26, 23 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ladakhii



Ladakhii (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask the question you would like answered. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:59:29, 23 September 2015 review of submission by Abudraham


I want to completely understand the process that just happened with this article.

First it was rejected for not having references. And then it was rejected because some of the references were violating policy.

Were these the ones that refer to commercial websites like Amazon, AllMusic, YouTube??

How can I improve references? What type of preferences would make a difference?

Abudraham (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:28:23, 23 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by RecknEric


Hello! I'm not sure how to better this article. Other brewery articles I've researched (ones in California) used the criteria "has it won an award at the Great American Beer Festival?" as criteria for making it notable. Many editors agreed upon those criteria. This business has won several. When I added more references to show notability, it was marked as being like an advertisement. What's a good way to reword the article to make it less "advertise-like" and still present enough information to be notable? Thanks! Eric (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RecknEric: Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies is WP:CORP. The essay WP:Breweries contains advice about notability in the context of breweries, but is not a formal guideline. Neither says "won an award at the Great American Beer Festival" is a criterion for notability. Without seeing the articles and discussions in question I can't comment on the award win as a rule of thumb. If you study examples, be sure to use the best articles Wikipedia has. There are no good articles on individual California breweries, but the following brewery articles have been judged good: Boddingtons Brewery, John Smith's Brewery, Stones brewery, Webster's Brewery, and Worthington Brewery.
The draft cites the company and the festival as the only sources for the win. If only the award giver and awardee write about an award, Wikipedia won't pay much attention to it. If independent sources cover the win - mainstream news organizations, All About Beer magazine, etc. - then that coverage will help establish that the subject meets WP:CORP.
There are other problems with the draft's sources. forbes.com/sites is a blog, and yahoo.com/travel is not reliable. Neither should be cited as a source. The three independent sources are all local, and per WP:AUD at least one regional, national, or international source is required. Furthermore none of the three contain very deep coverage of the company - a couple asked-for-comment quotes here, a sentence or two there. Contrast the draft's sources with those of the good brewery articles. A draft needn't cite that many to be approved, but it must have a range of high quality sources at its core. Hope that helps. Worldbruce (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

01:46:30, 24 September 2015 review of submission by Dpammm


This is the 1st article draft I've submitted for movement into the article space. It is an important topic.

The initial Article language is quite introductory & concise. This is by design: since this is my very first Article submission, I'd like it moved into the Article space to see whether any experienced editors take an interest in it and begin proposing changes to flesh it out. Since the subject matter is of strong importance, I'm hopeful it's a strong entry point for learning to create & manage a well-done Article. --

Please advise whether the approach I'm taking is correct, acceptable, likely to be approved, etc.

Thanks -- Dpammma (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dpammma (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented, albeit briefly, on the draft. Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

04:40:32, 24 September 2015 review of submission by Joannpowers


if the article is accepted I am not sure where you are going to post it and if in more than one place - I would like it to go under local legend musicians, in Detroit, and in Michigan and perhaps under pop music, and 1970-1980's music.. thank you Joann Powers Joannpowers (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joannpowers, the reviewer who accepts the draft would normally also see to the categorization, relevant WikiProjects would also help with such "finishing touches". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:06, 24 September 2015 review of submission by Blackwhiteyellowred17

Someone rejected the article due to lack of notability. The company is almost 10 years old and has been referenced in "multiple reliable" news articles as required. It is one of only a handful of companies helping foreigners who want to find internship/work in China and if you are a person in that category, you probably have heard of them or used their service. Can anyone provide more references or advice to make it "notable"? Thanks. Blackwhiteyellowred17 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Blackwhiteyellowred17 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please only work on one Draft of the same article. I have only examined the first page listed above.
The Draft lists four apparently independent reliable sources which discuss the topic of internships in China for students over the age of 18 and young professionals. Of these four, I can only access two from here. Of these two, neither of them mention Gi2C Group at all. Because they do not mention Gi2C Group at all, they do not have significant coverage of Gi2C Group, and therefore cannot help in proving its notability by Wikipedia's standards. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:04:54, 24 September 2015 review of submission by 93.106.88.67


Hi, I translated a stub about a , but the draft was declined for lack of notability, yet it is considered notable enough to be included in the German wikipedia. It also has more references than the article on fuet (and about the same amount of information), yet fuet is considered notable enough and has not been put up for deletion. I would appreciate some help to make this article pass inspection.

A different question (and hopefully German speakers could help me here) is what the title of the article should be. I've come across various spellings - kaminwurz (About 7,530 results in Google), kaminwurzel (About 650 results), kaminwurzen (About 39,600 results), kaminwurz'n (About 966 results) - and I've no idea which one to use as the title of the article.

93.106.88.67 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. First, the different wikipedias have different standards of notability. Second, just because there are other articles which may or may not be notable is a other stuff exists argument, which usually isn't a good standard to base acceptance/declination/deletion on. The sausage exists, no doubt about it. But is it notable? My guess is it is. It certainly looks delicious, and I wish I had one right now. You're right, there are plenty of articles on the List of sausages which aren't even as well referenced as this one. Resubmit it, and see if another editor feels differently. Onel5969 TT me 16:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:40:51, 24 September 2015 review of submission by 205.206.134.248


205.206.134.248 (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared an article for submission. It has been rejected several times. Will someone go through it with me and assist me? Solopreneur

Thank you.

Roy

You need to tell us what it is. May I suggest that you register an account and work on it from there? Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

12:08:13, 25 September 2015 review of submission by Tsoydarya

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING A RE-REVIEW ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} I edit my article many times, but something is uncorrect again, I want understand what should i change for publish this article successfully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsoydarya (talk • contribs) 12:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted though I feel it is borderline. References require improvement. Fiddle Faddle 17:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:30, 25 September 2015 review of submission by Bvweelde


Bvweelde (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: I'm writing an article about an already deceased author who lived, more or less in a seclusion (Jesuit community). He questioned many of the do's and more particularly the don'ts about the Order of Jesus Christ (the Jesuit Order). As of that he was expelled. He left a list of books. Unfortunately there's little or nothing known of him. After he left the Order, the author married and had some off-spring of which one is still alive. All publishers he worked with do not exist anymore. This all makes it nearly impossible for me to put notable information inside the article. Still, the works of the author are too much worth to ignore, especially now his most important work has become popular again. What to do now?

The only answer is to research and to hope. Wikipedia cannot be the repository of all the world's knowledge, only of that verified or verifiable in reliable sources. This potentially important gentleman may slip through the cracks. Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging DGG since this may interest them. They often know where to look when others do not. Fiddle Faddle 17:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:56, 25 September 2015 review of submission by Asdiprizio


Asdiprizio (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article that was rejected because it was "inappropriate". I wanted to become part of a vocal minority of women who give voice to notable women. the notable woman in question is Khaki Jones. as one of the few women writers in animation in 1992, her 17 year rise at Cartoon Network was more than notable. where is the love? if someone cares about this topic, or gender equality in general, or has a heart for a newbie at Wikipedia, I humbly beseech you for help in getting this good and great woman known. by all appearances, it seems she is happy to live in the shadows. this is a woman's struggle. is it yours as well? thank you. hearts. Asdiprizio (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Khaki_Jones Draft:Khaki_Jones Asdiprizio (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdiprizio (talk). Your submission was declined as unsuitable for Wikipedia because of issues with prose and formatting -- it doesn't have anything to do with gender. It looks like there are plenty of sources you can use to tell Khaki Jones' story -- look here for guidance on writing a good article. Ping me if you need help. JSFarman (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:11:17, 25 September 2015 review of submission by Tujohn (ImAgroup)


Tujohn (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

 18:11:17, 25 September 2015 review of submission by Tujohn (ImAgroup)

I want to know why my Article for creation was declined and how long will i be on probation before i will be allowed to create my own article.

It does not appear to be an article.
Editors with accounts may create articles very soon indeed after registration. I suggest, though, that you learn your trade here before creating articles willy nilly.
If your purpose here is self promotion I advise you against it. It always fails. Fiddle Faddle 20:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:58, 25 September 2015 review of submission by Kmsecrest


Hello, I believe I have edited the submission to better adhere to Wikipedia standards. However, I am having some difficulty with the "Reliable Sources" criteria. There aren't any neutral 3rd party sources that have reported on the topic of F5 Professional Certification. It's a fairly new program in the world of IT/Professional certification. I have not been able to find any news articles or published sources that deal with this topic. The only information available thus far has been from the F5 website and blog posts from current participants in the program.

Is it possible to have an entry that only references primary sources?

The F5 Professional Certification entry is modeled after these related Wikipedia articles: Network administrator Cisco Certifications CWNA Red Hat

Also, I want to thank the Wikipedia community and the editors that have commented or flagged this post so far. I appreciate the time, energy and care demonstrated by the individual editors, writers and participants.

Thank you for your help.

If what you say is correct, specifically "There aren't any neutral 3rd party sources that have reported on the topic of F5 Professional Certification", then Wikipedia does not yet need an article about F5 Professional Certification. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

Request on 08:19:14, 26 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Alstah


The article I wrote was declined on the grounds of it not being notable. I have taken aboard the feedback and amended the article. Please review and let me know your thoughts, and what needs to be added to make it in compliance.

However, an article for the predecessor firm already exists: Herbert Geer, so it would make sense to create a new page for the merged firm. Many other Australian commercial law firms have pages, such as: Gilbert + Tobin, Clayton Utz, Minter Ellison, Corrs Chambers Westgarth and, Mills Oakley, just to name a few. Because of this precedence of similar firms etc., I think there's good grounds to consider that the article is notable.

Please let me know what to do to bring it into compliance.

Alstah (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alstah: No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. The firm may be notable, probably is, but the draft does not express this clearly. I have left you a substantial comment there. Fiddle Faddle 12:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:06, 26 September 2015 review of submission by The original destroyers

Why was the article refused? The Destroyers were an important punk band which influenced many of the post-punk bands. They were cited as one of the 5 most influential bands in Bill Syke's book. They are referred to many times in the Jacky Florek Paul Whelan book. Why does a citation in two books not meet the criteria when wikipedia is full of pages for bands who have never been mentioned in a book? The original destroyers (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:11, 26 September 2015 review of submission by JennNorman16:33:11, 26 September 2015 review of submission by JennNorman


FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING A RE-REVIEW ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} I am trying to make a wiki page for my husband who just published his first book. All the references I have is his website and information from him. We also have the sites that he wrote for previously. My submission was denied. how can I get his page on.

You cannot. Wikipedia requires substantial references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Without those your husband, though notable to the who love him, is not notable in a Wikipedia sense. Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:47, 26 September 2015 review of submission by JonathanCross


Hello, I have made many improvements to the article and merged in changes from others. I would like to know what steps to take next in getting this ready for another review. Here is a link to "wei dai" on google trends since 2012 for reference. I have also contacted user Prymshbmg who raised the WP:N issue with the previous draft I submitted. Unfortunately the user has not responded yet so I am reaching out to you for advice. The current version contains many more references, especially to journals and newspapers not connected to the subject. Please provide feedback. Thanks, -- JonathanCross (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:14, 26 September 2015 review of submission by Michael hobren


How can I add a photo and columnar data to my wiki page?

Also, I'm having difficulty organizing my citations within my text: my "References" section shows the name of the citation but not the URLs as such; I've had to enter the URLs manually on my page, while the citation name only is automatically displayed beneath this.

I hope these questions are clear...to some extent at least. My primary desire is to get that photo, and some 2-column data beneath it, on the page, which will greatly improve the overall format. Thanks for any help that you can provide. -- Michael Hobren

Michael hobren (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:08:38, 26 September 2015 review of submission by BCBADPHD

Hello, I am requesting assistance because I wrote a article on the topic listed above (Somnambulism alert dogs) entirely on my own, using my own words but was declined due to copyrighted material? I am not sure where the article contains copyrighted material as I wrote the entire article on my own but if I could receive assistance in locating and removing that portion of material that would be helpful. I am an academic scholar and professional writer so I do want to make sure all my writings are my own of course. Thank you BCBADPHD (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BCBADPHD: You asked me about this on my talk page, and I have given you a reply there. It is to do with the areas of the draft that indicate that it has been copied and pasted from elsewhere. I describe these to you there. Fiddle Faddle 21:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:22, 26 September 2015 review of submission by BCBADPHD

Hello, I created the entire page based on the format and structure of other pages on Wikipedia that are on a similar topic (i.e., service dogs). I felt it would be helpful to have clear headings that describe the background information on the medical condition the dog is trained to assist with as well how the dog is trained. If it looks as if it is copied from an external source, that is actually a compliment I believe as it looks professionally created but that is what I do for a living and wanted to make the post fit with the other pages on similar topics which in this case is service dogs. I can remove the headings etc if needed. BCBADPHD (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=682907716"