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
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,549,192 edits
m Signing comment by Instinct71 - ""
Instinct71 (talk | contribs)
147 edits
Line 245: Line 245:
Please let me know,
Please let me know,


⚫
I accidentally moved a draft article MOJEED ALABI for a review and I have been trying,but with no success,to move it to mainspace for publication.Please can anyone help move it to mainspace.Thank you.[[User:Instinct71|Instinct71]] ([[User talk:Instinct71|talk]]) 13:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
= December 4 =

⚫
I accidentally moved a draft article MOJEED ALABI for a review and I have been trying,but with no success,to move it to mainspace for publication.Please can anyone help move it to mainspace.Thank you.Instinct71 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Instinct71|Instinct71]] ([[User talk:Instinct71#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Instinct71|contribs]]) 13:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 13:18, 4 December 2016

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


November 28

00:12:17, 28 November 2016 review of submission by Michaeltsantini


I am not being allowed to edit the Wikipedia article "Progressive Creation."

Progressive creationism is not pseudoscience. This is a bias and unjust broad brushing of the field. Progressive creation is not pseudoscience because it adheres to the scientific method of investigation, while logically attempting to reconcile different understanding of the fossil record with the mainstream scientific consensus.

Now granted, some forms of creation science utilize pseudoscience heavily, like young earth creationism. Young earth creationism attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts and this is unacceptable. However, progressive creationism is a subset of old earth creationism, which adheres to the tenets of scientific investigation and honest debate.

Please let me edit this article with references. I have a doctorate in the fields of science and theology and am well equipped to do so. Thank you sir.

Michaeltsantini (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael. I don't see any evidence that you've been prevented from editing any article. It seems that you've simply had a disagreement with an editor at the page of the article in which you have an interest. Your best approach will be to discuss the matter with that editor on the Talk page of the article, which is here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:12:11, 28 November 2016 review of submission by Rahul.pradip


Had written an article explaining Experimental marketing but it was declined. Wanted to know reason for same so that can improve on same.

Rahul.pradip (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are explained in both rejection notices. Did you read them? Maproom (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06:12:41, 28 November 2016 review of submission by Chandana jadala


Chandana jadala (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need your assistance for Ram Talluri's profile Draft. Actually Ram Talluri is a producer who produces films under SRT Entertainments banner, He has produced Chuttalabbai telugu movie recently. Now he is going to plan another movie with hero Raviteja. I want to create a Wikipedia account for Ram Talluri. Here I have provided some of the main websites source links also for reference. Kindly suggest me the changes and work I need to do on this profile.

Thanks in advance. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Hello, Chandana. The two reviewers who have looked at this submission agree that you haven't provided any evidence that the subject is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. In order to do so, you will need to find reliable third-party sources that discuss him in depth, and not just as passing mentions. Without that, it is unlikely that your submission will be accepted. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.telugu360.com/chuttalabbayi-aadis-expensive-film-ever/
  2. ^ http://www.gulte.com/movienews/51358/At-Last-Bobby-Gets-Film
  3. ^ http://www.indiaglitz.com/ravi-teja-next-is-with-pawan-kalyan-director-telugu-news-165583.html
  4. ^ http://www.123telugu.com/reviews/chuttalabbayi-telugu-movie-review.html
  5. ^ http://www.telugucinema.com/news/Aadis-Chuttalabbayi-gets-release-date
  6. ^ http://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/tollywood/280816/chuttalabbayi-producer-is-going-places.html
  7. ^ http://www.celebrityprofiles.in/2016/08/chuttalabbayi-producer-bankroll-ravi-tejas-next/

06:35:50, 28 November 2016 review of submission by Jordan08


IUB_(contraceptive) is redirected to IUD with Copper. There is no way to view the article. How can this be corrected?

Jordan08 (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jordan. That action was taken by User:Doc James, whose Talk page is here. You'll need to discuss the matter directly with that editor. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That article was nearly entirely based on primary sources. Per WP:MEDRS we tend to require high quality recent secondary sources. Therefore redirected to the main topic were this specific type of IUD can be discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:21, 28 November 2016 review of submission by 88.68.129.221


88.68.129.221 (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC) A reply was received stating that the article read more like an advertisement. The article is about a campaigner on women issues and abuse who has written a publication on social mobility for the marginalised. How can this be re-edited to comply with Wiki.[reply]

As this is the only edit from this IP, and you have not specified the article name, there's no way I can help you. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:09, 28 November 2016 review of submission by Jolemonpop


Hi, I need to change the headline text to my article to read Omni Fight Club instead of OFC Main Text. I didn't realize that this was the public name and not something for my own reference. Please let me know how to go about changing this. Thank you kindly :)

Jolemonpop (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Jolemonpop. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The requested change in title has been made. However, in its current state (and regardless of the title), your submission is unlikely to be accepted. It has no sources and much of its brief prose will be construed as promotional and/or advertising. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

Hi,

I have posted one article related to shaze luxury retail pvt. ltd but its is not getting approved and its showing error G11. How to make approve my company article in WikiPedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayshree26 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jayshree. Your article has already been deleted twice, for reasons that have been given to you on your talk page. Before submitting your article a third time, you might want to read our introduction to writing articles, which is at WP:Your first article. Also, if you intend to write again about your company, you might find the advice at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to be helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:17:32, 29 November 2016 review of submission by Aborgate

 I don't understand SisterTwister's comment that sources are missing for sections #1 an #2.  If you mean the first group of paragraphs and the section group of paragraphs, they are "well" footnoted, I thought.  What more is needed?Aborgate (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aborgate (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aborgate, I'm afraid your idea of "well footnoted" does not come close to the standard required here. The first section, "Brief personal history", a fairly long section running to several hundred words, has only one footnote, the second section "Encounter with Harold E. Palmer", significantly longer than the first, has only two footnotes. In fact the entire draft is very thinly referenced. An article of that length (about 20kB) would normally have anywhere from 50 to 100 footnotes, basically every substantive claim needs a reference. By way of example I have placed "cite needed" tags in the first two sections at the points where a reader might reasonably expect a footnote. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of the article could do with improvement. As a biography it should basically be arranged chronologically. Currently the narrative jumps around in time quite a lot, resulting in redundant repetition of information in various sections. See WP:MOSBIO for guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:57:43, 29 November 2016 review of submission by Michaeltsantini


Please accept my changes to progressive creationism. I am very knowledgeable of the subject. Thank you. Dr. Michael T Santini

Michaeltsantini (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Michael. As was noted in our earlier response, you need to discuss your changes with the other editors who work on that article. And the place to have that discussion is on the Talk page for that article. I took a look at the edit history for the article in question, Progressive creationism, and saw that you are engaged in an edit war with those other editors. This is something that is extremely discouraged -- you might consider studying the information and advice given at WP:Edit warring. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:06:28, 29 November 2016 review of submission by Omotecho

Will it do any help and claim that this draft is translated and edited from sv:Philo_Ikonya? I am also thinking of adding the draft as a chapter in International Cities of Refuge Network but not as a single article. Would it be cheating to do so? The article for that Network is a stub. Of course, I am aware that I would need help and improve citations as well as grammar in the writing before adding it as a chapter for an existing article.

I submitted the rejected draft in line with Africa debug-athon / Women in Red Africa (never mind the postcard they offer). Any advice you could share me please? Appreciate your kind attention,

Omotecho (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

13:31:56, 30 November 2016 review of submission by Mark Stuart Betts


Hi, I have completed a draft for The Association for Psychological Therapies, but I have been advised that it 'reads promotionally, like an advertisement'. Can you recommend any changes that I could make in order to get it approved (is there is anything I need to add/delete etc.). Any help would be appreciated. Regards, Mark

Mark Stuart Betts (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I took a look at your draft and found that I agree with the reviewer. Your draft is little more than a description of the various courses offered by the association. Drafts such as this typically do get viewed as "promotional" and as "advertising" for those courses. I also noted that most of the references in the article don't address the association itself. Instead, they are cites to websites of clients, who simply announce that they won one of the various awards offered by the association. As for substantive sourcing, it all seems to come from the association's website itself. And so, I think that promotion/advertising is not the only difficulty you will face in getting this draft approved. It also fails to establish that the association is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. For that, you will need to find reliable third-party sources (not the association's clients) that discuss the association in depth. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:14:44, 30 November 2016 review of submission by Biancaharms


I wrote an article for the european media management association and sent it for review. The existing article is referring to the previous name of the association which has been changed in 2014 from european media management education association to european media management association. I tried to solve it by requesting a re-direct. However this was wrong. This new article should become available and the article with the old name should have a redirect to the new one. How can I arrange this?

Biancaharms (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biancaharms, I'm afraid that is not how we handle name changes. You should add the new information to the existing article (while preserving the history of the subject) and then move it to the new name. We do not completely replace an existing article with a new one from scratch. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biancaharms, I've updated the mainspace article and moved it to its new name. I've also declined your submission as (now) being a duplicate of that mainspace article. The only thing left for you to do is to request a deletion of your submission, by placing the template {{db-author}} at the top of it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:09, 30 November 2016 review of submission by Sbhagwandin

Hey there. I have a question about Draft:Leanplum, which was recently deleted. The article was removed as a speedy deletion, but I don't believe it was unambiguously promotional — the content was actually quite similar to articles like Mixpanel and Appboy, which Wikipedia editors recently voted to keep.

I brought this up with the reviewer but they gave an evasive answer, so I thought I would ask here. I created a new user space draft with the old content for comparison (and I included the noindex template). Based on the reviewer's response, it sounds like the main problem is that the page was rejected several times, but the final content of the page is pretty clearly comparable to other tech startup entries, so I don't think it should have qualified for speedy deletion. Sbhagwandin (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S. I took a look at the company website included in your user-space draft, and learned that there is a Stefan Bhagwandin who is a Social Media Intern at the company. Do you have a conflict of interest here? NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, although the most recent draft was written/submitted by my acquaintance User:Adammathias, in any case. I was just following up but I can ask him to weigh in if you're more comfortable with that. — Sbhagwandin (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:03:59, 30 November 2016 review of submission by 188.141.10.245


This draft was previously rejected on the basis that it was a Neologism and that "Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability."

It's also not clear to us why the previous references were not considered independent, reliable and published - as they quite clearly are. In any case, the piece has now been expanded in terms of references and re-submitted. We would also suggest reading about the filmmaker himself, corresponding references on his own Wikipedia page and references on the pages of his body of film work.

Thank you very much for your attention - we appreciate this is a difficult area, but repeat that we fully believe this Neologism appears legitimate.

188.141.10.245 (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I took a look at your draft and found that I agree with the reviewer. The neologism appears to be used only in connection with Jones himself or with his Nola film. If I missed a reference that discusses it independently of Jones, please let me know. But if not, a stand-alone article on the neologism is not only inappropriate, but also strikes me as promotional (of Jones and his film). I also think a stand-alone article is unnecessary because much of the material in your draft could easily find a home in the article on Jones. At best, I can see having the term used as a "re-direct" to Jones's article. If that's acceptable to you, I'll be happy to do it (providing other reviewers don't voice any concerns about that approach). NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC) with slight amendment by NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

02:03:06, 1 December 2016 review of submission by 59.101.141.193


need help making these articles Draft:Mark Mercedes, Draft:Veda Scott and Draft:What Culture Pro Wrestling 59.101.141.193 (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. A good place for you to get assistance on improving drafts about wrestling would be WP:WikiProject Professional wrestling. A request on the Talk page of that project might generate some responses from people who specialise in wrestling articles. You also might want to take a look at some of the top-quality articles that have been produced by the project. Doing this will give you an idea of the scope of items that are typically included, as well as the tone of the language that is used to present the information. Some examples are Bobby Eaton, Shelton Benjamin and Turning Point (2008 wrestling). I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:41:03, 1 December 2016 review of draft by 174.115.100.169


How do you verify that a page is not a copy. For example "The page Jeunesse redirects to Youth (1934 film). Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title."

174.115.100.169 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Your draft title needed to be changed to specify that the subject is not the same-named film. I've done that. The new title is Draft:Jeunesse (radio personality). NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:34, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Victor5497

Would like to know if I continue to add to this page, will it eventually be accepted. Thank you.

Victor5497 (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Victor. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I assume you are speaking of Draft:GamePigeon. If so, your draft is unlikely to be accepted in its current form. Even if expanded, it is unlikely to be accepted if it consists solely of a description of the games that are supported by the app. You might want to take a look at WP:Notability (software) to get an idea about what software topics are acceptable for Wikipedia. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:52, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Raptorsquad

My article was declined by Gbawden regarding notability. I get what that is, but don't get why the press the company has is not sufficient. They were selected Startup of the Month in Silicon India magazine months after their official launch; based on client results they were selected Top 5 Most Promising Social Media companies 8 months later, and a yer later Top 20 Most Valuable Consulting Companies by Insight Success Magazine. They'll also been mention in other magazines in reference to projects they've worked on, such as in BFIRST regarding the Craveller media launch they managed.

So my question is whether the declined on notability was in reference to there not being enough articles, or the magazines not being given credit a reliable, or both?


Raptorsquad (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raptorsquad. As we noted a few days ago, the best source of information on why your submission was declined is the reviewer who looked at it. You'll find a button for that person's Talk page at the top of your draft. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:11:45, 1 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by OrangeMouse


Hello, The referenced article was recently submitted and denied due to lack of notability. After much research, we've found accepted submissions of those who do not appear to be as notable as our declined submission. Needless to say, we are seeking any guidance anyone can offer to help us get the article published in Wikipedia. Thanks very much! OrangeMouse (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMouse (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OrangeMouse. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I'll leave some comments on the Talk page of your draft later today. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:05:41, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Pacolesa


Pacolesa (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to publish the article about Dr. Francisco "Paco" Guerrero. I have cited the copyright requested on one of his books he published. It was accepted long time ago. Then, I made some changes, and now it´s been declined... Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacolesa (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paco. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I assume you are asking about the draft that currently appears in your Sandbox. If so, you neglected to resubmit it for review after it was decline in August. If you do re-submit that draft, it will be looked at in due course by one of our reviewers. However, that draft contains no references and is unlikely to be accepted in its current form. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:30:36, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Wednesday 0008


Wednesday 0008 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed today that the article I submitted entitled Draft: Linda Lloyd Jones was not accepted. It appears the footnotes are inadequate. This article is the fifth I have submitted to Wikipedia. I have never before been declined. Would you please elaborate on the reviewer's comments so I can improve the page accordingly. Thank you.

Response given below. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:45:50, 1 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Michaeltsantini


I will find the proper citation for my statement that "progressive creationism is not pseudoscience." Please give me a few days to validate my source. Expect a citation by December 15, 2016. Thank you!!

Michaeltsantini (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael. Thanks again for your contribution to Wikipedia. But this is not the place to discuss edits being made to an existing article. You really need to talk to the editors on the Talk page of the article in question. Happy editing! NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:43, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Radicaldreamer29


Hello, I submitted an article about a month and a half ago, and it was initially declined. After making the suggested changes, I resubmitted the article, keeping it as neutral as possible, but have yet to hear back on the status. Is there any one that can help me out with this? What else do I need to do to get this article approved? Thanks for your assistance.

Radicaldreamer29 (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Radicaldreamer. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. We are extremely backlogged and, unfortunately, most submissions do take more than two or three weeks to be looked at by a reviewer. I'll leave some comments on the Talk page of your draft later today. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:04:16, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Wednesday 0008


Draft:Linda Lloyd Jones

I wish to improve the article Draft:Linda Lloyd Jones to meet Wikipedia's qualifications. I would like clarification on the reviewer's comments. For example, am I being asked to change the format of the footnotes? If so, would you please give me an example to follow.

Thank you.Wednesday 0008 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wednesday. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined is the reviewer who looked at it. You'll find that person's name and Talk page button at the top of your draft. Before posting here, I took a look at your draft and found that the many references are cited only to a publication (e.g. Wall Street Journal), with none of the bibliographic information called for under WP:CITE. In each case, the reader is left to wonder ... What is the title of the referenced article? Who wrote it? When was it published? Your citation style essentially tells the reader that they have to click through to the on-line source if they want to learn these things, and this practice runs afoul of WP:CITE. (It's also relevant to note that the option of clicking through is not available to anyone who is reading a PDF download of an article or who, for whatever reason, will want to read an off-line copy of the referenced article.) Formatting your references can be simplified if you use the {{cite web}} template. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

16:45:06, 2 December 2016 review of submission by Larry Gnome


I'm new to Wikipedia and am hoping to replace a redirect page with a page containing content. I'm unclear as to the status of my page. The tan box at the bottom of my page does not indicate that my page was accepted or declined but I did find the following statement attached to a link to my page in the sandbox.

"From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name."

Does this mean that my page was rejected?

Larry Gnome (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Larry. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your submission has not yet been reviewed and so, no, it has not been rejected. The message in your sandbox is simply a notice that the material that had once been there is now residing in a different place (i.e., Draft:Crater Renaissance Academy). Because no article on Wikipedia had ever been linking to your sandbox (or, at least, none should have been linking there), the message has served its purpose of notifying you of the changed location. Feel free to delete it and replace it with other content. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:27:07, 2 December 2016 review of submission by Nyuiisdm

Please let me know what I should fix in order to have Hannah Bayer's wikipedia page accepted. She does match the criteria to have a wikipedia page.

Nyuiisdm (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She may meet the required criteria, but the article needs to demonstrate that by references to reliable independent published sources. All 14 sources currently cited are to works attributed to the subject herself. Also, the opening section needs to make it clear what she is notable for. At present it refers to "end-to-end solutions", which sounds like a parody of marketing-speak. Maproom (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

16:47:48, 3 December 2016 review of submission by Rakesh.nmlindia


I have submitted above draft and it was declined. I feel that the page is important for scientific communities working in the areas specified (wish to clarify that there is no intended for any advertisement). In order to address reviewer's concern, will it be helpful if I connect the information with as many references/source as possible. If there is concern with the style, I would like if you may kindly recommend some prominent personalities' page which can be taken as an example and emulated (say, what about the online profile /Patcha_Ramachandra_Rao ?, former Director of the Lab where I work, i.e. CSIR-NML).I would greatly appreciate your kind help to make my draft publishable.

Rakesh.nmlindia (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:13:03, 3 December 2016 review of submission by 67.42.156.208


67.42.156.208 (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why my article on STEVE B.WEST was denied. It is a true story about a real living person who is a popular musician. He has been inducted into the Oregon Hall of Fame 2007 and articles about him are in Vintage Guitar 2015. He is a former original Raider with one of the all time popular rock n, roll groups of all time. He is on a few hit songs still playing today. People need to know about the life of this man. Other band members are in Wikipedia.

Please let me know,

I accidentally moved a draft article MOJEED ALABI for a review and I have been trying,but with no success,to move it to mainspace for publication.Please can anyone help move it to mainspace.Thank you.Instinct71 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=752976641"