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
WonkaNerd (talk | contribs)
18 edits
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 209: Line 209:


I would greatly appreciate it if you could please reconsider my article. I don't believe it would denigrate Wikipedia in any way, or contribute to any change in its image or reputation. My article is thoroughly researched and about as academic as a an article about a kids movie can be! Please let me share this information on the almighty Wikipedia.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could please reconsider my article. I don't believe it would denigrate Wikipedia in any way, or contribute to any change in its image or reputation. My article is thoroughly researched and about as academic as a an article about a kids movie can be! Please let me share this information on the almighty Wikipedia.

== 10:34:16, 10 May 2017 review of submission by Splaymudbcr ==
{{Lafc|username=Splaymudbcr|ts=10:34:16, 10 May 2017|page=
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Black_Country_Radio
}}

[[User:Splaymudbcr|Splaymudbcr]] ([[User talk:Splaymudbcr|talk]]) 10:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:34, 10 May 2017

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


May 4

02:14:56, 4 May 2017 review of submission by Annerpino


I have submitted an article, and was unable to include relevant images. The image icon, dragging and dropping, and copy/pasting did not work. The image icon above, after where it says "Insert" added some code and text to the page, but I was unable to make additions around it. Thanks for your help and good work. Annerpino (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps! ProgrammingGeek talktome 11:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Annerpino: Hello, Anne. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Adding images can be a complex process. You can begin to learn about it by reading WP:Uploading images and WP:Picture tutorial. But before doing that, I note that your efforts will be better placed by addressing the more basic problems that I see with your submission. First, your submission is entirely unsourced and, second, it fails to conform with even the most basic elements of our Manual of Style. Your efforts might be better placed by first working through our WP:Tutorial. But even if you fix all of these problems, there will still be the fact that Wikipedia already has an article on the pineal gland and that we do not need a separate article on one detailed aspect of that body part. I encourage you to start a discussion on the talk page of that article (Talk:Pineal gland), with an aim to seeing how much of your material might usefully find a home there. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:29, 4 May 2017 review of submission by 5.49.140.74


Hi, What is wrong with this page? Each line has reliable sources (Variety, Imdb, Cineuropa, Alternative Press). The main movie directed by the director has already a Wikipedia page. He was selected to Cannes, Cesar, Rotterdam. Thank you for your time. Kazak


5.49.140.74 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The issue does not appear to be the quality of the sources themselves (although you should note that the user-generated IMDB site is definitely not considered reliable here on Wikipedia). Instead, the issue is more likely a question of the quality of the information that is being sourced. For example, citing the fact that someone was born in 1987 or that they later studied filmmaking does not confer notability on the subject, and this is true even if those mundane facts are being supported by high-quality sources. In order to demonstrate "notability" (in the sense that Wikipedia uses that word), you will need to demonstrate that the subject of your draft meets at least one of the criteria set forth in WP:NCREATIVE. I don't see how the subject of your draft meets any of them. And I think it fair to point out that the only reason the "main movie" has a Wikipedia article is because you created it yourself just a few weeks ago. I'm not sure that the film's article would survive a deletion nomination and, based on the director's current level of achievement, I have the same opinion of your draft. But I expect that you will disagree and so too, perhaps, will another reviewer. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the rejection notice at the top of the draft, the words "reliable" and "independent" are in blue, indicating that they are links to what Wikipedia means by them. Please read the pages they link to. IMDB, for example, is neither reliable nor independent, as its entries are written by their subjects. Maproom (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

05:04:04, 5 May 2017 review of submission by Zeeshantariq01

I am trying to publish my first article. But, I fail to include prominent independent reference. I need assistance in finding these references. Any help will be appreciated.Zeeshantariq01 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Zeeshantariq01 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would recommend reviewing the following link - Wikipedia:Reliable sources - to help you determine what sources are seen as helpful in establishing notability. Good places to seek such sources can include your local library, university library servers, or web searches restricted to bringing up newspapers, books, or scholarly publications. Isingness (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Zeeshan. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Writing an article can be the most difficult of all tasks here on Wikipedia. And it seems that you made your task even more difficult by deciding to write an article without first assembling the sources. I regret that I am not particularly knowledgeable about the Pakistani textile industry, and so won't be able to help you locate sources. You might try asking the good folks over at our WikiProject on Pakistan. The Talk page for that project is at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:16:32, 5 May 2017 review of submission by Sowhatt65


Sowhatt65 (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs,

I have been creating a new article for weeks. Noone approved it as it seems it doesn't meet notability guidelines. I think that I added enough references and I see that similar articles of players that I could show to you have been approved. Please let me know how I can complete my work. Thanks in advance.

Hello, So. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 300 submissions in the queue ahead of yours, so I think it will be at least another week until a reviewer looks at it. In the meantime, I noticed that several of your references are in the form of "bare URLs". When you give references in that format, you are telling readers (including reviewers) that, if they want to learn essential bibliographic detail such as who wrote an article or when/where it was published, they must leave Wikipedia and find out for themselves. An easy way to provide this essential detail is by using the {{cite web}} template. Also, see WP:CITE for the need to provide essential bibliographic detail. If you have any questions on how to use the citation template, fee free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

04:40:55, 6 May 2017 review of submission by Steve.houston

I have recently made one edit and attempted to create several new pages. The new pages are of little concern to me right now but the edit that I made to an existing page is of concern. I added one small paragraph to the Wikipedia page "Space rock" a sub-genre of rock and roll. I added an internationally recognized festival based in Cullman, Alabama in which Nik Turner (of Hawkwind) has performed. It is called "Space Rock Con". The paragraph was brief and completely factual. Even given the fact that, yes, the page needs work, why was this content deleted? Must everything in Wikipedia be subject to arbitrary scrutiny and given the razor at the whim of some anonymous editor? I am not the creator/curator of this festival, just someone who knows about it. It is significant and gives a sense of completeness to the Wikipedia page. Why did I say "arbitrary"? Because I myself have published scientific papers as well as a Master's thesis. I am currently am working on a dissertation. I know what the review process is all about! I have read through your editing process, followed all of the rules... And still: this? Please advise! By the way, I am not the only person who has complained about Wikipedia's review and editing process. It seems like it's time for reform! Please do not mar this wonderful resource with draconian procedures. Thank you. Steve.houston (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - While this is not the right venue for this query, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Your content was likely removed because you included no valid sources supporting your contention. In that way it is not too dissimilar to academic writing. The removal wasn't arbitrary; simply put, you didn't including any references to support the truthfulness of what you added. Isingness (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:08, 6 May 2017 review of submission by Shahab Khan (Actor)


Shahab Khan (Actor) (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahab Khan (Actor): Hello, Shahab. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:59:12, 6 May 2017 review of submission by Elisabet Stacy-Hurley

I submitted a rough draft of my article because I got lost in what to do next...a gentleman told me what to do next but I have been too busy with other things to get back to working on it since April 27. I made a tiny edit a few days ago, and got back today to try to work on some of what he told me. However, I changed one word first...and clicked on save....and then the entire article disappeared. Been trying to find it again but no luck.....I thought I could go back and work on footnotes, but could not because I am not sure of where the page break should be. I had looked at the Teahouse earlier but it seemed to be for people more advanced that I am. I tried the "Commons" but could not find my article. I am totally lost right now and really need help. I thought I could use the "visual editor" more easily than the Wiki text....but now I realize I'm out of my league. But, I won't give up...one way or another I want to work on this until it is accepted. Elisabet Stacy-Hurley 18:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Elisabet Stacy-Hurley 18:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk • contribs)

Reply - Hello User:Elisabet Stacy-Hurley. I have restored the article for you. In the future, you can do this yourself by clicking on "edit history", and then clicking on "undo" beside the edit you want to reverse. As per the content of the draft, I would recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which can help you understand how to best create Wikipedia entries. Also, in answer to the question on your user page, you can discover how to the contents box is created here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings. Good luck with your article! Isingness (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


May 7

Request on 03:42:55, 7 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Edit king2


I was trying to create a article about edit king but it says it was I was writing like I was writing on Facebook. What changes should I make?Peace out 03:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Edit king. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Writing about yourself is very much discouraged here on Wikipedia. You will have a much better chance of publishing an article if you choose a different topic. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:59:45, 7 May 2017 review of submission by PhalainaBelgium


Hello ! This is PhalainaBelgium better known as Phalaïna.

Just trying to set up our first page on Wikipedia, which is not easy !

Our first attempt was declined.

User:PhalainaBelgium

Phalaïna 11:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhalainaBelgium (talk • contribs)

Hello, Phalaina. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Writing about yourselves is very much discouraged here on Wikipedia. Before writing this, I took a look at your submission and declined it for your failure to demonstrate satisfaction of any of the criteria set forth in WP:MUSICBIO. I also left a comment about the potential copyright violation created by the re-use of material taken from an on-line page. If an article about your band is going to be published here, you will first need to demonstrate that the band has been the subject of in-depth coverage by sources that are reliable and independent of the band. And so far, you haven't done this. On different notes, you might want to read our conflict-of-interest guidelines, which address our concerns with groups that are writing about their own businesses. You should also read WP:ISU, which states our prohibition against choosing a user name that implies "shared use". If you decide to change to another user name, you can do so over at WP:RENAME. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:39, 7 May 2017 review of submission by Kent Westlund


This draft was declined on April 28th on the basis that references do not adequately show the subject's notability, with the comment that "Except a few news publications, I can't find other reliable sources to support such an article." But it seems to me that the references included demonstrate that the subject firm is receiving significant coverage in reliable independent sources (The Boston Globe, CBS news, Pacific Standard, etc). Any suggestions on how these references could be improved? Kent Westlund (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kent Westlund: Hello, Kent. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I think you might be right -- the level of national news coverage accorded to the company might indeed be enough to justify an article. However, I note that the most substantive coverage relates to the controversies generated by the company. And although that aspect is given some mention in the draft, the weight that it receives doesn't reflect the weight that it receives in the national coverage. Later today, I'll open up a discussion on the draft's Talk page so that we can discuss this in more detail. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

Request on 04:24:53, 8 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tabloc



Tabloc (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabloc: Hello, Tabloc. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:49, 8 May 2017 review of submission by Semper liber


Semper liber (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I have changed my article name from Emil_Meek to magomed bibulatov by using the pressing (alt-shift-m) on the move button; however, the article name remain the same. There is the link. Please help and thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Meek

10:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply - It appears your move was reverted by another editor, if you are wondering why they made that decision I would ask them directly on their talk page or the article talk page. Isingness (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:51:37, 8 May 2017 review of submission by Splaymudbcr


Splaymudbcr (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Do you have a specific question regarding your draft? Off the bat, it appears you will require more references and the use of inline citations in order to have the draft approved. You may want to read the following document for further information on what kinds of references should be used on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Isingness (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Splaymudbcr: Hello, Splaymud. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Articles about local radio stations tend to have a difficult time here on Wikipedia, because we generally find an article to be appropriate only if the station has a very large audience or is otherwise notable on the basis of its age or unusual history. Some of this is spelled out in greater detail at WP:NRADIO. I took a look at your submission and didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that Black Country Radio meets those guidelines. If I've missed something, or if we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:43, 8 May 2017 review of submission by Chosenonefilms

Hello, i am new to wikipedia and would like to say hello and thank you to all who respond a few months ago i invented a new casino table game. i paid to have this game varified by a 3rd party company to run the numbers and attest to all the rules and such. my article was denied for what i see as "no reliable source". i read the articles on what to do and how to make this better, but none of them touches upon "NEW" inventions or ppl or companys. just looking for a little help to see why my article was denied more clearer, what i can do to to varify it now. or if the person who denied it was just rapidly denying everyone? thanks in advance. it seems to me my article is legit and looks fine. and i have since found other articles with much less info and varifications that are still allowed.  :( sad face .....help

Hello, ChosenOne. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your submission is unlikely to be accepted for publication, because you have not made any demonstration that your patent-pending game has been the subject of substantial coverage by reliable sources that are independent of your company. Indeed, your submission contains no references at all (the link to the company that you hired doesn't count as an independent reference). As a general rule, the subjects of Wikipedia articles were already notable before their articles were written, whereas you seem to want to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting your new game. I wish you the best of luck with your new patent-pending game, but until it has been noticed by the world at large, it is unlikely to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. On a different note, your user name implies that you are a corporate account that is actively promoting one of its products. You might want to read our conflict-of-interest guidelines. You also will need to change your user name. See our policy on promotional names for more information. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

Request on 02:12:07, 9 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Drolsson


Hi I have added a draft but it has been declined due to notability and yet other Councillors at the same level of government with less external references are in wikipedia. This would presume that they are more notable yet Cr Adam Allan has had more media coverage than them. I have added external and independent citations that are not linked with him but it was still rejected. As an example see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wines and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Murphy_(Australian_politician). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Owen-Taylor and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schrinner. These four are all at the same level of government. Thank you

!-- End of message -->Drolsson (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:52:31, 9 May 2017 review of submission by Jacob.ki

I am creating an article about a company that has been in existence for 30 years and made a difference to the industry it addresses. The content is neutral and the intent is to state facts. Enough references are provided in the article to showcase where the info is coming from. However, it is getting deleted stating the content is 'promotional' and it is 'soapboxing' etc. As a new user, i am clueless on what mistakes i am making in the content. Is there anyone who can help?

Jacob.ki (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacob, and welcome to Wikipedia. It seems like your submissions are being deleted under CSD G11. Please read the relevant criterion to see why it was deleted. To help, I suggest looking at examples of what to avoid here and here. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Thanks! ProgrammingGeek talktome 11:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note our guidelines on conflicts of interest. ProgrammingGeek talktome 11:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:47:45, 9 May 2017 review of submission by Annerpino


I am unclear as to why 3 of 4 of my images did not upload. I believe copyright violation is suspected, though all images are my own creations.

The article is meant only for consideration in the 'Explanations' section of the Shadow Person page. It is an analytical synthesis offering a physiological theory, as verifiable or not, as any other explanation therein. The theory presented has the capacity to be studied, whereas "These hallucinations have been directly compared to the paranormal entities described in folklore." (already on the page) offers no explanation, and several other explanations are presented as speculations, possibilities, and comments. Thanks so much for your good work!

Hello again, Anne. I took a look at your account over at Wikipedia Commons and saw no evidence that you've tried to upload any images other than the one that now appears in the draft. Beyond that, I can only repeat the advice that I gave on May 4 -- study WP:Uploading images to see what steps you might have missed with the other images. But your posting here raises a more basic issue. If you really intend this to simply be an addition to the already-existing article at Shadow person, then you shouldn't be here at Articles for Creation. Instead, you should be having a discussion with the folks who work on that article. That discussion will take place on the article's Talk page, which is here. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:58, 9 May 2017 review of submission by 2600:8803:7A00:976A:703B:83DB:F00E:F95C


2600:8803:7A00:976A:703B:83DB:F00E:F95C (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Move The AAC Football season article From The Draft To The Main Article. 2600:8803:7A00:976A:703B:83DB:F00E:F95C (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, IP. Can you provide a link to the article? It's unclear which you are referring to. Thanks! ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:24, 9 May 2017 review of submission by Chickboat


I just created my first article (Cultural and Natural History Collections at the University of La Verne). I am self-taught on HTML, and having a hard time trying to figure out how to add footnotes and references. Do I <ref>[bracket]websitelink[bracket]<ref> after the sentence where I want the footnote? I thought this is what I should do, but that makes a mess of my submission. I tried listed the link below references, also a mess. Chickboat (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chick. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. The immediate problem you are describing is caused by overlooking the "/" in the ending marker. So, although the footnote should have a <ref> in front, there should be a </ref> (note the slash) in back. And yes, the footnote (with the markers) should be placed at the end of the sentence (or paragraph) that it is referencing. But now to the larger problems. First, you might want to work through our WP:Tutorial. Doing so will introduce you to the basics elements of our Manual of Style. And second, it isn't all that clear to me why we need a separate article on the collections. We already have an article on the University of La Verne and the material you are creating could easily fit within the pre-existing article. If you agree, then you do not need to submit your work through Articles for Creation. Instead, you can simply begin a discussion on the Talk page of that article, with a view towards seeing how your material might best be presented. The talk page is at Talk:University of La Verne. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

07:19:54, 10 May 2017 review of submission by WonkaNerd


Hello!

Thanks for reviewing my article. I don't believe I have broken any of the rules/ guidelines of 'what wikipedia is not', and I believe my article is a warranted and worthy addition to Wikipedia.

I understand that wikipedia needs to have guidelines for their content, and I have read these guidelines carefully. I am passionate about my topic, I spent weeks researching, investigating and writing this article. (I even reached out to an online quote investigator! Here is the result). As wikipedia is a community-built resource, I believe I have the right to contribute this content. I don't understand why I am being denied this right.

The suggestion was that this page might be more suited to wikiquote. I have to disagree! As I'm sure you are aware, Wikiquote mainly contains lists of quotes from films and books. While this is a great resource, my article is not simply a list of quotes. It is an explanation of the origin behind many lines of dialogue in the film, and contains detailed references and links to great works of literature. It also contains information about the making of the film, the translation of the film from book to screen, and other relevant anecdotes.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could please reconsider my article. I don't believe it would denigrate Wikipedia in any way, or contribute to any change in its image or reputation. My article is thoroughly researched and about as academic as a an article about a kids movie can be! Please let me share this information on the almighty Wikipedia.

10:34:16, 10 May 2017 review of submission by Splaymudbcr


Splaymudbcr (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=779682790"