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
No edit summary
Plofgren (talk | contribs)
22 edits
Line 164: Line 164:


:When you've done all that, resubmit the draft. AfC is an iterative process. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
:When you've done all that, resubmit the draft. AfC is an iterative process. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

::Thanks [[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]], that's a lot of helpful info, and that makes sense. I think I underestimated how much work it would take to get an article approved. I'm not sure when I'll get to this, but when I do I'll edit the draft and re-submit. [[User:Plofgren|Plofgren]] ([[User talk:Plofgren|talk]]) 05:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


== 22:33:27, 6 August 2017 review of submission by Rudolf1330 ==
== 22:33:27, 6 August 2017 review of submission by Rudolf1330 ==

Revision as of 05:17, 8 August 2017

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


August 2

Request on 03:03:25, 2 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by RanjitBimrah



RanjitBimrah (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined The first reviewer's off-hand comment about birth date may have distracted you from the main problem. To demonstrate notability, there must be significant coverage of Singh in multiple, independent, reliable sources - think Business Standard, The Economic Times, India Today, and the like. Draft:Ranjit Mangal Singh cites no sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to know the submission problem

Hi, I need to know what is the problem with the article of Farhan Sarwar. I have published once but the article will be removed due to self-promotions and now i rewrite the complete article still i am unable to publish my article in the wiki. I need help what is issue occurring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak47hamza (talk • contribs) 06:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ak47hamza. Examining five random references of Draft:Farhan Sarwar:
Without significant coverage of Sarwar in multiple, independent, reliable sources, the draft cannot be accepted. Based on a sample of the sources cited, the subject does not appear to be a suitable topic for a stand alone encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for advertising, public relations, or self promotion. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, thanks for the guidance. I have made changes according to your suggestions and add some verified sources. Kindly review it again. Let me know if i am still on the wrong track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak47hamza (talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:40:23, 2 August 2017 review of submission by Jkerouacesq


Hi there, it has been over a month now, can you please review the entry "Oak Felder" for approval? thanks again so much.

Jkerouacesq (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jkerouacesq. It has been 17 days since Draft:Oak Felder's latest review. About 250 drafts have been waiting longer, so expect it to take another two weeks for a reviewer to reach it. While volunteers work through this backlog, feel free to chip in and help improve Wikipedia in other ways. See Wikipedia:Community portal for things you can do. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:10:55, 2 August 2017 review of draft by Udumalai


I can not in paragraphs and separate lines Udumalai (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Udumalai. I've fixed the formatting. See Manual of Style#Section headings and Manual of Style/Lists for more information. The list of references in Draft:Suresh kumar chandrasekhar is unclear. See Referencing for beginners for how to describe your sources so that readers can locate them. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:20, 2 August 2017 review of submission by Bennieandthejets

Hello. I have created a draft for the company Applied Systems. As an employee of the company, I have stated my conflict of interest for transparency. I have also attempted to write the article in a factual, nonbiased, non-promotional way. Of the 40 references cited, approximately 10 are from the same company press release about awards our company won back in 2015. My draft was reviewed and has been declined as well as nominated for deletion. The reason provided was "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." Without specifics, it is difficult for me to address the concerns. If someone here can provide guidance on how I can get this article added to Wikipedia, it is greatly appreciated. Please note: Three of the private equity firms that have owned or currently own our company have Wikipedia pages about them. Also, our major competitor has an existing page, although it was cited for the same violations the Applied Systems page I drafted. I don't understand why they have been allowed to publish a page with multiple issues and remain on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertafore. Thank you, Bennieandthejets (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Bennieandthejets (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bennieandthejets The other stuff exists argument is unlikely to find any traction with experienced Wikipedians. There's a huge backlog of bad articles that need to be improved or deleted. Their existence is not a good excuse for creating more like them.
The list of non-notable and questionably notable awards, if mentioned only by the company or the awarding organization, is likely to be seen as promotional. The company may be very proud of them, but to outsiders they may come across like second-grader Johnny winning the "Most improved hand raising in February" award.
The use of trade journals as sources is not prohibited, but they have a limited audience and often a too-cozy relationship with the companies and industry they cover. They, and company press releases, tend to cover things that are not encyclopedic content. Try rewriting using just the highest quality sources: The New York Times, Reuters, Chicago Sun Times, Austin Business Journal, and any similar sources you can find. The problems with the draft are not something that can be fixed in a few hours. It can take years of work to improve a draft to the point where it can be accepted (and, of course, 80% never are accepted). --Worldbruce (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:30, 2 August 2017 review of draft by Macinn.es


I'm just looking for general comments at this stage. If the remaining sections are filled out to a similar standard as the current content, will it be likely to be accepted?

And about referencing, I'm concerned I've used a few too many references from the same sources (lots of THE), and a few primary sources. I do hope to be able to change some of them for more diverse sources, but should I make sure I do before submitting it for review, or is it passable as-is?

Macinn.es 15:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Macinn.es: Hello, Macinn. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I don't see anything obviously wrong with the draft so far, although I didn't read through it to check for neutrality and the like. And we generally do find major legislation to be notable, especially if its effect (or potential effect) on the real world is documented in the article. As for the diversity of sourcing, I presume some of that will come in when you do the "Reception" section because, of course, that can't be sourced to the legislation itself. I expect that, given the nature of the subject, it shouldn't be too difficult to find discussion of the law in the general press. One last point -- in the United States, there are several well-established publishers of legal commentary (e.g., BNA, Prentice-Hall). These can be useful when describing the provisions of the law, because using them will insulate you from any allegation that you are giving your own interpretation of what the law says. I assume that similar publishers exist in the U.K. and, if I'm right about that, it will be worth the effort to track them down. And finally, in case you didn't already know, we have a WikiProject on Law that maintains a fairly active Talk page (here). The folks there will be able to provide specialised assistance. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: Thanks for your help. I have now filled in all the headings and submitted the draft for approval. As you said, in filling out the Reception section has helped to diversify my sources, and I'll keep checking back for fresh commentary. I've also asked for advice on the WikiProject Law talk page as you suggest. Macinn.es 14:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Macinn.es: I've placed your draft "under review" and will take a closer look at it later today. I don't foresee any major problems but, if any do arise, I'll get in touch with you. By the way, you posted your request for assistance in the wrong place -- you posted at Portal talk:Law, which is not the same place as the Talk page for the Law Project. I doubt you'll get a quick response at the Portal (if, indeed, you get one at all), so you might want to delete it and re-post at the link given in my first response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:24:12, 2 August 2017 review of submission by VM510

Hi there,

My page (CoLAB Planning Series) was declined. I understood that the mod found some peacock terms and language that they didn't feel remained neutral. I went through the article and deleted/edited terms I felt could've been the culprits, and I have also added a new citation from a newspaper (another problem my page might've had). Would you mind going through the article and letting me know if I've fixed the peacock terms and remained in NPOV? Am I on my way to making the article better? If you find some peacock terms/ non-NPOV language, could you point them out to me? Your help will be much appreciated before I feel ready to resubmit. Thanks! VM510 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC) VM510 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Comment left on the draft page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:51:13, 2 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Mboxcar


Contest speedy deletion


Hello, I created a page, and it was rejected. I made significant edits in response to the feedback I received, and it was rejected again. It is meant to be wholly informational, not advertising. Where am I supposed to go from here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NAVEX_Global

I was told to go to the page and click the button to contest deletion - but no button exists.

Mboxcar (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mboxcar: Hello, Mboxcar. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. I'm a bit confused by your question. It appears that you yourself requested deletion of your draft about two hours after you posted your question here. If you've changed your mind about it, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:14, 2 August 2017 review of submission by Paigedmckinney

We are confused as to why reviewers our saying that our references do not show that our subject is notable, we would like some clarification on how to best fix this so that our page can get approved. Any suggestions would be helpful, we are just confused as to what we are missing. Paigedmckinney (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paigedmckinney: Hello, Paige. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. I've left a comment on the draft, suggesting that you might make a better case for notability if you add "wikilinks" to the cited awards and galleries. If you choose to do this, feel free to drop a note on my Talk page after you've done it and I'll be happy to take another look. In the meantime, you used the word "we" when asking your question. Who are you representing here? NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

Request on 09:36:15, 3 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by StephanieHay


Hi,

I just wrote an article about Modo - Circus with Purpose. This is a charity I feel very passionate about but i have little connection with the actual company.

The article has been declined as it appears to be an advertisement and must be written from a neutral point of view, I have re-read the article several times and I can not see any information which appears to advertising the company - all the information appears to be solid facts backed up with independent articles.

The message also says that I haven't used independent sources which i am puzzled with as every source used is published from a reliable, trustworthy source that has not been published by the creator of the subject being discussed (Modo - Circus with Purpose)

I would just like some tips and ideas on what has to be changed and how I can get this article published

Thank you

StephanieHay (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with writing about charities you are passionate about is that it's easy to loose track of neutrality. As an uninvolved editor and having read the draft, I can see where the rejection came from. It's basically an ode to the company, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Kleuske (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:15:44, 3 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Shivanu14


Hello, I want to create this article as this person is world famous and still not on wikipedia. I put all the information which I had. But this page is not publish. I want that you help me to publish this article. Thank you.

Shivanu14 (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivanu14: Hello, Shivanu. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. I see that your submission was declined twice since you posted your question here and, in both cases, the reviewer noted the lack of in-line citations. They also included links to material that explains this requirement in more detail. I can only repeat that advice -- you should read WP:Referencing for beginners, WP:Inline citations and WP:MINREF. If you have any questions about these readings, feel free to ask. But even after you've done this, there will still be the question of whether the subject has achieved encyclopedic notability. Thus far, you have shown only that the subject has a website and that there are two books containing material by the subject. You haven't shown that independent reliable sources have written about the subject, and that's precisely what you will need to show before your draft will be accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:42:34, 3 August 2017 review of submission by Golden Freak

How I can add a photo in my article? Golden Freak (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Golden Freak. The presence or absence of photos will have no effect on whether or not a draft is accepted, so I advise you to focus instead on choosing a topic suitable for Wikipedia (the subject of User:Golden Freak/sandbox does not appear to be suitable for an encyclopedia). Adding an image is a two step process: first upload it, then use it in on a page.
Go to Commons:First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes Wikipedia:File names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, there is a dedicated help desk for image uploading.
Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial can guide you through how to use it on a page. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:49, 3 August 2017 review of submission by KehrerK



How to insert photographs, diagrams? kehrer 17:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi KehrerK. Adding an image is a two step process: first upload it, then use it in on a page.
Go to Commons:First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes Wikipedia:File names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, there is a dedicated help desk for image uploading.
Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial can guide you through how to use it on a page. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

13:32:52, 4 August 2017 review of submission by RanjitBimrah

I want to request about Ranjit Mangal Singh because our page is fresh and not must be matched with anyone. I'm want to post or show article on Wikipedia. Allow me to add it article while creating same articles in by Wikipedia using Request Article. It's not fake or copy paste instead than its fresh article and have Chairman and Owner of this small business. But Wikipedia doesn't accept my article. Do something as soon as possible. The website is talkapp-messenger.com/about. and more information here in it.

RanjitBimrah (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RanjitBimrah: Hello, Ranjit. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. You make a point of saying the article is not fake, even though nobody had suggested it was fake. But now that you mention it, I am a bit puzzled as to how Singh's facial expression changed not one bit in the six years between the 1982 photo and the 1988 photo. I'm also struggling to understand how a ten-year old boy could have facial hair. But I'm really struggling with the fact that you categorize Singh as a living person while also telling us that he died in 1990. And I'm more than a little surprised to read, in the final sentence, that Singh started his website two years after he died. I am truly interested in hearing your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just his facial expression that changed not one bit in the six years, it's even the folds in his turban. If this is fakery, it's remarkably unconvincing. Maproom (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed and (unsurprisingly) declined the draft. Besides the obvious fakery with the photos, the dates make no sense. I'm having a hard time figuring out how the subject could have a Twitter account when he died 16 years before Twitter was founded. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

Request on 13:34:35, 5 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Sunil dhakare



sunil 13:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sunil. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:17, 5 August 2017 review of submission by M0h1t

The reason for rejection was stated as my not so neutral writing. Well, I can not write on something big as such as Wikipedia. Second, my language is not good. So, if anybody else from Wikipedia team can write few sentences about that person, that will be enough for me, as I have submitted proper sources.

Please let me know what can be done to create a page on Wikipedia about that person. M0h1t (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@M0h1t: You can ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles for someone else to write the article. I've had at least one article created that way, but don't expect quick results. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:24, 5 August 2017 review of submission by AmiBwell

In full disclosure, I was asked to publish the article by the company as a PR professional. I did not create any of the content or reference materials. I have had that issue in the past since I am an entertainment publicist and was referencing material I had written and distributed to the press. In moving forward, how should the copy be changed to avoid it sounding like an advertisement? Are the references acceptable? Would adding the links to the companies listed help at all? Would removing quotes from the owner make it appear less like an advertisement or spam? AmiBwell (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the writing could be corrected. Establishing that the subject is notable is more likely to be an insuperable problem. You will need several citations of reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. I looked at the first three sources cited: the first is to the company's own web site, and so not independent; the second, I could find no mention of the subject; the third gave me a list of "0 roofing contractors near Oxford, Eng." I gave up looking after that. I don't know if the article does cite any sources that help to establish that the company is notable. If not, you will need to find and add some. And either way, I recommend removing the worthless citations like the first three, that just make it harder for a reviewer to find the good ones. Maproom (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:12:56, 5 August 2017 review of submission by 92.19.39.69

Big companies use Hotjar.com technology, there is no article at present. I'm suprised there is no article. I wanted a reliable source of information. 92.19.39.69 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Our apologies for the great delay in response. As for your comment, you might try writing the article yourself. Or you can request that one be written by posting at Wikipedia:Requested articles. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

01:15:30, 6 August 2017 review of submission by RanjitBimrah

@NewYorkActuary I agree with you but I have another proof to prove it. I will not upload those photo which looks like a teenager and will send you an image link below of description. Tell How can post this articles on Wikipedia? I think I write too many heading like career and mission death etc.. When I try to write articles in the draft for review than according to this reason Wikipedia delete or doesn't accept this article. Hope you will do my help regarding this matter. All sources which are written is this articles fresh. Image link Teenager Ranjit Mangal Singh. Now I will able to write an article on Wikipedia on the name as RANJIT MANGAL SINGH.

Regard RanjitBimrah

RanjitBimrah (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User has blanked the page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:45, 6 August 2017 review of draft by 103.7.79.207


103.7.79.207 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:03, 6 August 2017 review of submission by Plofgren

Hi, this is my fist contribution to wikipedia, and I'm trying to understand why my contribution was rejected. The reviewer seems be be concerned because my submission overlaps with information written in my PhD thesis at Stanford, especially the related work section of my thesis. I don't see why this is a problem, since I cite peer-reviewed sources (not my thesis) for all claims made, and was careful to cite a variety of work going back 18 years. I am not publishing anything original here. As background my motivation is that as a 1st year grad student, when my advisor suggested I study "Personalized PageRank" it took me a while to find good descriptions of it and to understand the best algorithms for computing it. Now that I studied it for five years I feel like I should give back and write the article I wish I could have read from the beginning. Personalized Pagerank is used in industry by Twitter, and is covered in core data-mining and social network analysis classes at Stanford, so I don't feel like it is too obscure to deserve a Wikipedia article. Also, the reviewer suggests I merge this article into the PageRank article, but the PageRank article is currently focused on non-personalized PageRank and web search, and I think it would be too much detail to have this much information on personalized PageRank as a subsection of the PageRank article. Please let me know if at least some information on personalized PageRank would be useful to Wikipedia, or if I should give up on sharing my knowledge through Wikipedia. Thanks! Plofgren (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plofgren. Thank you for your contribution, we value your expertise. Creating a new Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult tasks for a new Wikipedian, not where I would recommend that anyone start. There is useful information in the draft, so how should you proceed?
  • Study, with a writer's eye, some of Wikipedia's best articles on topics of a similar nature: Euclidean algorithm, Binary search algorithm, Linear probing, Pseudoforest, Rule 184, and Sylvester's sequence. Also read Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Writing better articles.
  • Attempt to do what the reviewer suggests. You're correct that PageRank can't neatly absorb the entire contents of the draft, but isn't the reviewer also right that some of the material could fit there? What would a reader of PageRank want to know about Personalized PageRank, and where would that go? Write that paragraph.
  • Don't depend on hyperlinks to provide vital context. Users may print articles or read offline, and content may be republished without links, so the text needs to make sense without links. In as few words as possible, tell readers what they need to know about PageRank in order to understand Personalized PageRank. Write for as broad an audience as possible.
  • The lead should summarize the body. It is too short for the length of the draft. It also mentions things not covered in the body (Facebook, community detection, and other applications), which shows that the body doesn't fully cover the subject.
  • The tone of the draft isn't quite right for an encyclopedia article, it comes across more like a textbook or instructor lecturing to a class. The use of "we" grates. Try to make the voice of the article more like the examples above.
  • Respond to the reviewer on the draft, directly below their comment, where future reviewers will see it, with regard to any remaining concerns. Keep it short and to the point, e.g.:
Yes, the draft overlaps a portion of my PhD thesis, but mainly the related work section, not the central thrust of my research. I'm not citing my own publications or attempting to promote my work, merely writing about a subject I've become familiar with, summarizing independent reliable sources.
When you've done all that, resubmit the draft. AfC is an iterative process. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Worldbruce, that's a lot of helpful info, and that makes sense. I think I underestimated how much work it would take to get an article approved. I'm not sure when I'll get to this, but when I do I'll edit the draft and re-submit. Plofgren (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:27, 6 August 2017 review of submission by Rudolf1330


Hi, I was just wondering what is meant by adding more sources to back up he notability of the footballer... It thought it was pretty clear that he was notable enough, seen as he has been at two notable academies and plays for a notable club... There are many much less notable young players who play in a division 3 leagues below the division Lavelle currently participates in so do not see why Lavelle is not worthy of a wikipedia page. Please can you instruct me directly and clearly to what specific area(s) need to be enhanced, as I believe that the sources used in the article are every bit as reliable as other footballers and athletes on wikipedia e.g. Adam Dugdale or Nathan Bondswell (both not at all notable athletes/sportspeople and use hardly any sources at all, let alone reliable ones). Thanks for your time and help in advance.

Accepted because yesterday he played in a match between Morecambe F.C. and Cheltenham Town F.C., which are clubs in EFL League Two, a fully professional league. Thus he meets criterion #2 of WP:NFOOTY. Trout me if I'm wrong. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

02:57:01, 7 August 2017 review of submission by 174.44.65.34


174.44.65.34 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ManuelBot. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:30, 7 August 2017 review of submission by Raymond Acheson


Hi, I am trying to provide a Wikipedia presence for my rugby club and my initial article has been rejected due to no references being provided.

This is Lurgan Rugby Club and it is located in Northern Ireland.

We are basically using old photographs off the walls and in photo albums dating back to our formation in 1880 and old tour literature from previous tours to Canada and Italy.

I am a life member of the club and an in charge of events / brand placement and senior player recruitment.

We are currently engaged with a web designer who is creating a web site and social media presence for us.

How can I move this forward without formal references?

Thank you in anticipation of your help

Regards

Raymond Acheson

Raymond Acheson (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raymond. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The quick answer is -- you can't move forward without formal references. Wikipedia requires that all the information in its articles be referenced to published sources, and the ones you've described here don't meet that description. You might try looking for old newspaper coverage but, even if you find it, that coverage might not be enough if it is limited to local sources. On a different note, I took a look at your draft (Draft:Lurgan Rugby Club History) and found that I would have declined it even if it had been adequately referenced. You don't appear to have even tried to write that draft in the neutral tone of voice that is expected of an encyclopedia (it looks more like sports-page coverage). And you've included a ridiculously large number of photographs. In all, I see a lot of problems that need to be addressed before an article about your club will be accepted for Wikipedia. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:07, 7 August 2017 review of draft by Christy.kwon


Hi, I am currently working on article creation, and it appears that the page i want to create is marked as a spam. What should i do in this case to create an article? It happen because i couldn't understand wikipedia article creation policy well. I would like to know how to restore or any helpful instruction on this matter. Thank you very much for your help. Christy.kwon (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:38, 7 August 2017 review of submission by Moleknoll


Hi, I have made changes to my draft to try to satisfy editors, but have not resubmitted them yet. I changed some of my sources to eliminate such things as diaries by the subject and oral interviews, to make my sources more objective and verifiable. Also, just because I chose the username of Vanvleck - one editor thought I was writing about myself even though my draft says my subject, Natalie Van Vleck, died in 1981! Before a possible rejection again, I would like someone to look at my submission and give me a few pointers.

thanks very much!

19:11:45, 7 August 2017 review of submission by Cliffbridges


I am attempting to clean up this submission and make improvements to meet the site guidelines. Based on previous advice, I have collected sources from a variety of publications, including magazine profiles and news sources. I removed most sources that seemed to be based on press release information (I left one official VA state release). I believe notability can be established from the included sources.

The most recent rejection is somewhat vague however, and I am hoping to get some clarity around specific problem areas in the article. I have attempted an impartial tone, but perhaps the types of information I have included are inappropriate? I'd love some guidance about specific parts of the article that should be removed or re-written to bring it up to standard.

Thanks so much! Cliffbridges (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


August 8

03:23:54, 8 August 2017 review of submission by Hillin

Hi,

It's been over a month since this draft was reviewed and rejected. I've made some improvements to this article, I hope someone can review it again. Hillin (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:57:39, 8 August 2017 review of submission by Mrngcuegee


Dear Help Desk,

I have created a page and have revised it according to the comments provided. I would like to publish it soon if it is considered appropriate.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance for your help.

Kind regards,

Mrngcuegee

Mrngcuegee (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=794461787"