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
Uideyield (talk | contribs)
12 edits
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 2,069: Line 2,069:
<!-- End of message -->[[User:Millyk01|Millyk01]] ([[User talk:Millyk01|talk]]) 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
<!-- End of message -->[[User:Millyk01|Millyk01]] ([[User talk:Millyk01|talk]]) 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
:Indeed there is a page already. We don't need seperate pages for the company and its stores which use the same name. No comments on the examples you cite - might be correct or maybe they should be merged. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 07:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
:Indeed there is a page already. We don't need seperate pages for the company and its stores which use the same name. No comments on the examples you cite - might be correct or maybe they should be merged. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 07:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

== Request on 15:29:35, 30 November 2018 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by Uideyield ==
{{anchor|15:29:35, 30 November 2018 review of submission by Uideyield}}
{{Lafc|username=Uideyield|ts=15:29:35, 30 November 2018|declinedtalk=Draft:Choi_Nakyoon}}

<!-- Start of message -->
Hi, I made my first wikipedia posting few months ago and wish to clarify one factual issue related to its rejection. I don't care anymore at this point whether the draft gets rejected or not, but I wish to resolve one misunderstanding which was stated about the reason of rejection.
I cannot accept reviewer's argument until this issue is clearly understood and accepted by the reviewer. A clarification is needed on the misunderstanding which the reviewer had on me as a writer. How do I prove that I have zero affiliation with the person I wrote about? Do I need to create a sandbox page about my identity? Why is the reviewer assuming that I must have prepared the article for the sake of commercial interest or promotional activities?

I have no idea how the reviewer could just pre-assume (without even asking the writer) that I have personal relations with the person I wrote about. This can even sound like a personal insult to a writer who attempted to prepare the article for the first time. I apologize if my citations were not good enough, but you cannot assume that I may have a personal relation with the person I wrote about. I don't even personally know him. Of course I don't work for the media company and there is no way he can pay me when he doesn't even know me. Besides, I am just an outsider who once took a course and studied Hallyu industry and someone who was curious about writing wikipedia article drafts and just wanted to give it a try through trials and errors. My personal goal was to increase English wikipedia pages for the existing Korean wikipedia pages. In that way, more English readers can have access to Asian wikipedia pages (perhaps if the English draft is available, then the English writers can also find ways together to fix the reference issue which Korean wikipedia articles hold).

All I tried to do was create an English version of his already-existing Korean wikipedia page. I do not get paid by anyone for this matter, and this is almost a personal insult to me when I have pure interest to contribute as a writer as well, but all I get is a pre-assumed comments filled with injustice.

I am not asking the reviewer to accept the draft because the draft already has a reference issue. I accept that the submission can be rejected if it's because of citation issues or because the person is "not notable", but I can never accept the reviewer's careless assumption about my purpose and intent of preparing the draft. I have no relation with a person I wrote about. I cannot emphasize enough that I want to know why the reviewer would pre-assume about something that isn't even true at all. What made him think that I must have written about someone I know or for commercial interest?

Please reconsider this issue; I want the reviewer to take back what he said and how he assumed about my personal intent of draft and I hope to cooperate in the most peaceful way and resolve this matter together. Thanks for reviewing and considering this message in advance.

<!-- End of message -->[[User:Uideyield|Uideyield]] ([[User talk:Uideyield|talk]]) 15:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:29, 30 November 2018

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


November 12

04:18:53, 12 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat







What is your question? Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I processed all but one of these pages. Declined most, CSD'd one, and accepted the village. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Sir, I object your decision. You have only declined quality and notable pages. I do not believe that some Wikipedia administrators review our articles so poorly. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Bro, Would you please give your opinion on the declined drafts? Drafts are being discussed here on Legacypac's (talk page) -------------- Farooqahmadbhat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be various fragmented discussions already, and an email in my inbox, I could reply in various places but I will just outline my thoughts here. You can refer to my comment by linking to it elsewhere if you want.

  • Junaid Azim Mattu as the Mayor of Srinagar is not presumed notable under WP:NPOL. Politicians that don't meet that guideline are hard to prove notable and will need more than a short stub.
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tina Dabi will decide the fate of Tina Dabi. As the title has already be create protected in mainspace I suspect COI or paid editing in the past on that subject.
  • Peer Ki Gali is notable, as noted by Legacypac the article is closely paraphrased and needs to be rewritten slightly to avoid copyright issues, this is a prose issue. Check [1] and [2].
  • Bufliaz has been approved.
  • Rafia Rahim and Mehak Zubair are low profile radio presenters, to have the articles accepted you need to expand the articles and add more references to show why they are significant.

I hope this helps. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:22:32, 12 November 2018 review of submission by BridgeScript

I would like to get a second opinion on a declined draft. Here is the discussion we had with the reviewer who suggested getting a second opinion: User_talk:BridgeScript

BridgeScript (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean "pass"? Can you point out those references that do not "pass"? BridgeScript (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The notability guideline is like a test applied to the article to see if it passes the minimum standard for inclusion. You need at minimum two or three times as many similar references, or at least two substantial articles in national news in addition to the references already in the article to pass. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. BridgeScript (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:58:02, 12 November 2018 review of draft by Laurel Brunner


Laurel Brunner (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to get this article posted? I keep trying and get no help at all and am confused by all the options of nonspecific guidance. I am sure I am not as clever as everyone else on here, but I am doing my best.

Can someone tell me what more do I need to show that this topic is notable? Why it has been referred to as “garbage“ (which is hardly an objective statement, given that it is only a short text)? Why is submitting updates in response to objections considered worthy of deletion?

I am new to this whole process so I think a little constructive support is not an unreasonable expectation. Here is the text I propose as a new article topic, along with its supporting external references. Please could someone tell me what is wrong with it, and how I fix it. Thank you.

Extended content

• {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Laurel Brunner|U1-employer=Digital Dots|U1-client=Xeikon INternational BV|U1-otherlinks=http://verdigrisproject.com, https://www.printingnews.com/home/contact/10290626/laurel-brunner https://insights.ricoh.co.uk/author/laurelbrunner https://www.asiaprintexpo.com/speakers/laurel-brunner https://www.printmedianieuws.nl/laurel-brunner/}}.


Xeikon Xeikon was founded by Lucien de Schamphelaere in 1988 to develop a digital colour printing press. In 1993 the company introduced its technology at an international trade show. Indigo, now HP Indigo, also introduced a digital colour printing press at this show. Together these two companies established a new printing method and revolutionised the printing industrythe principles of which have been widely followed leading to new applications for print, such as photobooks.

References & Sources "https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/20/business/company-news-xeikon-adr-s-surge-on-first-day-of-trading.html". The New York Times. March 20, 1996: COMPANY NEWS; XEIKON A.D.R.'S SURGE ON FIRST DAY OF TRADING Intro: The American depository receipts of Xeikon N.V., a Belgian maker of digital printing systems, surged 34 percent yesterday in their first day of trading. The company, which is seeking to capture part of the short-run color printing market, sold 6.4 million A.D.R.'s at $15 each to raise $96 million.

"https://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/29/business/xerox-is-offering-a-new-category-of-color-printer.html" The New York Times. April 29, 1996. Xerox Is Offering a New Category of Color Printer Hoping to find a color-printing niche with machines that sell for about $200,000 each, the Xerox Corporation has introduced its Docu-color printer, which can transform electronic files into full color pages at a rate of 40 sheets a minute. (…) For the most demanding color-printing customers, even faster machines with better quality are available in the $350,000 to $400,000 price range. The AM DCP-1, Agfa Chromapress and IBM 3170, all of which use a print engine made by Xeikon of Belgium, and the Indigo E-Print 1000 each print up to 70 pages a minute.

"presse-archiv/artikel/FAZ/20000129/agfa-digitaldruck-geht-an-xeikon/FR220000129311326.html" Frankfurter Allgemeine. January 29, 2000. Agfa-Digitaldruck geht an Xeikon (‘Agfa Digital Printing goes to Xeikon’) Das Geschäftsfeld Digitale Drucksysteme soll an die auf diesem Gebiet zu den international führenden Anbietern gehörende Xeikon N.V. verkauft werden. Im Gegenzug werde Agfa-Gevaert weitere an der amerikanischen Nasdaq notierte Xeikon-Aktien erhalten und damit die Beteiligung an diesem Unternehmen von 20,1 Prozent auf höchstens 25,5 Prozent aufstocken.

"http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dst30012002_084" De Standaard. January 30, 2002. De neergang van Xeikon (‘Xeikon’s fall’) Timeline of Xeikon’s rise and fall since its 1996 Nasdaq listing 

"https://www.tijd.be/algemeen/algemeen/george-soros-bederft-agfa-s-vlaamse-wereldprimeur/5120574.html" De Tijd, June 23, 1993. George Soros spoils Agfa’s world premiere De Hongaars-Amerikaanse spekulant George Soros en Benny Landa bederven de Vlaamse wereldprimeur van Agfa-dochter Xeikon uit Mortsel.

"https://www.tijd.be/algemeen/algemeen/Vlaanderen-is-even-goed-in-high-tech-als-Silicon-Valley/5120632" De Tijd, June 24, 1993. Flanders can match Silicon Valley’s high tech Met de ontwikkeling van de eerste digitale kleurendrukpers bewijzen we in Vlaanderen even goed te zijn als de high-tech bedrijven in Silicon Valley. Het is dus ook mogelijk in Vlaanderen', stelt Xeikon-voorzitter Lucien De Schamphelaere.

"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/03/printing-revolution-landa-xeikon-drupa" The Guardian, May 3, 2012. Rivals launch a printing revolution that could be as significant as Gutenberg Landa and Xeikon to unveil new inkjet and toner technology at drupa exhibition in Düsseldorf This week will see the launch of a revolution in printing that may turn out to be as significant as the invention of the Gutenberg printing press - if entrepreneurs and analysts are to be believed.

Sources 

 https://patents.justia.com/inventor/lucien-a-de-schamphelaere</ref>
 https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB944267223291941315
</ref>
 https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0309/6105062s1.html#def9bc214b26</ref>
 https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=49581547</ref>
 http://www.rit.edu/news/newsevents/1997/Oct01/story.php?file=cary</ref>
 http://whattheythink.com/articles/83713-we-lost-derek-kyte-lucien-de-schamphelaere/</ref>
 https://patents.google.com/patent/US5617189A/en/</ref>
 http://www.imaging.org/site/IST/Membership/Honors_and_Awards/Honorary_Membership/IST/Membership/Awards/Honorary_Membership.aspx</ref>
 https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=49581547</ref>
 http://toc.proceedings.com/16615webtoc.pdf </ref>
 http://www.duomedia.com/news-detail/xeikon-international-bv/15484/xeikon-showcases-digital-label-advantage-at-busy-labelexpo-americas-2018-exhibition/english</ref>
 https://www.verpackungsrundschau.de/news/news+categories/people/digital+printing+pioneer+lucien+de+schamphelaere+has+died+at+the+age+of+85+.168807.htm#.W-Glf6ecYUs</ref>
 http://www.gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/505067803.pdf
<syntaxhighlight lang="trac wiki"> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/DE69400680.html
<syntaxhighlight lang="trac wiki"> https://www.wesayhowhigh.com/blog/article/print-explained-offset-litho-vs-digital</ref>
 https://www8.hp.com/us/en/commercial-printers/indigo-presses/products.html</ref>
 https://panjiva.com/Xeikon-International-Bv/4976262</ref>
 http://www.paper.co.uk/products/digital-media-xeikon/</ref>
 https://www.finat.com/members/details/xeikon-international-bv</ref>
 https://www.drupa.com/vis/v1/en/exhibitors/drupa2016.2410980</ref>
 https://www.interpack.com/vis/v1/en/exhibitors/interpack2017.2487457</ref>
 https://www.pastprintfuture.com/blog/2018/7/19/focus-on-a-digital-future</ref>
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPML </ref>

Laurel Brunner (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:45:29, 12 November 2018 review of draft by DalyceKelley


DalyceKelley (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please change my draft article title from DJ Bay Bay to just Bay Bay when reviewed as I have learned he is referred to as just Bay Bay aka Bay Bay The Ambassador. Thank you.

20:24:47, 12 November 2018 review of submission by Rmilnes


This is a page describing a branded technology. Is it at all possible to get a page on a branded technology published? There are unique elements to the technology. In principle there is no generic description for the technology other than by reference to the brand name. The original draft is extremely rich in clinical references, as well as the pros and cons of other technologies.

Rmilnes (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the helpful guidence on the draft. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

01:52:28, 13 November 2018 review of draft by 01:52:28, 13 November 2018 review of submission


I am requesting help because I do not believe this submission was correctly reviewed. i want "Kam King" footballer page to be accepted, please.

First, the reviewer notes that the submission lacks significant coverage in reliable, published sources. However, the article includes THREE references to an article specifically about SALMA OKONKWO, published by FORBES.com on 7/31/18 (see link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2018/07/31/ghana-solar-farm-ubi-salma-okonkwo/#2d239cf61d24). The article was written by sr. reporter Chloe Sorvino but published by FORBES.com. Other sources footnoted in the submission include PETROL WORLD, a global subscription-based b2b magazine covering the petroleum industry, and MODERN GHANA, a recognized news site for the country of Ghana. As required, all of these publications are independent of Ms. Okonkwo and I believe meet the rest of your criteria for outside sources.

Second, when this article was first submitted in Fall, 2017, it met the objectivity requirement (as reviewed by the first reviewer), and the text has not changed, except with the addition of several facts not available in 2017 so we are confused by the note that it reads like an advertisement. Every fact is presented clearly and without editorial remarks. Adjectives are minimal and used only when necessary. The timeline is correct and straightforward. There is no subjective text or opinion.

Therefore, I would appreciate a new objective review as soon as possible. Thank you.

23.241.240.131 (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is a solid start, but no matter how many times it is cited, it's still a single source. None of the other cited sources add anything significant about Okonkwo. If three articles independently and over a period of time went as deeply into the topic as the Forbes one, there would be no problem with notability. As it stands, however, I too would decline the draft.
Note that just because reviewers of the earlier Draft:Salma Okonkwo didn't mention notability when they declined it doesn't mean it hasn't always been one of the problems with the topic.
Much of the draft, such as the entire "other activities" section, cites no sources for its statements or misrepresents the sources. That can make it seem promotional. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:55, 13 November 2018 review of submission by KarenRutter


KarenRutter (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I have been told that my Articles for Creation: International Federation of Workers' Education Associations (IFWEA) has been accepted at Articles for Creation. What further steps must I take to have the article made live? Please can you guide me? Best regards, Karen

KarenRutter (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation of Workers’ Education Associations has been published and is live. You do not need to do anything more. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:27:52, 13 November 2018 review of submission by Agatanowa

Hi a added my own work on wiki article and reciewved message it will be deleted, this is my own work. It exist also on another page where i added it myself. wiki assumes it was copied and copywight vandalised because of its apperance on another www. This is a mistake. Dont selete my photo please. Agatanowa (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and follow the instructions. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Agatanowa: (ec) If you are referring to photographs c:File:Agata Nowa by Tucki.jpg and c:File:Nowa, 2018.jpg, they are not on Wikipedia, but on Wikimedia Commons, and any discussion of them should take place there. If you are Agata Nowa, then unless you used a self-timer or selfie stick, it's highly unlikely that any photograph of you is your own work - you were not the photographer, and it's the photographer who holds the copyright.
This help desk is the place to ask questions about Draft:Agata Nowa. Keep in mind that Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:05:26, 13 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Sabinablum


Hi, my article has been deleted for copyrighted content, but I don't get it because I put all the source where the information was from. Do I need the artist permission to use information from the artist's web site?. Also, can I have pls back my article so I can adjust it and improve it?

Sabinablum (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which draft are you referring to? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: It is Draft:Jacob Gils. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks. Yes you may use sources, but you cannot direct copy and paste from it and form an article. That's a copyvio and may lead to a block. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have the page restored. You may rewrite the page in your own words. Legacypac (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:59, 13 November 2018 review of submission by MostafaAdelSaf


I recently submitted a draft (Ahmed Farid) and it was rejected then reviewed and accepted. When I search on google for the name of the article, it doesn't show normal wikipedia, it shows something called Everybodywiki! I'd like to know what's wrong, please. MostafaAdelSaf (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New pages go through New Page Patrol (a review process) before being indexed by search engines. NPP may take several months. Wikipedia is free to reuse, and other websites republish our articles, which is what you are seeing. Legacypac (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:54, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Glazaunders


I am concerned that this article may not be coming from a neutral tone still. I revised the article to try to change all the language to neutral, but I want an independent user to tell me if there are still any problematic phrases, and if so, what they are. Glazaunders (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be writing about yourself/family members. Follow WP:COI if you insist on doing this. Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:22:56, 13 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Passion d


Hi there,

I have submitted an article but it was not accepted the first time. Therefore, I have had it revised and resubmitted. However, it is taking quite a bit of time to get back a response/notification as to whether it has been accepted or not.

Can you please let me know what the reason might be or how long it normally takes to get back an answer.

I would appreciate your reply.

Many thanks.


Passion d (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Passion d, Good job taking the advice and applying it to fixing the draft. It can take up to 7 weeks for review but it can usually be a lot shorter. In the mean time you can keep fixing your draft up to ensure it passes GNG. If you have anymore questions you can ask me or other AFCR. Good luck. JC7V (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:27:58, 13 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 68.103.78.155


Can you create the 2019 NCAA Division I Baseball season article please because they I Put 5 References on it and move it from the draft page to the Article Page please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time. No. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@68.103.78.155 even though you got a no, you can still improve existing articles on baseball topics and if you need questions on how, see the Teahouse or Help Desk and people there will be more than happy to assist you. JC7V (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:39, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Phuebi


Hi, I didn't create the page "V.League_Division_1_Women's". There are some things wrong with it that I don't know how to fix. Eg., the league is divided into Eastern and Western Conferences. So the "League table/Standings" Area is wrong. I don't know how to fix that by making a new table. Also, the standings change every time a game is played so how can you reference that?

I don't know or care anything about the stadiums. Can that be "commented out" without removing it so that the person who did create it can continue with it?

Whose responsibility is it to update the match scores all the time? I can't commit to it.

This article was rejected for lack of sources so I added some. How do I know if it's good enough.

btw - V.League Division 1 Women's is a sub-category of V.League (Japan) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.League_(Japan)>. That article is therefore misleading. Not sourced very well.

Have a great day!

ps - you instruct to "MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Save page" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!!!" but I don't see any SAVE PAGE button

Phuebi (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phuebi Greetings to you. See below
  1. Table - if you want to learn about inserting/creating a table, pls see Help:Table for instructions.
  2. Reference/Sources - independent, WP:Reliable (secondary) sources are used to for referencing content/info added. Homepage, user generated content site, sources associated with the subject, etc are considered primary sources and are not reliable/independent.
  3. Update/adding/deleting content - Draft articles and articles in main space have NO owner in Wikipedia; however the creator of the article is recorded in the page. For such any ::#:editor can add the info as long as proper reference is provided.
  4. Save the edit - when an editor has finished their edit and click "publish changes" on the top right corner of the page, a "Save your changes" window will appear. Enter a brief summary edit info on the rectangular box and click "publish changes" on the top right of the window. When you have done that, that means you have save your edit. Hope this help. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:22, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Anna.nicklin


I struggle with adding a company logo correctly, and with the right copy right permissions. As a company we own the rights, but it seems I may have uploaded under the wrong template or space or with insufficient credentials. Is there a guide specifically for company pages assets like adding logo to a Infobox? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nouryon_Logo_Button_WhiteOrange.png#/media/File:Nouryon_Logo_Button_WhiteOrange. Anna.nicklin (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted as Spam G11 Legacypac (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:53, 13 November 2018 review of submission by JoIIygreen


I would like a re-review of my article for Heart to Heart Counseling Center. I was basing the information off of the content which was listed on their website. I have since removed all of the content that was deemed to be promotional (pretty much everything about their products and services) and left only the history of the counseling center and Doug Weiss.

I feel like this article is necessary to the completion of Wikipedia because Doug Weiss already has a wiki page, so this page would complete his bio about where he works.

Please let me know what you think of the revised article. Thank you.

JoIIygreen (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JoIIygreen Good day. Pls note each article need to meet the notability requirement and the content is support by independent, reliable (secondary) sources in significant coverage in order to merit a page in Wikipedia and not inherit by association. Secondly, the sources you provided are not secondary sources but primary and they can NOT demonstrate the notability of notability of an organisation. Lastly, Wikipedia can NOT be the source - pls see WP:CIRCULAR. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CASSIOPEIA Thanks for your feedback. I updated the sources again to credible, primary sources like Rehab.com, Daystar TV, 7NEWS, and the Colorado Springs Independent. Is that enough? I was using this Wiki article here (AASECT) as a reference and don't see how mine is much different. JoIIygreen (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JoIIygreen First of all, pls read again what determine a primary source vs secondary source. Secondly what you provided are secondary sources but pls note the sources need to talk about the subject( Heart to Heart Counseling Center) in length and in depth and note merely passing mentioned. You sources do not talk about he subject. Thirdly, sources involved interview with the subject /associated with the subject are considered primary source and can NOT be use to demonstrate the subject notability due to the sources are not independent. The page can not be accepted to Wikipedia main space as its fails to meet the notability guidlines. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:02, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Jdriboflavin


Hi – I'm a contributor to the open source software project referenced in this article. It looks like the article was submitted originally by someone affiliated with a commercial entity, and then that commercial entity was confused with the open source software project itself.

It looks like the article has been stripped of those references and now points to a bunch of reliable non-commercial sources that talk about the project. But it seemed like a good idea for someone without a COI to review this before it is submitted.

Thank you.

Jdriboflavin (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even non-commercial projects need to pass the notability guidelines. And I am not convinced this one does. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

08:00:00, 14 November 2018 review of submission by KarenRutter


KarenRutter (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I was told by one of the WIki editors that my article International Federation of Workers' Education Associations was accepted, and that I did not have to do anything more. I can see the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Federation_of_Workers%E2%80%99_Education_Associations

But if I do a search for the title, it does not appear. Is it actually live yet? What else do I need to do?

Best regards, Karen KarenRutter (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KarenRutter if you mean an external search such as Google, it can take a while for new articles to be indexed. We have no influence on how and when the Google crawlers do their thing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KarenRutter, I could able to find in google search HERE. If you cant find it, then do wait for a few days and check it again. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:23, 14 November 2018 review of draft by NoDramaLama


NoDramaLama (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Hi there, I need help, please. I have submitted my article a few times, each time updating it as requested with additional links and references, but I keep getting rejected. Can someone pretty please help me to understand what kind of links are needed? I have viewed similar articles about similar companies and have tried to use the same kinds of links, but with no luck so far. I have updated it again with more links and references. Please, could someone assist? Thanks so much.

NoDramaLama Greetings. I have a quick look but have not time to review the article so please note below
  1. Wikipedia can NOT be the source - see WP:CIRCULAR, so pls removed as source
  2. Sources needed are reliable secondary (such as from major newspaper). Source from interview, home page, press releases, sources associated with the subject, user generate sources and etc are primary and/ or not independent, kindly remove sources.
  3. Please check on the blue texts in the grey panel on the draft article to learn further what is secondary reliable sources.
  4. Pls remove all the directors info in the draft.
  5. Organisation (subject) need to meet the notability of an organisation to merit a page in Wikipedia. Pls read. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk)

15:50:22, 14 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat


Changes have been made originally. Please give your opinions.

16:29:21, 14 November 2018 review of draft by Maclang99


Maclang99 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would need some help concerning the submission of my first article draft. After my last exchanges with User:Maclang99 pasted below, my article is still waiting to be reviewed. In the meantime I would like to know if there is anything I can do to improve it. Furthermore I see the duplicate created by mistake still exists, the second one has not been deleted yet. Thank you for your help. --Maclang99 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Maclang99[reply]

Sandbox - submission for review Dear Robert McClenon, As you have notified it, I have submitted twice the same article (Richard Castelli) for review. I did it by mistake. The reason is that my article being not in the Sandbox anymore, and nowhere else?, I thought it had been lost. So I published it again. I am a new user and I am not very familiar with Wikipedia procedures yet, sorry. You can proceed to delete the second one. Can you tell me where I can find the first again if I need to update it? Thank you, --Maclang99 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Maclang99

User:Maclang99 - There are two copies of your draft, at Draft:Richard Castelli and User:Maclang99/sandbox. In my opinion, neither of them is ready to go into article space. Do you have an affiliation with Richard Castelli? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Hi, Thank you for your fast and kind reply. Since you notified a possible COI, I would like to confirm that I have no affiliation with this personality, but having visited several of the exhibitions he curated and appreciating well the artists, he produces, I thought it would be interesting to find his biography on wikipedia as it does not exist yet. If my first article is approved this time, I would like to continue and propose a series dedicated to a number of living people from the arts and entertainment, especially those affiliated with science-art-technology. I would be grateful if you could give me your advices on what to modify so that the article could be admissible. Thank you in advance, --Maclang99 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Maclang99

20:20:18, 14 November 2018 review of submission by 165.225.38.214


We keep being told that this reads as an infomercial but it should be read as a bio. This individual in religious Jewish circles is a high profile convert. It needs editing and submission as a relevant individual. 3 more events will be added shortly.

165.225.38.214 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:36:17, 14 November 2018 review of draft by Ilmchal12410


Ilmchal12410 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Hello, Because of potential COI with my submitting this article myself, I'm considering allowing someone else to submit the article. Can another person submit the same article while my original article is in the Articles for Creation Sandbox? Do I need to delete it first? Please advise. Thank you, Ilmchal12410 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

08:16:29, 15 November 2018 review of draft by Angcorwut


Can I ask the team to review my updated submission if it merits approval, I adjusted the content accordingto the feedback left by the editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Myla_Villanueva

Thanks! Cor Angcorwut (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)angcorwut[reply]

Angcorwut (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:14, 15 November 2018 review of draft by Rlmintern


I am requesting help because two of the links I am trying to use to cite on my DAVIE page are blacklisted. I went to request that they be removed on the whitelist page, however, it still would not let me publish the links to even request that they are granted access. The links are from Ticketmaster, but are links to blogs written about the artist, not tickets. Rlmintern (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rlmintern, it seems that the reason your revisions got deleted was because they were copyright violations. Please review the policy I linked and make sure that content you add is sourced BUT is your own original thoughts.

By blacklisted I assume you mean that they tripped an edit filter? Try linking the blogs directly in that case. Best, ProgrammingGeek talktome 16:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:46:58, 15 November 2018 review of submission by Danmiddlehurst

I'm trying to publish an article about a company Taulia - who provide financial technology solutions. However, I can't seem to get it published as the feedback is that it's too 'marketing' sounding. Please can you provide some specific feedback so I can get this published? Danmiddlehurst (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I have a 4 year business degree and substantial additional business education but I can't understand what "a global working capital solutions provider that provides supply chain finance, dynamic discounting and invoicing services " means exactly. The company might be notable but the whole page stinks of promotional language and marketing buzz speak. Put the page in English please. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word "solution" is a paticularly huge red flag. Unless the topic is disolved substances or a mathematical problem it is meaningless marketingspeak. It is so bad that it usually irretrievably contaminates the entire paragraph or even the whole page. Any source that uses the word should be treated with apropriate skepticism. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

03:14:00, 16 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat

Please give your opinions. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The page Draft: Peer Ki Gali was reviewed and approved by an administrator an after an hour, another administrator "User:Onel5969" moved this page to Draft. I have supplied all the verified sources to the page. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've accepted the page again. There was an issue with the user who approved the page and it seems some people are taking pains to undo their work. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03:34:25, 16 November 2018 review of submission by 140.116.6.62


Thanks for reviewing the submission, but I wonder why it is challenged against the comment "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

The four references are all published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Selenium, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_(software), is one of the most popular open source testing solution in the world, even they dedicate to the W3C WebDriver standard. The subject (SideeX) was adopted to serve as the basis and play a key driver for their Selenium IDE new generation solution, which is well notable in the field of software testing in the world. Reference 1 and 3 are the Selenium official web site and github, where they credit the subject (SideeX). Reference 4 is a keynote of the international official Selenium annual conference, where the subject is also credited.

Could you please help me how to improve the draft to make it acceptable? Thanks!

140.116.6.62 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

140.116.6.62 Greetings to you. I advise you to re-read the terms for independent sources and Reliable sources.
  1. The Official Selenium+Blog - This source (Selenium) is associated with the subject and it is a blog page, thus means not independent source.
  2. a9t9 - This sites created by two person in 2016 - see here [3], thus it does not considered well-established reliable source.
  3. Selenium - This source talk about Selenium and not in dept and length solely about the subject.
  4. Youtube - YouTube is considered not reliable source.

Sources from home page, official site, sources associated with the subject, user generated sites, interview, pres releases, interview are considered not independent and/or reliable. We are after secondary reliable sources such as from major newspaper, or reputable review journals and etc where by the subject is talked about with significant coverage, in dept and in length and not solely passing mentioned. In addition, notability is not inherited from association. For further info if the above is not clear to you, pls read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:32, 16 November 2018 review of draft by Digital Kungfu


Digital Kungfu (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Im requesting assistance because I want to know which websites are considered reliable and credible, for instance would this article from Entrepreneur Magazine be considered credible? https://www.entrepreneurmag.co.za/advice/success-stories/lessons-learnt/the-100th-edition-of-the-matt-brown-show-entrepreneur-magazine-interview/

Thank you.

@Digital Kungfu: The article in Entrepreneur Magazine is reliable, but not arms-length. It's written by the guest host of The Matt Brown Show's 100th episode, on which Matt Brown was interviewed. There's a lack of independence there. The article may be used as a source for content, but does not help establish the notability of The Matt Brown Show. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:48, 16 November 2018 review of draft by ReggieSJC


Hi, the draft for Videoslots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Videoslots has been rejected a number of times. It looks like its due to the references.

Should I only include news-worthy references from third-party sites? Does it matter if the 'Retrieved' date is the same for all references? Are there any other comments you can share that might help get the Videoslots page approved?

Many thanks

ReggieSJC (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Only 3rd party reliable sources
Retrieved date is irrelevant
Please don't use Wikipedia to promote your company. If the business is truly notable someone without a WP:COI will create the article Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:32:00, 16 November 2018 review of draft by Tanya ZQ


Hi! My name is Tanya from Zeroqode company. Our wiki post every time is declined. The problem is in reliable sources. The last comment is: "Still lacks reliable sources. Self-published sources such as blogs don't help"

Could you please have a look on our page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zeroqode and give us an advise regarding our references.

  1. As I understand reading you help "TechCrunch", "Computerworld", "What's New On The Net" are reliable sources, right? Or, I am wrong, and why?
  2. Could you please say whether we have any chance to be posted on Wiki?
  3. How many reliable sources we need to have to be posted?
  4. Is Youtube channel(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naa-_JVgQKM) are considered as reliable? This guy is an independent blogger who has a lot of followers, we found traffic from his youtube channel in analytics.
  5. What is regarding Philosophie source (Philosophie - Strategic software design and development studio) - I was thinking that their blog considered as reliable, because they are testing design and development ideas.

Thanks in advance! Waiting for your reply soon.


Tanya ZQ (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanya ZQ I don't have much time, but a few things:
  1. I don't think "What's new on the net" is considered reliable. I'm open to be proven wrong.
  2. The computerworld article doesn't mention the company at all.
  3. See WP:TWITTER for information on social media, but YouTube is only really reliable for already reliable sources. Independent bloggers aren't reliable.
  4. You would need at minimum 3 in depth reliable independ sources. You haven't provided one of these.
  5. WP:BLOGs are rarely considered reliable.

I'd also argue the draft is really promotional too... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 17

01:23:09, 17 November 2018 review of draft by Kcornell123


I see multiple pages that list IMDB as a source but was told to remove IMDB from the source list. Do I cite IMDB or not? Kcornell123 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:40:37, 17 November 2018 review of draft by DFTSchools


Hi I have created the name of the Article as 'Daughters of Mary Immaculate and Colloborators'. But it should be 'Daughters of Mary Immaculate (DMI Sisters)'. How can I change?

DFTSchools (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to move page and if so, not to the suggested title. You have a lack of references and a bunch of inline links which is no good. Legacypac (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:36, 17 November 2018 review of submission by Akhilmohan3365


Akhilmohan3365 (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged G11. Total nn spam. Legacypac (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:41, 17 November 2018 review of submission by Basper82


We've updated the writing the references to highlight notable factors in this article and subject. We've removed promotional reference links and added information about cases that were of public notoriety over just promotional material for the lawyer highlighted.

Basper82 (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL lawyer. Correctly rejected. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:34:26, 17 November 2018 review of draft by Ushindi4578


Ushindi4578 (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Requested user be blocked. They are spamming the same garbage all over the place. Legacypac (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:50:28, 17 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 94.179.172.250


Something else. This draft is awaiting review and awaitig response. Please re-consider status of AfC resubmission by editor Alex4ff. Thanks!

94.179.172.250 (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 94.179.172.25 The article has been reviewed and it was declined. Please note that is already a Krav Maga article in EN Wikipedia. International Krav Maga Federation article should sorely write about the Federation itself and not blurred to inclusion of other wider topics which have been covered in Krav Maga page. Secondly, the content written is more like an essay and promotional piece than encyclopedic style or writing. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:57, 17 November 2018 review of draft by Simeonsoden


Hi, I submitted a draft article that has been declined, however the account that made decision has since been blocked for being a sockpuppet (I'm assuming that's bad). Please let me know if I should make the suggested changes or if i could resubmit it and have a more 'reputable' user approve. Please advise on the best course of action Many thanks. Here's the draft in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Virginia_Bodman

Simeonsoden (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simeonsoden Greetings to you. You could follow the suggestion and read the links as per the in the pink panel in the draft. Please note Wikipedia can NOT be the source - see WP:CIRCULAR. Utube is not a reliable source. We are after multiple independent, reliable sources which the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not merely passing mentioned. Please note sources such as from major newspaper and reputable journals would be suitable as long as they are not interview pieces. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 18

01:28:38, 18 November 2018 review of draft by Kitb


I am grateful that my draft has been reviewed. I have read the review, and need help with the following aspects, please:

1) I am struggling with the comments that it: 'reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopaedia entry', and '...should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.' I have quoted, among several other references, the three most authoritative multi-authored textbooks written in the the overall topic in question (the overall topic being geriatric medicine, of which 'comprehensive geriatric assessment' [CGA] is a (or possibly the) key element. Indeed, CGA (or 'multidimensional geriatric assessment') has chapters devoted to it all three of them and two of them have two chapters referring to it.[1][2][3] I have quoted no materials which I have produced.

Q a) Could someone show me an example of what would be accepted as an '...independent, reliable published source.' that would be preferable to these?

2) I also need guidance as to why my draft '...reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article' and how I should change it to be '...from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.' Since there is no disagreement about how effective CGA is, and it is used pretty much universally in clinical practice, I cannot see how to make it 'more neutral'. I have read the style guides, but cannot work out from there where I am going wrong.

Q a) Could someone give me some guidance as to how this might be made more neutral, please?
 b) Could someone show how to make it more encyclopaedic, rather than 'like an essay', please?

Many thanks!

Kitb (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Oxford Textbook of Geriatric Medicine - contents (chapters 16 & 17)". Retrieved 18 November 2018.
  2. ^ "Brocklehurst's Textbook of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, 8e - contents (chapters 34 & 38)". Retrieved 18 November 2018.
  3. ^ "Pathy's Principles and Practice of Geriatric Medicine - contents (chapter 112)". Retrieved 18 November 2018.


PS, Re Q 1) a, above: FWIW I have added two more fairly major text book chapter references to the draft! Kitb (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kitb. If you haven't received an answer here by Sunday, I suggest resubmitting the draft with the improvements you've made since the most recent decline, and simultaneously starting a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, asking for their input on whether the draft is acceptable and how it could be improved. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce - really appreciate you taking the time to offer this helpful advice. I'll do just as you say! Kitb (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:37, 18 November 2018 review of draft by Bangruchika


Bangruchika (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:04, 18 November 2018 review of submission by Basper82


We've updated the writing the references to highlight notable factors in this article and subject. We've removed promotional reference links and added information about cases that were of public notoriety over just promotional material for the lawyer highlighted.

Basper82 (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Basper82. Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Worldbruce. I miswrote earlier--I just meant myself. This is my account, and no one else has access to it. Thank you.

14:02:01, 18 November 2018 review of draft by Prob2prob


My submission has been declined by an account that has since been discredited and banned. Shouldn't this be reversed?

Prob2prob (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prob2prob:,
The issue of Frayae's AfC's accepts and declines has (and continues to be) discussed. In the meantime we are both reviewing a number of the reviews and handling any ad hoc requests that arise like this one.
In an immediate sense if I formally reviewed your article I would say that it had insufficient sourcing to demonstrate its notability - neither satisfies the various requirements within independent, reliable, secondary sources. I'd suggest resolving this then re-submitting. There is something to be said for the formal decline grounds offered, but I don't think it is a clear-cut essay usage, so notability is a key first step to resolve. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:24:13, 18 November 2018 review of submission by Jenna Berry


Jenna Berry (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi my name is Jenna Berry and i was wondering why my article can't be posted

Jenna Berry, Hi, your draft was declined for being an Wikipedia:Essays which is against policy (as you can tell by clicking that link). If you want to know how to write an article in a policy complying way, see WP:YFA for more then with that advice in mind you can go to work on your draft/article. Good luck. JC7V (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:57:44, 18 November 2018 review of submission by PMitrano


I created a page /article a few weeks ago and it got accepted! I would now like to edit it and add an image, but I can't figure it out. Do I click on "edit source"?

PMitrano (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PMitrano: - normally an article says "edit source" if it is protected, but I don't believe this is the case. Are you unable to make any edits to the article?
Regarding an image, are you intending to add a picture that is already in wikicommons or upload one (and if so, what are you hoping to upload?) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out! I initially did not see the edit button. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMitrano (talk • contribs) 22:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 19

04:33:30, 19 November 2018 review of submission by Criminalminds19788

mine was declined stating there wasnt a refrence, i gave one from forbes in the article, im confused on how that does not count as one

Criminalminds19788 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC), Criminalminds19788 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Criminalminds19788, www.forbes.com/sites by contributors (rather than Forbes staff) are not the same as Forbes magazine. They are blogs, so not reliable sources for facts, only for the opinion of the author. They do nothing to establish notability. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources. The draft cites none. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:35:36, 19 November 2018 review of draft by Yolbotwhit


Martin Creamer is a renowned and respected veteran journalist and editor in South Africa. He has a vast knowledge of the mining industry not just in South Africa but internationally as well. He deals with major mining companies such as Anglo American, Anglo Platinum, Anglo Gold Ashanti, Gold Fields, BHP Billiton and many more.

Yolbotwhit (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:01:22, 19 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by What'supCanada


What'supCanada (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that page was deleted for being unedited for 6 months. Follow WP:REFUND to get it back. Legacypac (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:08:22, 19 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Dominik Hellfritzsch


Hi there,

I recently tried to create this article on a piece of software on behalf of the company I'm working for. I created an article for both the German and English Wikipedia using mostly the same sources (unless there was a more useful source exclusive to either language). The German article was accepted without a problem while it did not pass review here. By now I know that the different Wikipedias operate quite differently, but I'd still like to know how specifically I can improve the draft so I can re-submit it at some point. Sadly I cannot contact the person responsible for the review since they have since then been blocked due to sock puppetry. Maybe somebody here can help me. Thanks a lot in advance!

best,

Dominik

Dominik Hellfritzsch (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:12:04, 19 November 2018 review of submission by Sarahsami6


Hi!

I just wrote a wikipedia page and got rejected right away. i read the guidelines for publishing and they said that I must use independent sources and not the corporate website and I did just that. could you tell me what I did wrong? Service Hero is a very useful concept for Kuwait and I think people should know more about it.

Sarahsami6 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahsami6: - Hi there. I went to your page to try and find a link to the draft but was unable to find it in your edits (or by a rough search) - could you give me a link to it, or at least its exact name?
Did you create it with your current username? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:51, 19 November 2018 review of draft by Allusivereaper7


I have added references to the article crediting Titles and championships, the writeup to the team's first ever match. Is there more this article needs to be published?Allusivereaper7 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Allusivereaper7 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:58, 19 November 2018 review of draft by 146.6.234.157


146.6.234.157 (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this getting denied? I've referenced all the information in Coach Hughes' bio.

You have cited the material incorrectly. Please see WP:REFB for the proper method. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:01, 19 November 2018 review of draft by Lambdeb


Another news source similar to the Vallejo Times Herald is being required for this article. However, the first source listed from edmentum.com should suffice. Please advise as to why this source isn't a valid one. Lambdeb (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambdeb: - Hi there. That source isn't being accepted as valid in this sense because it isn't WP:INDEPENDENT - they have a strong self-interest in providing a non-neutral POV towards educational sites. To establish notability, wikipedia articles need multiple secondary sources that are reliable, independent and cover the topic in detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:12, 19 November 2018 review of draft by 68.103.78.155


When Will The article 2019 NCAA Division I FBS football season start because they start creating articles in December And In Janaury for next seasons football teams. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:54, 19 November 2018 review of submission by AQueff


Dear all (and especially CNMall41 who denied my proposal of article), thanks for reviewing so quickly the draft about Francesco d'Errico (the draft is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Francesco_d%27Errico). Apart from this, I don't understand your point about the references needed. There are some references in the text when needed or possible, but since this page is mainly the explanation of the life of someone, and since this someone never wrote a book about himself, I don't know what to cite for his place of birth nor for the name of his wife... I can understand you probably have tons of pages to check, but here I would like to know more about where references are missing. My draft is for example way more referenced than the one of another archeologist of the same kind of celebrity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Hublin

I took this page as an example and tried to make better.

All the best

AQueff (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left comments on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

00:56:13, 20 November 2018 review of draft by Thomas Enesuatims

Hello Mods,

I'm trying to build my first page here in wikipedia, but my subject has no individual resource on big news websites that only talks about itself. Is it okay to just point it on their own website? I mean if you have a new topic and don't have much on the news what it the best way to go with citations?

Thomas Enesuatims (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas Enesuatims: Wikipedia is not the place to promote a cryptocurrency, or anything else. It would need to be covered, in depth and independently, by multiple reliable mainstream financial sources (think The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and the like) before it would be considered for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


01:12:58, 20 November 2018 review of draft by Donna Villani51

Hello,

Can you please help me, I have trouble trying to embed this image on the page I'm trying to build (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shane_morand.jpg). I also updated the citation for "Shane Morand".

Donna Villani51 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Donna Villani51: Help:Pictures explains how to get images onto pages. It's somewhat academic, however, since so far no reviewer is convinced that Shane Morand is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article, and a photograph isn't going to change that. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:45:15, 20 November 2018 review of draft by 14.202.138.41


14.202.138.41 (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wondering why this submission was reject, we have many articles written about him, is it that they have to hyperlink to the article (click through)?

The decline was for the wromg reason. You need to cite facts inline - what reference goes with what part? The topic is fine. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:27:00, 20 November 2018 review of draft by Mothman200


Mothman200 (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC) 07:27:00, 20 November 2018 review of submission by Mothman200[reply]

Hi thank you for taking the time to help me, i'm writing about a media show and the only references i can find are on "Entrepreneur Magazine" which is a website, is the website specifically not credible or do I need more sources or is it a problem with how I am referencing? Thank you kindly. Mothman200 (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mothman200: The answer is the same as when the question was asked by undeclared paid editor Digital Kungfu. See here. Shortly thereafter, Draft:The Matt Brown Show was speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:16:40, 20 November 2018 review of submission by KaterinaRatajova


Dear madam, dear sir, I would like to ask you if some can re-review my draft article about Timor Leste–Indonesia–Australia Growth Triangle (TIA-GT). It was declined on 14th of November and I changed it accordingly the same day and since they I'm waiting until today (20th of November). I know, it's a normal length to wait, I just think that there is something wrong with my draft, there is written that I changed it 2 minutes ago, where in fact I changed it 6 days ago. And there is also written that there is 1564 pending submissions before me and this number also didn't change in 6 days.

I hope you can help me, I'm in a time pressure. Thank you very much in advance Katerina Ratajova

KaterinaRatajova (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katerina - there is no guaranteed time period by which any review will occur. The reviewers are all, like us, volunteers, and no doubt just as busy as we are! I'm not sure what the algorithm is (if any, and I suspect there isn't!) but requests aren't dealt with simply by strict time order of posting. Like you, I am waiting for advice from the help desk following a re-edited draft Wikipedia page having been declined. I am keen to try to understand how to improve it so that it is suitable, but in the end I can only wait and hope... I wish you well with your revision! Kitb (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KaterinaRatajova: - as a side note, it's fairly unlikely the number doesn't change, but sometimes the cookies in your computer keep a local copy so it looks like it doesn't. Press the little "purge" button underneath any of the boxes and it will update. I just did it and it has 1487 articles in the current queue. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And if (like me!) you don't have a 'purge' button, press [Ctrl]+F5 - this clears the cache and reloads the page in Windows. Kitb (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:41, 20 November 2018 review of submission by Kirusanth Thachinamurthy


Kirusanth Thachinamurthy (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirusanth Thachinamurthy: - Hello. The reviewer was correct to reject this as not a topic suitable for wikipedia. As well as it strongly advised to not write about yourself (I assume you are the subject) there isn't any indication that you have any notable coverage in suitable sources.
Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:38, 20 November 2018 review of draft by Passion d


Hi, I have submitted an article 'Good Hemp Food' on 14 November. Would it be possible to have it reviewed. I have made the necessary amendments- independent and reliable sources.

I look forward to your reply.

Passion d (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passion d, Hi thank you for your work on the draft. Drafts are reviewed in no specific order so you'll probably have to wait. When the draft is accepted, declined or commented on, you'll be notified You are free to keep working on your draft until that. If you need anymore help, ask away!JC7V (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:38:51, 20 November 2018 review of submission by Macarenamusic

I submitted an article on Wikipedia about myself. In order for me to get this sorted on my YouTube account, I need a Wikipedia page. That is why I am trying to create one.

I am an independent singer-songwriter from Amsterdam and don't have a Wikipedia page yet. However, I created one and it got declined I was wondering if you could help me out with the article. I'm new to this so I'm not sure what I am doing wrong. I got the message from the person that declined the article, that my citation in the article isn't correct. Also, that person mentioned that the article does not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Macarenamusic (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Macarenamusic: I've answered you at the Teahouse. Please only ask a question in one location. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Account blocked for spam username. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 21

01:56:35, 21 November 2018 review of draft by 68.103.78.155


The 2019 NFL season by team template is not responding I created the template just now and it's not Responding. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC) 68.103.78.155 (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:14:02, 21 November 2018 review of submission by Paulestanton58

alt

Paulestanton58 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The reviewer judges the article lacks sufficient notability, but the article includes more independent news and analyst sources than other comparable articles, from top-tier industry analysts and trade journals. The topic is also notable in itself, as the company provides an independent alternative to industry leading firms such as Docker Inc, and Microsoft. In today's marketplace, where coverage is largely dictated by the firms with advertising dollars, the judgement as to what is notable should be tempered by the awareness that notability can drive the exclusion of important independent voices and alternatives. The judgement to discard this article really is an argument that people should remain ignorant of alternatives to the highly concentrated power from Microsoft and others.

05:49:15, 21 November 2018 review of submission by Technicalbabaji


Technicalbabaji (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


06:27:50, 21 November 2018 review of submission by Anxonic


Hi, thanks for taking the time out to review the page. I'm sorry it didn't meet the guidelines of Wikipedia before. I have edited the page in accordance with reviewer AngusWOOF's suggestion to provide more context and remove terms that make the page look like an advertisement. All the links referenced here are independent, notable media sources. Please reconsider this page for submission. I would be grateful for any further advice that helps make the language more neutral and makes the page more suited for Wikipedia.

Ankush (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


06:41:59, 21 November 2018 review of submission by Balajichf


Balajichf (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


06:45:07, 21 November 2018 review of submission by Balajichf


Balajichf (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


07:23:14, 21 November 2018 review of submission by Claudegriffin


Hi there, I am putting together a wikipedia page for the CEO of Cricket Tasmania and it has been rejected due to insufficient references. This is despite the fact that I feel that I have provided enough independent sources to prove that the subject requires a Wikipedia article. Cummins is the head of Cricket Tasmania, and his equivalents in other states in Australia (i.e. CEO of Cricket New South Wales, CEO of South Australian Cricket Association etc) do have wikipedia pages, so it doesn't make much sense.

Claudegriffin (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claudegriffin, Good day. Kindly remove all sentences which do not support by inline citation and resubmit the draft. Once you have done that, kindly let me know so I would review and approve it. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:21, 21 November 2018 review of submission by Ennex2

The answer to my question on November 7 said the problem was external links. Those links have now been removed, which has been acknowledged as helpful, but apparently was not enough.

As stated in that Novmber 7 question, the initial comment about this at WT: Software by AngusWOOF suggested comparing it with List of Unix commands. The columns in the table of that list correspond closely to columns in the proposed new table, and the proposed table has additional information. Could someone please explain, is there a reason that the list of Unix commands is suitable for Wikipedia and the list of Excel functions is not?

Thank you.

Ennex2 (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:12:54, 21 November 2018 review of draft by Curnews

To improve the article.How to add automatic numbering to the table and how to move content to the left of the cell in visual editing.

Curnews (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curnews Good day. See Sorting and {{row indexer}} for problematic options. I am not sure alignment would be done in visual editing on a table; however, pls check out Help:Table on how to format table in source editing mode. As here is Afticles for creation help desk, for further questions on these topics pls go to WP:HD. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:59:21, 21 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Zionprayermovementoutreach



Zionprayermovementoutreach (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:55, 21 November 2018 review of draft by 194.69.14.123


My latest submisson

I submitted an article request on November 12, but in the categories section on my pending article it says: "AfC submissions by date/12 November 2018" and "AfC pending submissions by age/2 days ago". This is definately incorrect, because November 12 wasn't two days ago! It's November 21, so it should say 9 days ago... I have tried to update and purge, but the "two days ago" remains. Has my article been caught in a time warp or something? Hoping for a quick response! 12:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Brace

194.69.14.123 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @194.69.14.123: - I can't speak for yourself but your draft, at least, is not trapped on the 14th of November. It's coming up as "9 days ago" for me - I suspect your system isn't quite purging everything on your local copy, but that won't impact the reviewing stage! Nosebagbear (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:39, 21 November 2018 review of submission by 194.69.14.123


--- Duplicate request removed (answered directly above) Nosebagbear (talk)

Request on 16:52:02, 21 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ldt6v8


This is article was rejected citing a lack of published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Every reference is an independent and well known news organization (CBS, Chicago Tribune, Times of Northwest Indiana), with publications centered around the subject.

What needs to be added?

Ldt6v8 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:09, 21 November 2018 review of draft by Jimmyjam007


Inquiring about my submission (first time).

Hello, I am submitting for the first time. I was wondering if I was supposed to contact the subject that I prepared the article on. I do not know Adrian Clark personally but I have followed his career for a while. Should I contact him to let him know that I submitted a Wiki article? I don't want to get into legal troubles.

Jimmyjam007 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @Jimmyjam007: - no need to contact the subject of your article (that could become very difficult!). Articles on living persons "BLP" are subject to stricter rules, particularly the need to use in-line references (which I can see you do know how to make) correctly. WP:BLPSOURCES is worth a read to make sure you tick all the boxes. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:39:32, 21 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Yammmmmm


Hi the article I submitted for review yesterday was not accepted because part of the article is directly copied from the SOM website. There will only be one reference if citation is done. The admin mentioned that the act of paraphrasing sources is not allowed too. I would be grateful if anyone can tell me how do I proceed? Thanks

Yammmmmm (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yammmmmm: - could you clarify what was said by "mentioned that the act of paraphrasing sources is not allowed too." - paraphrasing content is what you are supposed to do in the general course of things, but I want to clarify what was meant by "paraphrasing sources". I couldn't see any specific comment like that, unless it was on the deleted page. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, it wasn't, they got a standard {{Afc decline|cv=yes}}. Sam Sailor 20:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:10:17, 21 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Yammmmmm


User:Nosebagbear , hi thanks for your reply. Sorry for not making my message clear. Closely paraphrasing from a source is not allowed. And someone mentioned if my article is only extracted from one source, that particular organisation that I'm writing does not meet the requirement of notability. Is that right?

Yammmmmm (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yammmmmm: - ah, yes, that is correct - and it is on both counts. Proper paraphrasing is necessary to avoid copyvio risks. Notability, particularly for organisations, requires multiple high quality secondary sources that cover the topic in depth. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:39, 21 November 2018 review of submission by Gracelandet

I created a new article for "Courtney Hadwin" and moved it from my sandbox to submissions. However it appears there is an article already with the same name, but it is actually not a developed article - it is just a redirect. Is this going to pose a problem or should I have developed the article differently? Thank You!

Gracelandet (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracelandet:. If the draft is accepted, the accepting reviewer will take care of the redirect in mainspace. The only thing you need be concerned about is making the draft as good as it can be. Note that neither the Daily Mail nor Wikipedia is a reliable source; they may not be used as references. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:35:13, 21 November 2018 review of submission by Jimmyjam007


Looking for understanding, why is Adrian Clark viewed as not notable for Wikipedia? He has two published books, featured in Forbes, Inc. and Black Enterprise magazine, owner of a notable company... Is it my submission that is being rejected, or the subject? Please advise. Jimmyjam007 (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 22

03:28:17, 22 November 2018 review of draft by Alvanhholmes


Alvanhholmes (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just received notice that this article was rejectedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Ferrar_(Virginia_settler)

I am very confused. I did not submit an article John Farrar(Virginia_settler)


I do not know any John Farrar who was a VirginiaI do have an article pendng for John Ferrar, Deputy Treasurer)

Alvanhholmes (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns another article I submitted: John Ferrar Esquire. I am told that it needs further work, but without any idea of what is meant by further work. I don't know what to do. Can guidance be more specific? ThanksAlvanhholmes (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alvanhholmes - First, as I tried to explain, I tried to disambiguate the two drafts on the two John Ferrars in accordance with the usual way that Wikipedia articles are disambiguated. I had to name them on moving them into draft space. You didn't name them, because you submitted them from sandboxes. There is nothing wrong with submitting drafts from sandboxes, but you then are relying on the judgment of the reviewer as to how to name them. If you think that some other disambiguation would be better, we can discuss, or you can move them in draft space. Second, did he settle in Virginia, or did he do his business that contributed to the history of Virginia in London? Third, I said that the articles needed more work. At a minimum, they need copy-editing. I found it a little hard to understand exactly what the younger John Ferrar did that was important to the success of the Virginia colony. I might just have been having a difficult time, but maybe another editor can comment. I also wasn't entirely sure what the elder John Ferrar is notable for. I have in the past said that anyone about whom there are written records from the nineteenth or earlier century is probably notable, and I assume that he is notable, but I am not sure how. I think that each of the articles needs a clearer lede sentence. I will let other editors comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alvanhholmes - Since you have also been discussing these drafts at the Teahouse and on my talk page, I am asking that further discussion be at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:41, 22 November 2018 review of submission by Aleksandravetrova

To support the statements made in the article, I used secondary sources available online such as big Tech Media websites. All sources are credible and well-known. After the first submission was declined, I removed the External Links to the Group's official websites. However, the second review also declined the article.

Could you kindly tell me what is wrong with the sources I used? That would be very helpful. Thanks. Aleksandravetrova (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:58, 22 November 2018 review of submission by Guarnm16


Guarnm16 (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC) I am requesting re-review because I need this up for about a day so my mates who are mentioned in the story can read it and be together like destiny is telling them to. Mofo please accept. Per favore mio amore.[reply]

User:Guarnm16 - Wikipedia is not a medium for matchmaking correspondence. Romance is old-fashioned, and by now electronic mail is an old-fashioned medium that can be used for the purpose, as can postal mail. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]








jfndsoahfasdohfbasdohfbd please

12:03:23, 22 November 2018 review of draft by Vanafi


Hello! I have recently created St. George's School Munich page, but it has been rejected 2 times by now for notability of references. This is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:St.George%E2%80%99s_The_British_International_School_Munich. The problem is that the references I used were all independent and very much related to the subject. Moreover, there is a page St. George's School Cologne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George%27s_School,_Cologne) with very similar references and it is published while aso I cannot really understand what should I change.

Vanafi (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanafi (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:25:13, 22 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat


Please give your opinions. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:31, 22 November 2018 review of draft by Mrhurter


reference tags


Mrhurter (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:35:33, 22 November 2018 review of draft by StephanieMScott


StephanieMScott (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Legacypac for the review of Christian Convery. I'm very green and deeply appreciate any suggestions. Before I move forward with the next edit, will someone tell me what is needed to make this Wikipedia-worthy? You mention two leads roles, his two lead roles are stated in the Variety article and he is currently filming a 3rd one. If we are not ready now, I want to be soon and am willing to partner with a more experienced writer to guide me on what to include and what to exclude. To determine if my citations are sound. Is there such a service within Wikipedia?

I've commented on the draft. See WP:NACTOR. Subject may pass - perhaps another reviewer will take a look as actors are not my area of expertise. We have to be extra careful as subject is a child. Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:55, 22 November 2018 review of draft by Bryantriplex

I would like to delete the draft I created called “I Met You hwen I was 18. (The Playlist)”. I discovered that an article had recently been created. I transferred my edits on this draft to the article page that I initially attempted to create before realizing it had already been created.

Bryantriplex (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So requested. Thanks for cleaning up after yourself. That is rare. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:38:04, 22 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Nukekiller


Hi, I am working on this page, which was recently rejected by a Wiki editor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elisha_Shapiro

I tried to reach the editor, but she/he appears to be currently blocked.

The rejection reason given was that the subject doesn't have enough notable coverage. But many sources are cited in the article, including LA Times articles spanning decades. While the subject is not world famous, he certainly played a unique part in California's art history, as the articles show, and he is arguably the world's most famous living Nihilist, as evidenced by articles that discuss his running for office in CA on a Nihilist platform, and his being the founder of the only Nihilist film festival in the world for years.

The sources cited seem sufficient to establish significance.

Do you not agree? If not, what else would be needed?

Thank you!

Nukekiller (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nukekiller - The editor who declined your draft has been globally blocked as a sockpuppet. You will never be able to discuss the decline with them. I have reverted the decline by resubmitting your draft without a recommendation as to whether to accept or decline it, putting it back for a review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've accepted the page. Not the most notable person but no clear cut reason to decline. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:46:08, 22 November 2018 review of submission by Babatundeope


hi, how do i click submit my article lilian afegbai for review? i can find the submit buton Babatundeope (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Babatundeope - Lilian_Afegbai is already in article space, having been there for about a week. It was accepted once by an editor, then that acceptance was reverted because the accepting editor was banned as a sockpuppet, and then accepted again. I do not see a Submit button, but there is no need for a Submit button. I have inserted a header for the reference list, and tagged the article for copy-edit. It is still in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

07:49:03, 23 November 2018 review of draft by Jessiegaoxq


Jessiegaoxq (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi team,

We are the pr agency of Li Ning and have been authorized by the company to update its information in order to provide the readers with a more accurate knowledge of Li Ning. We added the new development of Li Ning after 2013 in “history” part, introduction of some new products in “products” part and its recent marketing events in its ”marketing” part. All the added information comes from the 2018 interim report of Li Ning and was authorized by the company to quote. Since the current Wikipedia of Li Ning was outdated and lacked the development between 2013 and 2018, we here added those new contents.

However, the uploaded information was always been removed. Then, I followed the instruction to upload the content in sandbox for your review but it required me to upload on Li-ning page instead. I am wondering how can I submit the added content for your review? please help.

The added contents are as follow for your reference, With any question, you can view the conpany's official website for confirmation.

<copyright violations removed>

Li Ning official website: http://ir.lining.com/tc/contact/contact.php

2018 Interim Report： http://doc.irasia.com/listco/hk/lining/interim/ir199662-c02331.pdf

First you have a WP:COI and are WP:PAID. If you want changes to the article propose them on the article talkpage and let an unconnected editor make them. Legacypac (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:53:52, 23 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat


10:15:24, 23 November 2018 review of draft by 202.142.80.11


202.142.80.11 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me improve my draft???. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Akash_Banerjee

November 24

08:00:01, 24 November 2018 review of submission by Shahabhishek1991


Shahabhishek1991 08:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Shahabhishek1991 - It is not useful to post your question about your draft twice. Aside from the lack of notability, for which your draft was rejected, your draft has multiple grammatical errors, and would have needed copy-editing in article space. Please discuss your concerns with the rejecting reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Adolf Henryk Silberschein

A text about a notable person remains in Draft space. Please do something. Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one has requested it be reviewed. I'll accept it. Legacypac (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:32:12, 24 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Liberationwiki



Liberationwiki (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was deleted as advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:23:25, 24 November 2018 review of draft by Jovanmilic97


I have no idea what to do with this one. After cleaning up the draft as a AfC reviewer (this draft was not created by me), I came here. Are references #1 and #2 enough in coverage to pass this draft as a stub per bare WP:GNG? Everything else in the draft itself is a pure primary use. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide helpful. Any good research university library should have a subscription to Journal Citation Reports, where you would find the impact factor. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:38, 24 November 2018 review of submission by Ondrejjanicko


Pasted draft


In 2018 Ondrej Janicko from Slovakia derived reverse Fibonacci sequence . It starts with numbers 0, 1, 8, 56, 384, 2624, 17920, 122368, and is defined by the recurrence relation:

Consecutive numbers in reverse Fibonacci sequence aproximate to number j = 6,828427112475… wich is reverse Fibonaccio ratio. Exact calculation of reverse Fibonaccio ratio is j = 4 + sqrt(8) = 6,828427112475…

The reverse Fibonacci sequence is derived from 24 repeated line of the sum of the digits of the classic Fibonacci sequence. The situation show folowing table.

Fibonacci sequence sum of digits reverse Fibonacci sequence
1. 1 1 2734013306883801088
2. 1 1 400386978866003968
3. 2 2 58635315505528832
4. 3 3 8586943147278336
5. 5 5 1257528709087232
6. 8 8 184160815677440
7. 13 4 26969727041536
8. 21 3 3949625081856
9. 34 7 578409201664
10. 55 1 84706066432
11. 89 8 12404916224
12. 144 9(0) 1816657920
13. 233 8 266043392
14. 377 8 38961152
15. 610 7 5705728
16. 987 6 835584
17. 1597 4 122368
18. 2584 1 1792
19. 4181 5 2624
20. 6765 6 384
21. 10946 2 56
22. 17711 8 8
23. 28657 1 1
24. 46368 9(0) 0

}}

Hi, I do not understand why you need reference for posting my draft? If you can do aritmetic you can verifi my draft by yourself. You do not need reference to anybody to verify validity of my draft. Just use aritmetic. It is easy. It is simple. It is clear. Ondrejjanicko (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ondrejjanicko - Read the policy on original research. Some editors want to use Wikipedia to publish new ideas that might or might not be true. Wikipedia isn't for new ideas, but for ideas that have at least been discussed by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

01:48:52, 25 November 2018 review of draft by LllKSTlll


I created an article Esoteric symbolism and I want to understand what is the disadvantage and how to fix it.

LllKSTlll (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AaronWikia moved your page into Draft space from Article space for some reason User:L11KST111. Try to improve it and then submit it for review using the provided button. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reping User:LllKSTlll Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:09:46, 25 November 2018 review of submission by Malek404


Malek404 (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


14:29:49, 25 November 2018 review of submission by Crishazzard


No conflict of interest. This is a Oracle user conference sponsored by the top 3 Oracle user groups (and attended by Oracle).

Following the lead of articles like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_OpenWorld

Crishazzard (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


18:31:13, 25 November 2018 review of draft by Pin3appl385


Hi could someone assist me i believe i have made my first page which i am continuing to make improvements on. I have tried sesrching for the page but it is t coming up with anything on Wikipedia how do i get this to show on wikipedia? O've one kind person review my page but they are waiting for another review to check it

(talk) 18:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your page is still a Draft, not a live article. If accepted it will be placed in article space. Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who accept these?

23:09:54, 25 November 2018 review of submission by Turtleturtle00


Turtleturtle00 (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Jeff Rodgers is 1 of just 32 Special Teams Coordinators in the NFL. He's experienced at the position having served under that title for 3 different teams, thus warranting his inclusion as a notable enough figure.

User:Turtleturtle00 - Please read gridiron football notability guidelines. Notice that the guideline applies to players and head coaches, and says that it does not apply to other coaches. That means that he is only notable if he satisfies general notability guidelines, but the draft does not describe the in-depth coverage by reliable sources that is needed for general notability.
I disagree with User:K.e.coffman in that I do not think that he should have rejected the draft. He should have declined it, because there is still the possibility (even if not much possibility) of establishing general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being 1 of 32 is not notable because every team has 1 Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

03:49:59, 26 November 2018 review of submission by Heinrike Borko


Heinrike Borko (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC) I'm a big poker fan and when I searched a few months ago about Triton Series, the only page that I have been able to find on Wikipedia was a page in German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_Super_High_Roller_Series My draft article is an enhanced version of that page but in English.[reply]

Request on 07:14:04, 26 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by JDNAScreative


I have been informed that the page I have created is more like an advertisement and should refer to independent, reliable and published sources. The page I have created is a public personality, and the references used are all from third party sources, that have interviewed the personality.

If you could help in making it clear for me the areas that are not compliant, I would have a better idea of how I could fix it to meet Wikipedia's standards. Thank you.

JDNAScreative (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP blocked under WP:CORPNAME+WP:NOTPROMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:27:52, 26 November 2018 review of submission by MisterJ4all

Hi admin, I have edited the page BitStarz several times now, trying to cover all the requirements by Wikipedia terms. It was noted that there was a problem with the references included in the article. The references are original source pages by the well-established and recognized leaders in the industry. I followed the form and the concept of the Casumo page and I really cannot see much difference in two pages. Can you please help me and show me the next steps. Thank you in advance, MisterJ4all MisterJ4all (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterJ4all: The three main things you need to focus on are citing professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, removing any other sources that do not meet that description, and removing any information that is not supported by reliable sources.
The Casumo article is not a good model to follow. In general, it's not a good idea to try to imitate other articles. My usual advice for writing an article about anyone or anything:
1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. Google Books is a good resource for this. Also, while search engine resutls are tnot sources, they are where you can find sources. Just remember that they need to be professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.
3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 3 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these cryptocurrency blockchain pages are just promotional. People that poured € £ ¥ $ into them want to promote them. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bitstarz Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Still, if I can't just speedy delete something and block the account (see section above), I like to give them the proper way to do things because they'll either (in order of most likely to least likely) give up, comply with the site's policies, or do something block-worthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:55:56, 26 November 2018 review of draft by Sigute from InkAgency


The submission of my added information on Modus Energy was declined due to the references not showing significant coverage regarding the subject. However, the references indeed do have relevant information about the topic. The articles that were added to the reference list are from the most influential media, providing reliable and explicit information about the company. I was wondering, if the submission was declined because the references were mostly in Lithuanian and not in English? I was told in a live chat that it is allowed to have the majority of references in a different language.

Sigute from InkAgency (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:08, 26 November 2018 review of submission by Malek404


Malek404 (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


10:52:23, 26 November 2018 review of submission by Sobatipep


I am struggling with the fact to make the page less promotional. The reviewers are not very specific in their feedback and the link the last one sent, I did not find very helpful. It is quite subjective and open to interpretation. I however tried to make the text less promotional by taking out all adjectives and opinions. I took out the reference to a future album release and I also took out quotes and changed the use of first name to either the complete name or just the last name. I reordered some of the text and made special projects and experiments a part of Career as to not make it stand out that much. I think it is quite neutral now, so I am hoping for some positive and concrete feedback (if not positive).

Not sure how to submit the article for review again.

As a point of feedback, I want to say that if there are 1107 submissions pending, I think more specific feedback could save everyone time. I see many comments on Talk pages of people who are not clear on what they did wrong. I also think the same people should review drafts. Perhaps make it more of a mentoring thing with a group of people, reviewers are working with. I think it would motivate people more than these brief unspecific comments and it would help create better articles.

Thank you --Sobatipep (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jovanmilic97 :-) --Sobatipep (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:01, 26 November 2018 review of draft by KamKing260901


KamKing260901 (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:03, 26 November 2018 review of draft by 68.103.78.155


This Article 2019 NCAA Division I Baseball season article Was Suppose to be a full fledged article and it is not responding because it is not can you help me to move this article to Article space please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:58, 26 November 2018 review of submission by 123pr


How do I get this to show on the google knowledge panel during google search results? 123pr (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:20:24, 26 November 2018 review of submission by DiplomatTesterMan

I submitted this draft just now for an AFC review. I just want someone to quickly check if I have submitted it with the correct AFC tag since this is the first time I added it manually, or if anything else needs to be done before the actual review. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan, you should be fine. It's loading the script and the categories are correct so it should be in the queue. Regards, ProgrammingGeek talktome 20:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ProgrammingGeek: Thanks! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:21, 26 November 2018 review of submission by Amanda Ozment

I believe that the article I submitted for review does meet the first Musical Notability Criterion listed on your reference page: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]" Sources that I have footnoted include ABC World News Tonight, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, EMI, and at least one Wikipedia page that references Edisun directly. I'm hoping that someone can help me understand what the exact issue is with my submission so that I can properly amend and resubmit this article for approval. Thanks! Amanda Ozment (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:00:51, 26 November 2018 review of draft by Mhoss322


Hello please help! I have revised this article a few times to mirror another published page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeria_Luiselli) and cannot understand why this keeps getting rejected.

Mhoss322 (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many reviewers think that putting "award-winning" in the lede sentence of a biography of a living person is a sign that it is non-neutral. Also, modeling a draft on another article is not always the best idea. The fact that the other article is in article space does not mean it is any good. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and maybe the other stuff should also be declined or deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:24:23, 26 November 2018 review of draft by Aksartindia05


Aksartindia05 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:45:06, 26 November 2018 review of submission by Amanda Ozment

I believe that the article I submitted for review does meet the first Musical Notability Criterion listed on your reference page: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]" Sources that I have footnoted include ABC World News Tonight, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, EMI, and at least one Wikipedia page that references Edisun directly. I'm hoping that someone can help me understand what the exact issue is with my submission so that I can properly amend and resubmit this article for approval. Thanks! Amanda Ozment (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 27

02:34:06, 27 November 2018 review of draft by HarryKernow


Hello, I am not exactly sure why my draft page was declined. The reason was not enough reliable citations, but I have 8 citations apart from official releases from Zorin itself (ie the developing company). There are plenty of pages that currently exist with far fewer citations. I completely disagree with this line of reasoning and would like a more in-depth explanation. Here are examples of similar articles with fewer citations that apparently are worthy of a Wikipedia page: Aurora SPARC Linux, Berry Linux, EduLinux, EnGarde Secure Linux, Fuduntu, PUD (operating system), etc etc etc. I think that even without these examples (of which there are many more) the article can exist as is. Any help would be appreciated.

Essentially, how is it that the article has too few reliable sources when, in reality, there are plenty for an article of its size? Is anything in the article not directly supported by a citation? HarryKernow. Talk. 02:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC reviewers give their opinion. The process is optional. If you don't like their opinion you are free to do what you like with the page. Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:59:24, 27 November 2018 review of draft by Nannochloropsis


Hi, I recently created the above draft. I realize that as an extended confirmed user I have the ability to create articles directly to the mainspace without going through the AfC process. Is it possible I could simply copy what I have now to a new article titled "Claude Fuess" and have the "Draft:Claude Fuess" either be ignored or deleted? Thank you! --Nannochloropsis (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:02:51, 27 November 2018 review of draft by Josephwcarrillo


I may need some info on what type of and or how many press reference urls to include in cite tags. Are there limits on the quality and or quantity of press references? If so what are the limits? Josephwcarrillo (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:18:01, 27 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Eliasm920

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


Hello............the administrator requested this" Could you take your time to remove the external links? They’re not allowed in the article unless u put them under external links. Was not sure if I am to remove the exertnal links fro, the footnotes cited or remove external links under External link column? Because originally we had the external links under External link column. Could you please clarify,

thank you


Eliasm920 (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:57:21, 27 November 2018 review of submission by Timeverhart


I am curious as to how an article is chosen for EverybodyWiki rather than Wikipedia and if there is any way to migrate content from the former to the latter?

Timeverhart (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timeverhart. Those questions are outside our scope because EverybodyWiki is not affiliated with us (Wikipedia) or our parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. You would have to ask EverybodyWiki about their inclusion criteria. They are unlikely to follow the same principles as Wikipedia, so I would guess that migrating content from there to here is out of the question. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:39:13, 27 November 2018 review of draft by EllenHewitt458


Firstly, I would like to make it clear that I work for Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery, the gallery that represents the subject of this article. My only intention is to create a factual, unbiased article about this important subject. I do not view this as a marketing or advertising opportunity. As the subject's representative and thus primary source of info on this subject's career, we are perfectly positioned (and in some ways, responsible) for creating an article that visual art educators, students and other interested parties can access.

I am having trouble satisfying the notability of persons requirement. Daniel Boyd is a leading contemporary artist. He has won extremely important awards that prove this and many institutional, public art galleries label him as such. (Both have been cited in the first part of the article). It is also proven by the significant galleries he has exhibited in, the major collections he is a part of and the material written about him, all of which I have included in the article.

There are plenty of independent citations in the article. Aside from the sentence I address above ('Daniel Boyd is referred to as one of Australia's leading Contemporary artists') nothing I have written could be considered more an opinion than a fact.

Many of the sources are written by individuals inside the art field (working in galleries or events that have exhibited the artist ect.), perhaps warranting an argument that they are 'too close' to the subject. However, this is the nature of the art field itself - there are no citations for any artist that aren't written by authors who have worked or are working in the field - often with the artist in question themselves. Even so, none of the citations are just opinion articles, they are reliable sources in recognized publications or by public/national art galleries.

Perhaps to make it clearer to me, you might be able to point out specific sentences that are warranting this notability rejection? Or point out why some sources are not good enough?

Please let me know what I can do to improve. Many thanks.

EllenHewitt458 (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenHewitt458: I've left a comment on Draft talk:Daniel Boyd (artist). --Worldbruce (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:24:42, 27 November 2018 review of draft by Neha Maria Thomas


Neha Thomas (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.--Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:14:26, 27 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by NamrataDiengdoh


I could not understand what type of changes are required regarding my Draft on Nitanshi Goel. I would like to have more specific and clear instructions on that since it is my first time making a Wikipedia page. Also, the same page was published on wikipedia Indonesia with very little information on it. So, I do not understand why not here. Please help me.


NamrataDiengdoh (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NamrataDiengdoh. Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the Indonesian Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Here, novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic.
The reviewer's comment was that The Times of India is a good source because it is in-depth, but the other three sources barely mention Goel. The reliability of Business TV and Tellychakkar.com is also questionable. Don't include anything in the draft for which you cannot cite a reliable, published source. Keep The Times of India and replace the other three sources with two more as good as The Times of India. If such sources don't exist, it may be WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article about Goel. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:32:56, 27 November 2018 review of draft by Shanisun


Hello there, I am still waiting for my draft to be re-reviewed after the last reviewer said she is not able to review it again since she is less professional in the area of my draft. Please can someone help? This is a well known and respected man in Israel and also has a hebrew wiki page.. from some reason I was asked to supply cites for him having kids which is a little strange but I did the best possible. please see if you can tell me what to do and how to speed up the process a little since it's been a few months by now. with great respect Shanisun (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shanisun (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept it. Legacypac (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:51:17, 27 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Neha Maria Thomas


Hi, my recent wiki page Xclusive Yachts has been declined - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Xclusive_Yachts

It is not written with a promotional interest - it would be nice to have this page up since there are lot of public figures also associated to it. The parent company has other sub brands that even offer a school - (Official RYA training center in Dubai). People both regional and international look up to these information and feel that a wiki page will be reliable.

Please advise how can I take this forward? Thank you

Neha Thomas (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.--Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:48:47, 27 November 2018 review of submission by Vincas1984


Vincas1984 (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam,

my recent entry on jewellery artist Draft:Vita Pukštaitė-Bružė has been declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vincas1984/sandbox The reviewer left a comment: I can't check on the sources but right now please avoid using adjectives which makes it look promotional.

After reading the comment, I have checked the text for unnecessary adjectives. I have found a couple but no more which could be deleted without harming the harmony of analysis. Reviewing this article is important to have in mind that there is an entry on art jewellery. Those adjectives are used in a part where the style of an artist is analysed. There are no adjectives at all only pure facts in other parts of the article. The part where the style of the artist is analysed is based on eight different sources. Yes, they are in Lithuanian but using Google translate one could easily check how accurately I have used those sources. Also, only one of the used sources is created by the artist himself - taken from her personal website. Other sources are from media, exhibitions catalogues or reviews of art jewellery experts. I want to state clearly by writing this that the analysis refers to a range of independent, reliable, and published sources. Discussion about objectivity in the analysis of art style is a question of standpoint itself and could not be a reasonable argument to say that somebody is subjective. One has to analyse these objects himself and to say what was said inaccurate or wrong about them.

Kind regards Vincas1984

I removed the copy in your sandbox as we will only consider one version. See Draft:Vita Pukštaitė Bružė please. Legacypac (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:36:41, 27 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by QueensExpert11372


I'm confused about this latest decline of the submitted article. The company is clearly notable--second largest solar developer, largest independent solar developer, developer of the record low solar price in the USA. The links and citations are not press releases, they are legitimate news articles from well-respected trade and news outlets. Please advise. Thank you.


QueensExpert11372 (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the comments by the reviewers? The draft is written from the standpoint of the company, and consists mostly of a history. It isn't easy for a paid editor to write a neutral draft. The viewpoint of a paid editor is inherently different from that of neutral volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:35, 27 November 2018 review of draft by Mcatricala


I would like to change the title of this article. There is another David S. Weiss, and I'd like to use his full name as to alleviate any confusion.

Mcatricala (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll adjust it Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:09:20, 27 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Barrett92


Hello,

I would like some help with this, if you can. I have submitted this article numerous times and keep receiving the same feedback: include more sources. Each time I re-submit, I include several additional legitimate sources. The subsequent rejections don't make sense to me. This is a well known filmmaker and producer who certainly qualifies for an article. Are there any suggestions you can give me that will help this article be published?

Thanks very much, B


Barrett92 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:22, 27 November 2018 review of submission by Htewarso

My article on Jenny Thomann-Koller was accepted in October by Legacypak. Since then I made many changes, including references, links, etc. The last one were made on November 18. I have not had any response since then. Can I get help to finalize this text?/ Thank you!

Htewarso (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page is already in article space. No further feedback will be provided from AfC. Good that you continued to improve the page. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:34, 27 November 2018 review of submission by Dcharchour


K.e.coffman Thank you for taking the time to review Draft:Jeff Wald This was rejected due to "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Though I wanted to ask for advice. The subject has been covered across several local and national secondary sources which demonstrate the topic's notability in its respective industry, meeing WP:GNG. Please let me know if you believe the content is not sufficiently cited. If so, could you provide additional guidelines? Thanks Dcharchour (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Dcharchour#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:31, 27 November 2018 review of submission by Malek404


Malek404 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 28

03:53:32, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Mubeen Nizam naik


Mubeen Nizam naik (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Sir/Madam,

please if you can guide me considering the reference, as the reference is already provided from Wikipedia sources and which has sub-reference considering the therapy.

thanks & Regards

Hi Mubeen Nizam naik, Greetings. I believe you were referring to Draft:MubinoTherapy. Pls note (1) Wikipedia can NOT be the source, so pls remove it from the draft. (2) pls read referencing for beginners for inline citation (source/referring) info and instruction. (3) Pls read WP:LINK for inter Wikipedia linking (4) pls read WP:Your First Article to familiar yourself on how to write an article in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:58:18, 28 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ravikantsurlakar


Why my article was declined?


Ravikantsurlakar (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ravikantsurlakar. The draft was rejected because the topic does not clear the bar of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


05:39:42, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat



Accepted. Nice page needs copyediting but good topic. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir! I am a newly born Wikipedian who needs a lot of hard work to make good contributions. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Please give your opinionsFarooqahmadbhat (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:33:15, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Sigute from InkAgency


The submission of my added information on Modus Energy was declined due to the references not showing significant coverage regarding the subject. However, the references indeed do have relevant information about the topic. The articles that were added to the reference list are from the most influential media, providing reliable and explicit information about the company. I was wondering, if the submission was declined because the references were mostly in Lithuanian and not in English? I was told in a live chat that it is allowed to have the majority of references in a different language.

Sigute from InkAgency (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Sigute from InkAgency#Paid editing --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:01, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Thangam123


Thangam123 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:55:56, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Cruiser1


This article was rejected with the simple message "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", without any further explanation. However, I do not believe that assessment is correct. This event was covered in various local, national, and international reliable secondary sources, so should meet WP:GNG. It also resulted in continued coverage and has had long term effects beyond the event itself, so WP:NOTNEWS shouldn't apply.

This page follows WP:SINGLEEVENT which says that "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." This page isn't targeting the individual person (who wouldn't otherwise be notable) but rather the event, which is clearly significant. Compare this page to the various other pages in Category:Bullying_and_suicide which are also titled "Suicide of X" instead of just "X", and use {infobox event} instead of {infobox person}. Compare also to another filmed suicide page, Suicide of Kevin Whitrick, which has been deemed notable enough to easily survive deletion proposal. Not that unfortunate events like this should be considered a contest of course, but Katelyn Davis' case should be considered at least as notable as all these other pages, in that it had much more national and international coverage, her death was actually recorded on video and was seen by literally millions of people (often unwittingly) during its weeks on Facebook, and in the case's later ramifications on modifying policy on Facebook and other social media platforms.

K.e.coffman did the most recent review, and said on his talk page that I could ask for a second opinion here. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


10:57:33, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Julia Kleinham


Julia Kleinham (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wikipedia,

I need help getting my article approved. I have to meet a deadline to have it published. I will attach a link here to the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trade_of_Bananas_in_India

Thank you, Julia

11:46:41, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Neha Maria Thomas


Hi, Can you help me how to improve the article submission Draft:Xclusive Yachts? I have no paid interest in the subject - i believe it being rdeclined due to this reason? Can you advise the way forward? Thank you


Neha Thomas (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.--Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:32:33, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Jignesh Gupta

Please give your opinions Jignesh Gupta (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


n.b. Editor has requested the deletion of her draft and it has been G7 speedy deleted. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:35:04, 28 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Charitableyouth


15:35:04, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Charitableyouth {{Lafc|username=Charitableyouth|ts=15:35:04, 28 November 2018|link=

I am new to Wikipedia. And I have been trying to create article for inclusion in Wikipaedia. I need the assistance of an experience person to help out. This is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kabiru_Adeniyi_Kulukulu#References Charitableyouth (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:47, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Kpetrovay


Kpetrovay (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission [Draft:Béla_Harkányi] rejected by a schoolboy for "reading like an advertisement".

Perhaps you should also tell, an advertisement for what? A guy who died 80+ years ago??

I've accepted the well written page and asked User:Vincent60030 to explain his thinking. I hope he just clicked the wrong button by accident. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:14:41, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Savearainbow


I submitted this and got a lot of help from the first editor. The second editor brought up points that didn't exist, as noted below. Also, he accused me of conflict of interest because I was in contact with the band! It's necessary for me to contact the group so I can ask questions and get the right information!


Here is a transcript of my communication on the "talk" page:

Thanks for the review. I'm confused - the rejection said: This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. 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.

There WAS a range of independent, reliable, published sources. For example, they were on the front cover of Blues In Britain and had an accompanying article, had numerous reviews over the years in magazines and newspapers from all over the world, and toured all over the UK and Europe. I provided references. There are plenty of other reviews, but unfortunately many are not web accessible without a subscription. I don't understand how you can say what you did about it being "materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" - I didn't write those articles!
Rather than being "an advertisement", which would have used superlatives to describe the band, I just stuck to their history and accomplishments. No, they aren't U2 or Led Zeppelin. But they are a recognized Modern Blues band that has gotten steady, significant airplay on blues stations all over the world and have a reasonably large following. If they don't meet the required level of success, despite the luminaries who have recorded the albums, that's one thing. But to say I didn't provide a neutral point of view, or didn't provide independent, reliable, published sources - I must be missing something in what's required.
I would appreciate help in getting this to pass muster. Thanks again for your time and voluntary work. Savearainbow (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: please see User_talk:Savearainbow#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So as a fan who knows the band, I can't submit the article? Thanks for the quick response. Savearainbow (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: It's still unclear whether you have a connection to the band or not (WP:COI), since you did not directly answer my question. In any case, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not directly connected to the band other than being a fan. Nowhere in your comments or responses did I see an actual question. Honestly, I feel like we're having two different conversations. You gave critiques that did not apply to my article. You're saying I didn't answer a non-existing question. I already submitted this article (a different editor reviewed it and gave very helpful suggestions) and this concept of COI never came up. I understand you're a volunteer editor and are doing the best you can, but this is quite frustrating.


So at this point I'm reaching out to you. I don't know what K.e.coffman is talking about anymore. Maybe he/she doesn't have experience with musical group submissions? Or maybe I'm doing something wrong but not getting the guidance I'm requesting? The difference between the first editor and K.e.coffman is so marked that, had coffman been the first editor, I would have given up!

Thanks for your help.

Savearainbow (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:04, 28 November 2018 review of submission by GrayBirdGrayBackground


Hello,

I would like to request a re-review on my submission. My article on the active satellite DAVE (CP-7) was rejected twice despite having several external sources and the actual satellite referenced being in orbit. By comparison, several spacecraft with what I believe to be equal or lesser quality sources have been published on Wikipedia (rightfully so): An example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELFIN (a satellite that launched with DAVE and had its article published prior to launch).

I think that the subject matter is notable since the spacecraft is active in orbit and not just a conceptual design. In addition, the reviewer who twice rejected the article has been banned from Wikipedia and did not seem to have a background in spacecraft.

For these reasons, I am requesting a re-review of the article.

Thank you. GrayBirdGrayBackground (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GrayBirdGrayBackground checkY Accepted. Reverted Frayae's rejection per WP:BANREVERT and it's good enough for me. ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 29

18:52:06, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat


Please give your opinions... If anything is needed to improve, please let me know. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:08, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Danisetyanto


Danisetyanto (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


19:13:33, 28 November 2018 review of draft by JamesJ1992


We have gotten our article denied twice so I have restructured the article using new references. What else do we need to do in order to make the page strong enough to publish? JamesJ1992 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesJ1992: - hello, unfortunately Gavin Clarkson fails the political notability requirements - these are some of the strictest in wikipedia. The subject has not won either of the main elections he has participated in, and does not appear to satisfy notability in a different method. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:25:29, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Chadthebeasthardy


Chadthebeasthardy (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I fixed it.

No, you didn't. It's still an autobiography that does not have any reliable sources or any claim of notability. ProgrammingGeek talktome 21:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:04:05, 28 November 2018 review of draft by 72.15.52.170


I am unclear as to why none of the sources are considered "significant coverage", since one of the articles in Playback Magazine (essentially the Canadian Variety Magazine) specifically makes mention of Highball.TV as the subject of the article, the launch of which is the reason for the article itself. Is it that the national industry coverage that Playback covers is Canadian? Or is the Playback article not long/detailed enough? This is the average length of a breaking news story for this magazine.

72.15.52.170 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 72.15.52.170. The decline notice lists five properties that sources must have, of which "significant coverage" is only one. A trouble with Playback (and Northernstars.ca) is a lack of another of the five properties, independence. Both are regurgitations of a press release by Highball, so not independent of it. The government of Canada source lacks significant coverage. The two reviews and the radio interview don't mention Highball. And the Highball website of course is not independent of Highball. It may be unrealistic of you to expect that a service launched last month would have garnered the independent, in-depth coverage over time that is required to demonstrate suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Set the topic aside for a few years and reexamine it then. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:33, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Amatorium


I've edited this article several times now. The text has references, it is not a copy of another one and yet it is still not approved. There is a page on this article on the original Bulgarian Wiki, which is similar and is official and yet this is constantly rejected. I don't understand if 4 different references from various sources confirming the information of the article are not enough, I don't know what is.

Amatorium (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01:33:02, 29 November 2018 review of draft by 203.58.6.6


Hi, my draft keeps getting rejected. It says that the subject already exists with a link to Cupid Media, however, Cupid Media is a parent company to 36 other websites, each of the 36 sites has it's own unique history and should have it's own page. I was trying to do a separate page for Filipino Cupid.

203.58.6.6 (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exists. Your topic is just a product of Cupid Media and in fact all the Cupid sites look pretty much the same. The geographic distinctions are just marketing. The daughter sites have trival history not at all seperate from the company. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


03:20:46, 29 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat

I Repeat: Please give your opinions... If anything is needed to improve, please let me know. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:03:51, 29 November 2018 review of submission by Ukecka


Hello, Could you please let me know which sources are considered to be reliable as I have linked the article to local French Newspaper - Nice Matin. What else do I need to do in order to make the article strong enough to publish?


Ukecka (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:36, 29 November 2018 review of submission by Rahulpb


Rahulpb (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am unable to submit the below article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rahulpb

Please help on how to complete the submission.

Hi Rahulpb. There is now, in a box at the top of the draft, a blue button that, you may click to submit the draft for review. Before you do that you may to study Wikipedia:Your first article and especially Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, and make corrections accordingly. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:25:33, 29 November 2018 review of submission by Malek404


Malek404 (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Malek404: - there are a few legitimate grounds on which your article was declined (even discounting the most recent from a now blocked editor). As a living person, the draft must provide inline references for any potentially controversial fact. As the draft currently stands, there aren't any inline citations after the first paragraph of the "Early Life" section.
Additionally, your references don't meet the "Significant Coverage, Reliable, Independent" triple need - there are some useful links to it in the decline templates in the draft. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:23:47, 29 November 2018 review of submission by 2001:648:2E80:4401:4DDE:8E6D:E563:3122


2001:648:2E80:4401:4DDE:8E6D:E563:3122 (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:42, 29 November 2018 review of draft by Farooqahmadbhat


They are saying, If you need extra help, please ask us a question. This is third time I am adding my request (for opinions) here.. Previous 2 requests were ignored Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farooqahmadbhat, Is there anything specifically you're confused about? ProgrammingGeek talktome 17:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:32, 29 November 2018 review of draft by Dfarino


I have tried to submit my bio page titled Rob Gershon several times. I referenced as much as I possibly could and it is still being rejected. What more can I do to publish this page?

Dfarino (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfarino: - hi there. There are two critical facets that will lead to your article being declined until resolved.
One is the general absence of sufficent sourcing - sources must be in-depth, reliable and independent secondary sources. This means that the website of the company he works for is not suitable for proving notability (though it can support non-controversial facts in the article). Newspapers (online or otherwise), journals, books etc are good potential sources.
Once you have found some good sources, as a living person, where a higher level of reliability is required, needs inline sources to back up each use of any fact that isn't completely non-controversial. Have a look at referencing for beginners and Inline citations to learn how to do this. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:44:20, 29 November 2018 review of submission by DMarketer18


DMarketer18 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your submission was rejected. Although the reviewer did not specify why it was rejected, I would have rejected it as marketing, and your user name implies that you are here to do marketing, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Read the conflict of interest policy and make any required disclosures. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:00:32, 29 November 2018 review of submission by 72.80.75.70


Hello, I would like to know why my submission was declined. The page is not being used for promotion and is written with no bias. Help! 72.80.75.70 (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 30

01:33:19, 30 November 2018 review of draft by Casting Nasturtiums


Hi there,

Your help would be enormously appreciated. I'm trying to create a page for Andrew Anastasios, who's a scriptwriter who has been, and continues to be, involved in the creation of significant Australian film and TV productions as a creator, writer and producer. Amongst other professional credits, he co-created and co-wrote the highest grossing film in Australia in 2015 (The Water Diviner), which won the Australian equivalent of an Oscar, the AACTA best film award for 2015. He also co-created and wrote two Jack Irish series for ABC television, and wrote two other Jack Irish TV movies. Also, the novel he wrote for Pan Macmillan based on his script, The Water Diviner, sold 45,000 copies. In short, he does seem to qualify under the terms of the 'notability' Wikipedia parameters for creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Clearly, I'm failing at the 'references' side of the equation! There's no shortage of independent reviews in the media of all the film and TV scripts Andrew has written - if I added those to the draft, would it satisfy your terms?

Thank you so much for your assistance. I really want to do this properly, but obviously need some help to get there! Casting Nasturtiums (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you have is reliable sources rarely write about the script writer or other behind the scenes people. They write about the show and the actors. Therefore pages here on such behind the screens people are rare and hard to create with proper sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: - would WP:AUTHOR criteria 3 not apply/be possible to apply here, instead of requiring purely directly applying sourcing? Nosebagbear (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in the case of a film or tv show there are lots of people on the creative side like producers, directors, writers etc. I passed a writer for a late night show once because he and his team won an Emmy for writing, so it is possible. Anyway, the topic is not offemsive or promotional so the submitter is welcome to move the page and see how it goes. If no one tries to delete, happy days. Legacypac (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:48:20, 30 November 2018 review of submission by 183.87.142.97

We are trying to create Wikipedia page for few days the name of "Classic Marble Company" but unfortunately, this page was rejected again and again. So Please give me the advice on how to create or submit Wikipedia page. 183.87.142.97 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned "We" should not be doing anything at Wikipedia to promote a business. I'll action the page. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:27:56, 30 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Millyk01


Looking for some assistance in an article I have been attempting to create - Helloworld Travel Limited. It keeps being rejected saying it is already in existence on Wiki, referring to Helloworld Travel. They may have similar names but are different. One is a publically listed company - asx listed entity - Helloworld Travel Limited, and one is the extensive Retail network of Australian and New Zealand travel agencies known as Helloworld Travel. Any advice appreciated, as both are credible and worthy of being on Wiki. Per Flight Centre, which has 4 wiki pages so far from what I can see, and also

Woolworths group and Woolworths supermarkets. Many thanks in advance --Millyk01 (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millyk01 (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is a page already. We don't need seperate pages for the company and its stores which use the same name. No comments on the examples you cite - might be correct or maybe they should be merged. Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:29:35, 30 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Uideyield


Hi, I made my first wikipedia posting few months ago and wish to clarify one factual issue related to its rejection. I don't care anymore at this point whether the draft gets rejected or not, but I wish to resolve one misunderstanding which was stated about the reason of rejection. I cannot accept reviewer's argument until this issue is clearly understood and accepted by the reviewer. A clarification is needed on the misunderstanding which the reviewer had on me as a writer. How do I prove that I have zero affiliation with the person I wrote about? Do I need to create a sandbox page about my identity? Why is the reviewer assuming that I must have prepared the article for the sake of commercial interest or promotional activities?

I have no idea how the reviewer could just pre-assume (without even asking the writer) that I have personal relations with the person I wrote about. This can even sound like a personal insult to a writer who attempted to prepare the article for the first time. I apologize if my citations were not good enough, but you cannot assume that I may have a personal relation with the person I wrote about. I don't even personally know him. Of course I don't work for the media company and there is no way he can pay me when he doesn't even know me. Besides, I am just an outsider who once took a course and studied Hallyu industry and someone who was curious about writing wikipedia article drafts and just wanted to give it a try through trials and errors. My personal goal was to increase English wikipedia pages for the existing Korean wikipedia pages. In that way, more English readers can have access to Asian wikipedia pages (perhaps if the English draft is available, then the English writers can also find ways together to fix the reference issue which Korean wikipedia articles hold).

All I tried to do was create an English version of his already-existing Korean wikipedia page. I do not get paid by anyone for this matter, and this is almost a personal insult to me when I have pure interest to contribute as a writer as well, but all I get is a pre-assumed comments filled with injustice.

I am not asking the reviewer to accept the draft because the draft already has a reference issue. I accept that the submission can be rejected if it's because of citation issues or because the person is "not notable", but I can never accept the reviewer's careless assumption about my purpose and intent of preparing the draft. I have no relation with a person I wrote about. I cannot emphasize enough that I want to know why the reviewer would pre-assume about something that isn't even true at all. What made him think that I must have written about someone I know or for commercial interest?

Please reconsider this issue; I want the reviewer to take back what he said and how he assumed about my personal intent of draft and I hope to cooperate in the most peaceful way and resolve this matter together. Thanks for reviewing and considering this message in advance.

Uideyield (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=871363661"