Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Vwang2014 (talk | contribs)
117 edits
No edit summary
Line 529: Line 529:
I spend a lot of time looking at random articles in Wikipedia. A large fraction of the pages I hit are obscure (in my opinion) sports figures. The criteria for sports figures specify only that they played in at least one game in a major league of some sport. Meanwhile the criteria for academics has a list of potential criteria that restrict pages to only a few of the most outstanding academics. I will close this comment with a statement that clearly reveals my bias: I think Wikipedia, and our society in general, pays way too much attention to sports and entertainment figures in comparison to the attention we give to doctors, scientists, and others who are making a real contribution to the world.
I spend a lot of time looking at random articles in Wikipedia. A large fraction of the pages I hit are obscure (in my opinion) sports figures. The criteria for sports figures specify only that they played in at least one game in a major league of some sport. Meanwhile the criteria for academics has a list of potential criteria that restrict pages to only a few of the most outstanding academics. I will close this comment with a statement that clearly reveals my bias: I think Wikipedia, and our society in general, pays way too much attention to sports and entertainment figures in comparison to the attention we give to doctors, scientists, and others who are making a real contribution to the world.
[[User:TundraGreen|TundraGreen]] ([[User talk:TundraGreen|talk]]) 22:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
[[User:TundraGreen|TundraGreen]] ([[User talk:TundraGreen|talk]]) 22:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

== 23:06:55, 7 April 2019 review of draft by Vwang2014 ==
{{Lafc|username=Vwang2014|ts=23:06:55, 7 April 2019|draft=User:Vwang2014/sandbox}}

How do you edit an infobox that has been submitted to Articles for creation? I want to insert a photo.
[[User:Vwang2014|Vwang2014]] ([[User talk:Vwang2014|talk]]) 23:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:06, 7 April 2019

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


April 1

16:33:25, 1 April 2019 review of submission by AnnSimoens


Dear friends at Wikipedia Thank you for having reviewed my article. I do feel really disappointed that it was rejected cause I spent days writing it, gathering all kinds of external references (as per Wiki's guidelines) but still: my article was rejected (for a second time) with reject reason: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Does not meet WP:NCORP."

Do you think there's a way to adjust my article in order to get it approved? Or is it simply not worth investing any more of my time in it? I am so disappointed cause I love Wikipedia so much (I even wired money to you in the last few years, which I normally only to for animal organizations, so I broke my own rule for Wikipedia :-)

There are companies providing similar services compared to the ones that SIGOS is offering, they're called Araxxe and Wedo technologies for example and they are on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araxxe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeDo_Technologies) so I don't understand why their articles got accepted and mine didn't.

I'm hoping you could give me some tips/tricks on how to improve my first own article (cause I'm still quite proud of it.)

Thank you in advance for your help. Ann


AnnSimoens (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnnSimoens this may be a borderline case of meeting WP:NCORP. I'll leave notes on the draft for you. Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

08:52:53, 2 April 2019 review of submission by 93.43.35.73


Dear @K.e.coffman

Before writing this page, I took the following page as an example: <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintiq<ref> .

Can you please let me know what can be done (added, removed, modified) in order to have this page respecting the rules of Wikipedia.

Thank you

93.43.35.73 (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the note on the draft, read the linksd policies. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:56, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Roxana Leonte


Hello. Saw that my request was rejected and I would really love to know why. When i did my research i did notice that nicknames are a part of Wikipedia’s archive. The same Gabriel Iglesias as this nickname and it can be found here. All I really want is for people to be able to know where the airplane got its name from as many people claim nowadays thta they called him like this. I am not breaking any rules of this page all i want is to inform people of the origins of the nickname Fluffy for the airplane A380. If i can change something about it, please let me know. Roxana Leonte (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a joke - which is vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:16:17, 2 April 2019 review of submission by D574h


This article was declined for a comment stating that not enough sourcing was provided. The article links several sources from South Bend, Indiana's Municipal Code, in addition to a link to the official .gov website for the flag of South Bend, Indiana with identical information. This article and the official website were created in tandem, which is why information sourced is from the Municipal Code, not just "local papers".D574h (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC) D574h (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:30:02, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Igor Kachevskyi


Kindly review the article. I added more information and some references. Thanks Igor Kachevskyi (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:37:27, 2 April 2019 review of submission by MarionPB

{{Lafc|username=MarionPB|ts=12:37:27, 2 April 2019|page=

MarionPB (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors,

I am a professional author, technical writer, and feature writer. So far I have no clear direction about an entry I have created on Peter G Demers. The subject has made notable contributions to the field of sports medicine and professional hockey. My approach and sourcing have been criticized and yet my submission meets and exceeds the approach and caliber of other pages on Wikipedia. Moreover, an image I have full copyrights to continues to be deleted.

I am appealing these changes, and requesting that the page on Peter G Demers be published, along with the image. I am glad to continue editing as needed but there has been zero clarity on what is expected. In addition, this page is modeled after existing Wikipedia pages and meets or exceeds that model.

Thank you,

MarionPB (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarionPB: I can refer you to WP:NHL, the ice hockey WikiProject, for sourcing and formatting advice, but I disagree with your claim that it "meets or exceeds" the page model; the section about his time with the Kings in particular seems quite WP:PUFFy. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I described the subject's experience as one would expect in a Wikipedia article. The person who is the subject of this article has contributed to hockey and to sports medicine in a notable way. I would like this page to successfully be published, and am willing to take the necessary steps to do so. The requirements seem to change however and the editors are condescending. I am a professional.

I also would like to know how to un-delete the photo I submitted. I have all copyright permission to the image and the pictured certificate contents. Yet the image continues to be deleted.

Do you have any women editors and writers? So far I haven't seen evidence of any.

Thanks. MarionPB (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarionPB. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are constantly changing, but the phenomenon you're experiencing is something different, what it's like to write for thousands of editors. Each reviewer may focus on something different.
What leaps out at me is the draft's heavy reliance on frozenroyalty.net as a source. It's self-published, a blog written and published by Gann Matsuda. Wikipedia policy says, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." You could replace frozenroyalty.net with a reliable source, remove all the content sourced from it, or wait until Pete Demers is dead. Without frozenroyalty.net, the draft has only two sources of any depth, Mass Live and Fox Sports. The latter is a primary source interview. To the extent that it's Demers talking about Demers, it may lack sufficient independence to help establish notability.
I recommend setting aside for now the question of the photo. The presence or absence of a photo will have no effect on whether the draft is accepted for publication.
Editors who choose to self-identify as female can be found in Category:Female Wikipedians, but given the anonymous nature of editing, many editors choose not to disclose personal information. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:27, 2 April 2019 review of draft by ACPMPRF


Should we add more detail to our article, e.g., History, Mission, Goals, Research Grants Awarded, Images, etc.? Do we have enough external/reliable links? Any other advice to improve our article is appreciated!

ACPMPRF (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ACPMPRF. 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) 15:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:04, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Mpame


I have revised my article to remove any element(s) of business advertising Mpame (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined rejected draft resubmitted under new name: Draft:THE EU REPRESENTATIVE (Art 27. GDPR). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

00:37:05, 3 April 2019 review of submission by Ole2128silver


Ole2128silver (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ole2128silver: - as was said, I'm afraid there clearly is no notability (or even a claim of something that would make you notable) established. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:48:51, 3 April 2019 review of submission by 96.233.42.226


O'NEIL REAL ATHLETE HE KO'D DIV1A SCHOLARSHIP ATHLETE WHO WAS 26 1/47 VARSITY HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL PLAYERS RECIEVED THAT SCHOLARSHIP. USA BOXING BEST ACCREDITOR 96.233.42.226 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


MATTHEW EUGENE O'NEIL (BORN MARCH 7,1976 IN NEWTON, MASSACHUSETTS) IS AN ATHLETE, UNIVERSITY GRADUATE, AND EX-POLITICAL CANDIDATE.HE COMPETED IN TWO USA BOXING ACCREDITED MATCHES WINNING BOTH BY STOPPAGE. HE KNOCKED OUT JEFFREY NAQUIN IN 1998 FOR A TEN COUNT. NAQUIN WAS ON THE 1991 AND 1993 LSU NATIONAL BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM. O'NEIL TKO'D ALL ARMY SUPERHEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION PRESTON HARTZOG IN 1999. HARTZOG WAS IN THE WORLD CLASS ATHLETE PROGRAM ON FORT CARSON.

THE POSITIVE RESULTS OF THE NAQUIN AND HARTZOG BOUTS WERE BROUGHT BACK TO THE NATIONAL SOCCER LEAGUE THAT O'NEIL COMPETED IN AS A YOUTH. IN 2013 AND 2014 PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS RECIEVED ITS FIRST DIV1 A BASEBALL SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THEIR HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM. O'NEIL WAS SELECTED FOR THE AIR FORCE MARTIAL ARTS PROGRAM ON SCHRIEVER AIR FORCE BASE IN 1997 AND HE USED THE FACILITY FOR THREE YEARS MAKING A POSITIVE PRODUCTION RESULT BACK TO THE TOWN HE WAS RECRUITED FROM. O'NEIL RAN FOR CLARK COUNTY COMMISSION IN NEVADA IN 2006 AGAINST RORY REID.HE WORKED FOR HARVARD UNIVERSITY AT THE AGE OF TWENTY FIVE IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT OFFICE.HE GRADUATED FROM COLORADO CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY WITH A B.S.IN 2001 AND FROM REGIS UNIVERSITY IN 2004 WITH A MBA. HE DID AGENCY ACQUISITION FOR NATIONWIDE INSURANCE IN 2017 AND 2018.

EXTERNAL LINKS http://www.maxboxing.com/news/promo-lead/you-only-live-once-just-ask-matthew-oneil http://www.newslocker.com/en-ng/sport/nigeria-boxing/you-only-live-once-just-ask-matthew-oneil/view/ https://lasvegassun.com/news/2006/oct/22/giunchigliani-rory-reid-election-opponents-said-to/

When editing in talk pages, the use of all caps is perceived as "shouting". Please do not write in all caps. Being a "real athlete" is not a reason for there to be an encyclopedia article about him. To be accepted for publication, the draft would need to show that he is a notable boxer or that he is notable in some other way. He does't appear to be, so is not a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:59:33, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Kallidai Ramesh Narayana


Any help on what changes I need to make to the draft to get it published will be greatly appreciated. If you cannot, but can send a link to some guidelines, that will also be helpful.

Kallidai Ramesh Narayana (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kallidai Ramesh Narayana. I left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that you may find useful.
Most of the sources that the draft cites are of extremely low quality: ibiblio.org, threadreaderapp, swamydesika.tripod.com, allaboutshoes.ca, ramanuja.org, indiadivine.org, fampeople.com, and anudinam.org. To have any hope of the draft being accepted, remove all of them and any content that came from them. For a topic of this nature there ought to be scholarly sources - books by academics published by university presses and articles by acadmics published in peer reviewed journals. Those are the kinds of sources to use. If you aren't sure where to start looking, try finding the topic in a printed encyclopedia and see what sources they cite. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:26, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Manacla


Hi, you said that the article does not have enough sources, but all the content of the page is taken from the two external link shown at the bottom of the page. What else should I add?

Manacla (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manacla. I've renamed the "External links" section "References". External links implies that the information for the article didn't come from there, so that may have been a source of confusion. Another way to improve the draft's chances would be to add citations to sources that aren't merely pages of statistics. It's unlikely that anyone has written a book touching on the topic, but there must have been contemporary coverage of the qualifier in newspapers and magazines. Additional context would also be helpful; what is FIBA, what sport is this for? --Worldbruce (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:49:06, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Lou Renwick


I would like an independant listing for Cragend FArm and Cragend Silo please. Cragside Estate do not own these buildings. This is not promotion but fact. I do not know how else to prove what I am writing.


Lou Renwick (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lou Renwick. The reviewer of Draft:Cragend Farm left you good advice on the draft and on your talk page (where there are also useful links left by another editor when you were editing Cragside estate in January). You need to prove what you're writing by citing reliable sources. I've added a source to Draft:Cragend Silo as an example. If you need help finding sources, a local library or historical society would be a good place to start. You don't need many sources, 2-3 would be enough for a draft to be accepted, provided that they are high-quality sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:45, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Lightsourcer


Lightsourcer (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:46, 3 April 2019 review of submission by Author Who


You wrote that the Article is not sufficiently notable. The Ballroomdancer Luca Baricchi is for Ballroomdance like Michael Barischnikov for ballet. He developed Ballroomdance in his Career to the modern Form we see in this days. There is an article about him on Wikipedia with his ex-wife ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_and_Loraine_Baricchi ) and an article for his ex-wife ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loraine_Barry ). The new Article is more detailed than the old one and show his career for a longer Periode of time. Author Who (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Author Who. The way to prove the reviewer wrong is to cite multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Luca Baricchi. The draft cites only one source, dancesportinfo.net, and that only for selected awards between 1993 and 2001. None of the prose in the draft cites a source. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:11, 3 April 2019 review of submission by Another irate man


How do I make this notable? It's just a number. If 42 has a wikipedia page about it, 91000000 deserves one Another irate man (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking right? Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes I'm sorry for using such a bad argument I shouldn't have said thatAnother irate man (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:37, 3 April 2019 review of draft by Gedgmoss


I'm new to publishing, have a number of (scanned) old school photos I purchase (pre-internet) and looking for advice on how to share via Wiki. What's the best approach? I've tried to contact the original photographer without success.

Gedgmoss (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gedgmoss. If by "old" you mean taken before 1924, then they are in the public domain and you may upload them to Wikimedia Commons. If they are newer than that, you probably can't legally share them online (there are a few exceptions, but they are complicated, and you would need to know a lot about the history of the image - when it was taken, when it was published, whether it was registered, whether it was renewed, who took it, when they died, etc.) The presence or absence of photos will have no effect on whether the draft is accepted or not, so I recommend that you forget about images for now and concentrate on the text. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:21:13, 3 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Michael0658


My potential article about Jodi Ann Arias was rejected: 

    "The reason left by Theroadislong was: This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."

Do you reject all articles about famous prisoners or just mine?

Do you have any objective or impartial authors?

I used to be able to trust Wikipedia, however it has disappointed me too many times with faulty information and opinions posted as verified facts. Now, it replies with a patently absurd claim about an article it should have encouraged and posted long ago.

Wikipedia, please don't keep asking me to contribute. I've already corrected the defective writing of many of your authors (like the one that reviewed my article proposal) already. I will never contribute until the above decision changes.

Michael John Strickland (not an anonymous coward like the user that reviewed my proposed article.)


Michael0658 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Michael0658 Good day. First of all there is a Wikipedia policy of civility, thus kindly refrain name calling such as "calling another editor "coward", for whether to use one's real name as the Wikipedia username is subjective to an editor's choice as long as the username meets Wikipedia Wikipedia:Username policy. I am one of the reviewers of AfC in Wikipedia and I share the same view with @Theroadislong: who reviewed your submission. The content is not an article but a declaration of your views / thoughts. Secondly, Wikipedia reconigses the original creators of the articles but anyone can edits any Wikipedia pages under Wikipedia's guidelines and no editors (including the original creator of the page) own any content of any articles in Wikipedia. Most editors are volunteer and if you do not want to contribute for whatever reasons, you are feel free to do so.
The requirements for a subject to be merited a page in Wikipedia main space if the subject is notable, the content is verifiable by multiple, independent, reliable sources. I do suggest you to read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and WP:Your First Article to familiar yourself on how to write an article in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected the draft because it was only a proposal, if you would care to create an actual draft with correctly sourced content, then I will happily accept it. Theroadislong (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

Request on 02:43:31, 4 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nicolonour


I'm trying to create an entry for Efficient Power Conversion Corporation, which is a world leader in energy efficiency, but am having trouble. This is the text I want to include which comes from Bloomberg.

"Efficient Power Conversion Corporation provides enhancement mode gallium nitride based power management devices ... The company was founded in 2007 and is based in El Segundo, California."

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=99399790

Nicolonour (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nicolonour. You may only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here. Moreover, text written for someplace else is rarely suitable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. You may use information from elsewhere, but must recast it in your own words and structure.
If you are considering taking another stab at writing an article about Efficient Power Conversion Corporation, I strongly advise against it. The company does not appear to be notable (it does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards). --Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:17:33, 4 April 2019 review of submission by 140Macpherson


Hi,

We have submitted new materials and would like a review or advice on how to make the article better. thank you.

140Macpherson (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@140Macpherson: Can you clarify who you are referring to when you say "we"? JTP (talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:59:15, 4 April 2019 review of draft by 2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F5:11BA:9DD3:4B6E


I posed a couple of questions to the declining editor at Draft talk:Harry Gideonse, but he never responded. I really don't understand what I pointed out.

I had similar issues at Draft talk:Francis Kilcoyne. There, the same editor seemed to be saying that names of people and institutions - unchanged - were copyright violations. 

2604:2000:E010:1100:B4F5:11BA:9DD3:4B6E (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To attract the attention of a specific editor to a discussion, you need to notify them in your post. See Help:Talk pages for an explanation. Names of people and institutions, particularly if long, can trigger false positive copyright warnings from automated tools, but they are not violations of copyright. If that was all that caused the editor to tag the draft for copyright investigation, then you should be able to persuade them through discussion that they were mistaken. Otherwise, you can wait for an administrator or copyright clerk to complete the investigation (I'm not sure what their backlog is right now, but it's often weeks or months). If there is no infringement the text will be restored. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:40, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Sonnenalle44


As I understand it, this page is being rejected based on the idea I am involved in one way or another with S.Crasneanscki. I have denied this on my page. Now, I'm not in a strong position to edit so perhaps an editor might see the significance of this page and edit it themselves to make it whatever they deem suitable for publication. All the information needed is there.

Sonnenalle44 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10:30:04, 4 April 2019 review of submission by PilotSuggs


I am asking for a review of this article as the person is notable in the media for his adventures and a list of accomplishments has been added, explaining the achievements further. (Apologies, this should have been added from the outset). I appreciate the time taken to re-review this.

Thanks

PilotSuggs (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:28:38, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Ricochet198

{{Lafc|username=Ricochet198|ts=11:28:38, 4 April 2019|page=

Ricochet198 (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:55, 4 April 2019 review of submission by HotSquash London


HotSquash London (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I am requiring assistance as my article has been rejected and I am unsure why, the reason is that it isn't suitable fir Wikipedia but why? I have seen many fashion limited companies listed on Wikipedia. Please let me know why our page has been rejected.

There are three main reasons the draft was rejected. It wasn't "notable", which in Wikipedia terms, means there weren't sufficient "in-depth, independent, reliable secondary sources" (Newspapers, books etc). As a company you'll need at least 3 or 4 high quality sources. Lots of poor quality sources is not equivalent to a few good ones.
The second is that it is promotional - we dislike people linked to a company writing it, because they are generally unable of doing so in the neutral way we require.
The third issue is that your username indicates more than one person editing - if usernames have to be individual - edit it to be something like "Cool Guy1 at HotSquash London" (beginning can be whatever you want).
As a side note, I suspect you are an employee of the company. If so, please say, as there are additional requirements you need to follow to avoid being blocked again.
However - it's not worth doing that until you've found enough good secondary sources to indicate you can support an article on the company. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:09, 4 April 2019 review of submission by Another irate man


I made a lot of new changes to my article. I added more sources and made the number more notable, in contrast to the earlier revision that only had one fact about the number. I don't know what I was thinking, but I got the help of User:StaringAtTheStars, and he helped find articles with the number 91,000,000 in them, and I now have 19 references. Another irate man (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:03:46, 4 April 2019 review of draft by Thedavidshow


I have a couple of questions. First of all I believe... even in the very first draft of this article that I've written, it met all of the notability requirements for a chain of shops. If you look up ANY chain of shops... all but the largest of them are lucky to have anything more than a notice in the local paper of when one or more of the stores opened. Take The Gadget Shop, for example. Two sources. One of them a rather questionable online source. But nobody should expect a five page article in the New York Times from a gadget store. Or this one: MicroWarehouse ONE source... repeated. And they're out of business. (So I doubt there will be future sources). Or Bally Shoe ... Again, I'm not knocking their notability, they are shops that either exist or have existed and someone thought enough of them to write articles about them.

I wanted to write about this chain or barbershops. I think I provided a dozen sources from the very beginning. Then I was drinking my tea one morning and noticed that Prince William of England visited the shop and so I added People Magazine, ABC News, and the Daily Mail to the list of sources. I've written a few articles over the years (on my old account from years ago that I no longer remember or have access to) so I'm well familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and practices.

I guess my question is: When is this article going to be approved? (It's been well beyond two months since it was submitted in January. And it absolutely meets and exceeds the notability requirement.)

Thedavidshow (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:09:08, 4 April 2019 review of draft by DondeEstaElBurro?


DondeEstaElBurro? (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth did you tell me that my article's topic (2019 Paris apartment fire) wasn't significant enough, when Wikipedia published someone else's 3 sentence stub (February 2019 Paris fire) ABOUT THE EXACT SAME FIRE!?

Hi Template:DondeEstaElBurro? good day. I have noticed you have added some content from your draft article into February 2019 Paris fire page and we thank you for that. Reviewer Legacypac declined the draft under Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT where by the subject "might not be notable" Additional development / aftermath /wider implications of the fire would secure the notability of the subject. Even the February 2019 Paris fire page / or any articles that are in Wikipedia main space, they would still be subjected to be nominated for "article for deletion" if editors think the notability of the articles are in questions. Do note articles in Wikipedia are always in "working in progress" status. I hope I have answered your question and thank you for your contribution. cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:35:49, 4 April 2019 review of draft by Ejpastor


Thank you for your guidance already! I am making this Wiki about a very notorious local artist and am working on expanding the references. I am sure he meets the criteria described in WP:NARTIST but proving it is another issue. I have reached out to arts festivals and fairs to find proof he won awards (he had, but it may not have been published somewhere). The Robert E. Wood Legacy Committee was formed immediately after his 2012 death, but information from the Committee is not considered a secondary source. Would newspaper articles about the Legacy Committee or Memorial exhibitions be considered as secondary sources to prove his notability? Thank you! Ejpastor (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Ejpastor (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Ejpasto Hi good day. We are after independent, reliable sources (secondary reliable sources) whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and in length. If the newspaper mention about Robert Wood with majority of the content in any article that would be sufficed. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 5:37 pm, Today (UTC+8)

April 5

01:35:34, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Jgcolcord


Looking for an update on the status of my article. There are no copyright issues. Anything quoted is now public domain. I am still fairly new to all of this, so I apologize if is this is not the place to inquire. I just don’t want this article deleted without cause, and I’m not sure where to turn. Jgcolcord (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jgcolcord good day. Reviewed and accepted. Pls note any copied prose should from public domain is still need be attributed. You could do a dummy edit and state in the edit summary and also stated in the article talk page. Pls see proper attribution pay for info and instructions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:14, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Ernesto Dionisio, Jr.


Ernesto Dionisio, Jr. (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:14:08, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Egmputu2


My submission name "CSS CORP" has been pending from more than two months. Please let me know how long it will take to get reviewed?

Egmputu2 (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:52, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Marinkovukovojac


I would like to publish this page even though the detail is not yet complete. The detail comes from a detailed review of 1000s of images of Austrian army records and will take years to complete. However, I would like to provide interested persons with the details I have discovered so far. The page was removed to draft as I was told there were not enough citations. The nature of the page is that the detail, in the vast majority, is from Austrian Army records that were imaged by www.familysearch.org and available online although none has been transcribed. I have made improvements and hopeful the page now meets the citation requirements. Please advise. Thank you

Marinkovukovojac (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marinkovukovojac Good day. Articles in Wikipedia do not need to be a "completed" in order to merit a page in Wikipedia main space as long as the subject is notable and the content claimed could be verified by multiple independent, reliable sources. To say that, your draft need to rework a bit for one the content need to be written in neurtral point of view, describe the content in a simple, direct, factual manner instead like "essay" style. Also pls provide inline citation on body text. Pls read WP:Your First Article and referencing to familiar yourself on how to write an article in Wikipedia and info and instructions on how to provide inline citation. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:09:37, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Chris7turner


Following further review and advice from @dodger67, removed all content except History section. Almost all sources referred to this section. Page now appears to be entirely factual and supported by a number of 3rd party, independent sources.

Chris7turner (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:17:30, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Hcs2019


Page has been updated with additional sources and citations to increase the notability of page. Hcs2019 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:53:54, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Hcs2019


I have removed some of the direct links and added in additional sources - how would you suggest this page could be improved? Hcs2019 (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:36, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Another irate man


I made a lot of new changes to my article. I added more sources and made the number more notable, in contrast to the earlier revision that only had one fact about the number. I don't know what I was thinking, but I got the help of User:StaringAtTheStars, and he helped find articles with the number 91,000,000 in them, and I now have 19 references.

Another irate man (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Another irate man. The topic is not notable. Continuing to push it may be seen as tendentious editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with you, Worldbruce, because I believe the number 91 million is an incredibly notable number, and it frequently pops up in numerous headlines, as listed in the article. I highly doubt you even looked at the article, as your response indicates through it's short length and unintelligent comparison to tendentious editing. I would highly recommend actually looking at my article and the changes that were made to it before you judge the notability of 91 million.
Another irate man (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The draft consists of random disconnected trivial facts about mentions of the number, nothing there suggests any notability. See this article 6000 (number) for an example of what is acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:36, 5 April 2019 review of submission by Potatowrite


Hi, I'm hoping to get some additional feedback and help on this article. I've cited newspapers, magazines, and other materials to show the relevance of this particular company, but I'd love to know what types of information would be seen as helping the case to create this article.

Potatowrite (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:33:23, 5 April 2019 review of draft by Hansjeet


we do have allot of newspaper articles which covered his hockey events/career not his personal life. However these newspaper articles do not include the source or the date. If we do no have this information does that mean we cannot publish? Hansjeet (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Who is "we"?
2) A valid citation is to a specific source. If you can't tell us what newspaper, what date, and what page, how can we check the reference? Random "clippings" which do not include this information cannot be verified, and thus cannot be used (especially in this era of Photoshop and other image-editing programs). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

05:13:43, 6 April 2019 review of submission by Deliriumone


Deliriumone (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 05:13:43, 6 April 2019 review of submission by Deliriumone hey i want to know why my page didn't get accepted?[reply]

Hi Deliriumone. The reason is explained in the big pink box on Draft:Delirium and the corresponding big yellow box on your talk page. In short, the topic is not notable (doesn't satisfy the the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia). As their career progresses, that may change. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:29, 6 April 2019 review of draft by Lily.rayyan


Lily.rayyan (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I need to know if the artocle is good? I need to complete it

Hi Lily.rayyan. The draft does not meet Wikipedia's needs. The posting on NASDAQ.com is a press release, which does not help demonstrate notability because it is not independent. The reliability of swedishstartupspace.com and venturemagazine.me is unclear, but the former is trivial coverage of a round of capital raising, which does not help demonstrate notability. Searches of about ten English and Arabic news sources in the region found only one more press release on alawaba.com and a brief mention in a list of startups in The Jordan Times. That degree of coverage is insufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:59, 6 April 2019 review of draft by Dylan Malyasov


Dylan Malyasov (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:50:55, 6 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Michael Owusu Ansah


Please i'm trying to get this person (Shatta Rako) Full Biography on Google so i needed to write them here.But unfortunately the content couldn't meet your requirement.Please helpme get his Biography here.


Michael Owusu Ansah (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no interest in getting people on Google, your draft is about a person who is not notable and is a copyright violation so has been tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:45, 6 April 2019 review of submission by Jessarchivetn

Hi, I recently took over the drafting of the Dylan Walshe page. I run a fan page of the artist & started to create this article. I have gone through many other artist entries & Walshe would have considerably more achievements & sourcing than a lot of lesser known artists I read about on there. The feedback I get from editors varies so much & just seems random at times. Was wondering if you could maybe take a look & advice me on how to complete it? Walshe has done several notable & major tours. Has released several records & has worked & recorded with some of the biggest names within his genres. Thank you

Jessarchivetn (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

07:17:37, 7 April 2019 review of submission by Charlie1276

Because it is only a short page containing nothing bad and he has really wanted a Wikipedia page so more people can find him.

Charlie1276 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:27:08, 7 April 2019 review of submission by Jakubdonovan


Jakubdonovan (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your company is not sufficiently notable yet. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:04:49, 7 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dylan Malyasov



Dylan Malyasov (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:36, 7 April 2019 review of draft by Arunudoy



I couldn't understand why the submission was declined as the reviewer 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."
The Draft was created all 'Third Party' sources, picking from scholar.google.com and journals, books.
The references were mentioned.
The Draft may be a "Stub" but can't be an ARTSPAM i.e. an advertisement. Couldn't understand the logic behind calling it as an 'advertisement'.


 20:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

22:38:08, 7 April 2019 review of submission by TundraGreen

I recently had a page rejected. But my question is not really about that particular page, but rather about the general criteria for accepting pages. I spend a lot of time looking at random articles in Wikipedia. A large fraction of the pages I hit are obscure (in my opinion) sports figures. The criteria for sports figures specify only that they played in at least one game in a major league of some sport. Meanwhile the criteria for academics has a list of potential criteria that restrict pages to only a few of the most outstanding academics. I will close this comment with a statement that clearly reveals my bias: I think Wikipedia, and our society in general, pays way too much attention to sports and entertainment figures in comparison to the attention we give to doctors, scientists, and others who are making a real contribution to the world. TundraGreen (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:55, 7 April 2019 review of draft by Vwang2014


How do you edit an infobox that has been submitted to Articles for creation? I want to insert a photo. Vwang2014 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=891436644"