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
Scsbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
236,267 edits
edited by robot: archiving April 7
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 668: Line 668:


= April 13 =
= April 13 =

== 14:53:44, 13 April 2019 review of submission by Krutika Samnani ==
{{Lafc|username=Krutika Samnani|ts=14:53:44, 13 April 2019|declined=Draft:Crave_Eatables}}

This time my draft was good enough with the article supporting content, then why did it got rejected?
[[User:Krutika Samnani|Krutika Samnani]] ([[User talk:Krutika Samnani|talk]]) 14:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:53, 13 April 2019

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


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]

Hi TundraGreen Good day. I could understand your sentiment and thoughts; however, for a sportsman to play in a major league is not small achievement as compare to millions of their peers who fails to get that recognition and that is same for scholars/academics. In Wikipedia the subject needs to be notable that has gained significant attention (sources) "by the world at large" and over a period of time to merit a page in Wikipedia. It is true that sportsperson and entertainers are the interested subjects in "mainstream" news as they are considered exciting/fascinating topics by most ppl, and in contrast many scholars and academics do not receive such attention by ppl to have any articles/sources to talk about them in general. We do accept articles of scholars/academics who do not meet the criteria if their work have been cited significance amount of times by others (info from google scholar citation) or their work has significant influence in their fields. Cheers and thank you for your contribution. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CASSIOPEIA Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand that Wikipedia reflects the world we live in, I don't particularly like some aspects of the world we live in, but I can see your point. TundraGreen (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TundraGreen I understand where you coming from for a person who loves rocks and numbers (a geophysicist and mathematician). Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CASSIOPEIA So a baseball player whose claim to fame is playing in four innings over two games (Frank Rosso) is more notable than a full professor with numerous published OpEd pieces, and leading role in the discussion of the affect of language on reception in the world. I hope you are having fun, I am. TundraGreen (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TundraGreen I think you have misunderstand my message above. I apologies for my short message and did not illustrate my point in details. It was not meant to be put down (I almost change my major to geology on sophomore year in college as I was fascinating with the subject) but agree with your sentiment and understand your position. Personally, I do wish to see more Wikipedia articles about academics/scholars. Hope this clear up the misunderstanding. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:52, 10 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]

Hi Vwang2014, Good day. First of all you need to make sure the image/photo you upload need to be adhere to Wikipedia:Image use policy and do read Wikipedia:Uploading images for info. Go to HERE to upload the image. See below the summarise version of the above. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. copyright - if the photo is not in the public domain, or under a free license such as GNU Free Documentation License or CC BY/BY-SA), fair use or Freely licensed, then the photo can NOT be allowed to uploaded to Wikipedia except if you are the copyright holder (the photographer) or photograph which you have taken of a image (statues/building/art) which is over 150 years old.
  2. image format - prefer npg or jpg format
  3. upload to Wikimedia - HERE
  4. release copyright for anyone to use the image - you need to declare to give non-exclusive license under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) for anyone to use your image (in the upload image "release right section" as per item 3 above.
  5. Once the upload is done, then insert the image naming on to the infobox image line item.

April 8

15:07:45, 8 April 2019 review of submission by Hcs2019



Hi, I would like a re-review - I have edited wording and added in several additional sources, would someobody be able to take a look? Thank you!

Hcs2019 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still reads like blatant advertising to me. Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:08:56, 8 April 2019 review of draft by CERWriter


CERWriter (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I submitted an article through the Sandbox and it was rejected because it appeared to be a "test edit" vs. actual article draft. The Wikipedia submission process is incredibly confusing to me. Will you kindly point me in the right direction as to where I can resubmit the article for consideration?

Your draft has no content apart from the words "Portacool, LLC" so there is nothing to consider yet? Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:27:14, 8 April 2019 review of draft by Huckfinne


I have started this article by cutting and pasting from Local_anesthetic#History and then added a lot of references from the peer reviewed medical literature. I don't know anything about the referenced websites. It is a very basic history, so certainly it may overlap with some websites. It is also possible the material I took from Local_anesthetic#History was previously copied from a website. Huckfinne (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Huckfinne (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

04:23:34, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Krutika Samnani

What necessary changes am I suppose to make in my article? Krutika Samnani (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:52:40, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Teemaction

Hi all, I submitted my draft a couple months ago and wanted to make sure I was patient with the review process but now that it's been put in the "Very Old" category I wanted to check in to see if there is anything I could do to help it along. Much appreciated!

—T–MACTION (TALK) 04:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teemaction. Look at the newspapers section of Wikipedia:Notability (media). Which, if any, of those criteria do you believe The Mugdown satisfies? --Worldbruce (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce— thanks for getting back with me and apologies if this is not the correct place to respond. Although the sourcing shows the publication to have been referenced in other reliable sources, I think the most likely criterion would be the final point for "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets." In my mind at least, being a well-established publication at the second-largest university in United States would classify it as "non-trivial," in the likes of peer publications such as The Michigan Every Three Weekly or The Zamboni. Thanks again for your time and assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teemaction (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Teemaction: If you want to argue that they're a significant publication in a non-trivial niche market, beef up the lead to convey that.
Understand, though, that criterion 5 is usually understood to mean a market whose views are underrepresented in mainstream media. Newspapers found notable under that criterion are typically those run by and for the Black community, the Latino community, the LGBT community, etc. A Bengali-language paper published in New York City or a Mennonite paper in Indiana would have a decent chance, but a satirical student paper will have an uphill battle.
Both of the peer publications you mention were nominated for deletion. The first was kept by a narrow margin (one editor recommended delete, two recommended keep) and using arguments that would be considered weak under today's standards. The second was kept only because participants couldn't agree on how to get rid of it (one editor recommended delete, four recommended redirect, but without consensus on where to redirect it to). If you can't persuade a reviewer that The Mugdown is notable, add a sentence about it to Texas A&M University#Media and create a redirect from The Mugdown to there. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:16, 9 April 2019 review of draft by Krutika Samnani


I can see a side box consisting of details of company. How can I make it? Also, I've given a draft for review, when will I get the revert? Krutika Samnani (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate question - responded below Nosebagbear (talk)

07:32:44, 9 April 2019 review of draft by Krutika Samnani


I have submitted an article for re-review, when will I get the revert? Krutika Samnani (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Krutika Samnani#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:13, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Liff182


Hello, I believe this article should be published. You have flagged it due to 'notability' criteria.

The basic criteria states:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

This is the case for John Roberts in this article.

He has had significant coverage in multiple published sources including:

The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/11/10/private-schools-now-taking-legal-insurance-teachers-amid-rise/ Schools Week: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/profile-john-roberts-chief-executive-edapt/ The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/hundreds-of-teachers-sign-up-for-no-strike-service-offering-alternative-to-trade-unions-9093603.html

Could you please clearly outline what needs to be done so it can be published? Thanks, Andrew

Liff182 (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Liff182#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your declaration. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:15, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Liff182


Hello, I believe this article should be published. It has been flagged due to 'notability' criteria.

It states, "An organisation is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

That is true of this Edapt article.

The organisation has had significant media coverage and meets all of the criteria which are sourced accurately in the article.

This includes news articles in national newspapers such as The Independent, The Telegraph and education sector publications such as Schools Week and LKMco.

Could you clearly outline what needs to be done so this article can be published?

Thanks, Andrew Liff182 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Liff182#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your declaration. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:32, 9 April 2019 review of draft by Krutika Samnani


I have given a draft to rereview, when will i get the revert? Krutika Samnani (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Krutika Samnani: - please stop making duplicate messages, they won't lead to a quicker response.
Currently we are awaiting a response to the question on your talk page with regard to paid editing disclosure. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:06:08, 9 April 2019 review of submission by WomenInPhys

The draft was rejected because of a "lack of reliable sources". However, all information given is taken directly from the pages referenced and can be found there (I just double checked). The sources should be reliable, as this information was taken directly from the online presence of the program and does not contain any subjective opinions about it, just facts given by the funding body itself. In fact, the (published) German wikipedia article has a very similar information content and references almost the same sources. The sources are non-English in parts, but according to the guidelines that should be allowed. Perhaps I am missing some finer detail, but in that case it would be nice to elaborate on the reason for this admittedly quite vague rejection. WomenInPhys (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:15, 9 April 2019 review of submission by WomenInPhys

Thank you for the comment on the draft in reply to my question above. The draft was rejected because the DFG was not a reliable source for an article about a program financed by the DFG. I would like to refer the reviewers to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz_Prize, which is a prize awarded by the DFG and an article supported by references exclusively coming from the DFG webpage. My point is, that while in general I certainly agree that it is not interesting what "they have said about themselves on their own website", the DFG as a government body is the most reliable source for knowledge about a government-funded program. For many similar programs, like the Fulbright Program or the Clarendon Scholarship, which are all published articles, the official body that provides the funding is indeed a reliable and in fact probably the only source available - just as it is here. I thus would argue that this rejection was perhaps a bit rash and not entirely in line with previous policy for such cases.

P.S.: I hope this is the right place for making this kind of argument, I don't know if I am supposed to leave comments on the article and/or if anyone reads those. WomenInPhys (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WomenInPhys. There are several flaws in the "article X exists, therefore my draft Y should be accepted" argument. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not static. What was okay thirteen years ago may not be okay today. Wikipedia's processes are not static. The Articles for Creation process you are participating in did not exist thirteen years ago. Articles are not static. The current version of an article may, because of misguided editing, no longer meet criteria that it once met. More generally, the existence of an article does not necessarily mean it has been "accepted" or is welcome. It could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why among experienced Wikipedians your argument will provoke only eye rolling.
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 German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa.
You write that "all information given is taken directly from the pages referenced and can be found there (I just double checked)." Please provide a quote from cited reference https://www.dfg.de/foerderung/programme/einzelfoerderung/emmy_noether/ that supports your assertion in the first sentence that the program was introduced in 1997. Please provide a quote from cited reference https://www.dfg.de/foerderung/programme/einzelfoerderung/emmy_noether/ that supports your statement in the second sentence that the program is named after German mathematician Emmy Noether (as opposed to some other Emmy Noether). The submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.
You write that "this information was taken directly from the online presence of the program and does not contain any subjective opinions about it". Examples of opinions in the draft are "the program aims to ..." and "the program is very competitive". Often a program's publicly stated aims are different from what a dispassionate observer would describe as their aims. Statement's like these must be attributed in-line, they may not be made in Wikipedia's voice.
An organization can be a reliable source about itself, but Wikipedia is not a mirror of their PR or communications department. Articles should be based mainly on independent secondary sources. Moreover, the fundamental criterion for including a topic in Wikipedia is whether they have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by independent reliable sources. Rewrite the draft using mainly several independent reliable sources, such as https://books.google.com/books?id=oGuADAAAQBAJ&pg=PA46. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:25, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Template:Royaler123


I believe I have added a lot of new information and have a lot of sources now that the first round of games has been completed.

Royaler123 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted The annual articles for this championship have historically been created in April or May with a similar degree of sourcing, and have not been taken to AfD. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:02:00, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Nallegood


This article is about a real sport created recently and is the only article about it. Nathaniel Tucker Allegood 18:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nallegood: Which is precisely why it is an inappropriate topic for Wikipedia, which aims to cover only subjects that have already attracted significant attention from the world at large. An encyclopedia is not the place to publish new information or "get the word out" about anything. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:23:27, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Marcsallis


Marcsallis (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:23:27, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Marcsallis



I have added the things that were requested - i.e. the company's website and other examples. I have also kept the language fact based with supporting sources. This is a simple entry for a record label that has been releasing music for the last decade and run by a substantial source, Dhani Harrison.

Please let me know what I can do to get this entry approved as it is a very simple entry I'm trying to do.

Thanks! Marcsallis (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcsallis. Even the simplest record label article should demonstrate notability (the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia). The sources cited by the draft come nowhere near showing that the label is notable. Examples of good sourcing include: Discipline Global Mobile, Key Sounds Label, and Mr. Lady Records. A draft need not be that long to be accepted, but it should cite a similar range and quality of sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:03:28, 9 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by CERWriter


Hello. My draft was just rejected on the grounds that it didn't have enough sources; however, a competitor company with the same number of sources has been published on Wikipedia. I'd like to understand your rules better. Will you kindly explain the difference? Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genie_Company

CERWriter (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC) CERWriter (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CERWriter: I can offer some clarification. I declined your draft as it failed to meet WP:NCORP criteria, which requires that subjects have accrued significant, in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited in your draft are reliable, but all four contain a significant amount of primary information (one is an outright interview), and two of the sources cited are standard business announcements/press releases; these latter types of sources do not constitute significant coverage (per NCORP), nor fulfill WP:CORPDEPTH. In short, the draft currently has cited only on reliable, quality source (the Dallasnews source [1]), and even this derives much of its content from an interview with a company founder. As for your citing of a competitor's article, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; if you feel that subject is not notable, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent The Genie Company to AFD. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:55:46, 9 April 2019 review of submission by Maccabean


Maccabean (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC) As widely noted, OrbitRemit is a major player in the digital remittance market: https://journalbitcoin.com/global-digital-remittance-market-size-share-and-forecast-2019-2026-moneygram-orbitremit-tng-wallet-transfergo/ The company is also referenced in the Deloitte FAST 500 listed in Wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Technology_Fast_500[reply]

If it's still not notable, please advise what I'm missing here.

Hi Maccabean. A company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources.
The points raised in your question do nothing to demonstrate notability. Being widely noted (i.e. mentioned) is not significant coverage (it is not in-depth). Being a major player is not coverage of any kind. Bitcoin Journal is not a reliable source. The Deloitte Technology Fast 500 awards are of dubious notability. That sort of award is usually regarded as insignificant. If the only coverage of an award is from the awarding organization and the recipient, that's a good indicator that it's trivial, meaningless fluff. Finally, Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source.
The draft is better than your question would suggest. It cites three articles from stuff.co.nz, which is a reliable source. If you want to improve the draft's chances, get rid of: press releases (SBWire); Deloitte and its award; interviews that are just the company in the company's words, without independent analysis (Lifehacker); and anything off-topic, which probably includes the last three sources about the CEO, although I haven't read the ones behind paywalls. If the stuff.co.nz articles are genuinely significant coverage, you should be able to cite them multiple times at different points in the draft.
Those actions may not be enough to convince a reviewer of notability, but perhaps you can find a couple more sources as good as stuff.co.nz. Or you can save a copy of the draft on your computer, and revisit the topic in a year or two. By that time more may have been written about the company. In the meanwhile, there are millions of other articles you could improve. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

07:24:53, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Nitin Singh PPP



Nitin Singh PPP (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant advertising. Not acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:33:47, 10 April 2019 review of submission by 140Macpherson


I have submitted new materials and would like a review or advice on how to make the article better. thank you. 140Macpherson (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 140Macpherson. Rejection is intended to convey that no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. Without taking any position on the changes made to the text since the rejection, adding press releases from sites like content-technology.com, proaudio-central.com, and tvtechnology.com makes the draft worse. Independent sources are needed. Perhaps there is significant coverage out there somewhere, maybe referring to the company under one of its other names, and probably in Italian, but like you and the draft's three reviewers, I haven't found it. I'm afraid the topic is a lost cause. Set it aside and edit something else; Wikipedia has millions of topics to choose from, most of which need improvement. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:28, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Vyas vatsal Template:Vyas vatsal


Hello Team,

Our company "AGS Transact Technologies Limited" had a Wikipedia page, which was blocked and removed by your team because of third party editing.

Due to which we drafted a new article for creation and submitted it to you guys for approval.

The draft was changed many a times as per your comments but somehow it is still not approved. According to us, the information that we provided is relevant and does not advertise/ promote our product.

Kindly help us in improving the quality of our article and approval process at earliest, as you know it is important for any company to have their digital presence on Wikipedia.

Thank you

Vyas vatsal (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vyas vatsal. AGS Transact Technologies has a long history of disruptive conflict of interest editing, but that is not why it was moved to Draft:AGS Transact Technologies. It was draftified because its sourcing is inadequate to demonstrate notability. The solution to the problem is not to create a blank-slate draft, Draft:AGS Transact Technologies Limited, but to improve the original Draft:AGS Transact Technologies.
Before you attempt that, declare your connection to the topic on your user page and the talk page of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:26:40, 10 April 2019 review of draft by MelissaGallery


Hi,

I am writing my first article and I would like to know how to change the title. The article is about "Rosie Sanders", a botanical artist, but the title of my article is currently "Rosanne Sanders". "Rosie" is her artist name. I would like to change the title "Rosanne Sanders" in "Rosie Sanders". Is it possible?

MelissaGallery (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelissaGallery If you would like to do it yourself, see Wikipedia:Moving a page for how to move the draft to a new name. Otherwise, a reviewer will determine the name if and when they accept the draft for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - MelissaGallery the draft is now at Draft:Rosie Sanders. SITH (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:14, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Rob-ALVB


Hi, I'm wondering how much longer it will take to have this article approved and live? I submitted it 54 days ago. Thank You! -Rob

Rob-ALVB (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current maximum review time is over two months. Please note that a review does not necessarily mean an accept. SITH (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:54, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Meathgaa


The article is no longer a blank slate. There are many included references of a reliable nature which both backs up and provides further details of the article. Meathgaa (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted per request. SITH (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:43, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Abhi garg98


i just want to add the info into the wikipedia .it is necessary and for welfare.i am donating to wikipedia in every form. atleast i need to publish a page only. that's why, i need to re-review and publish it Thank you! Abhi garg98 (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

14:33:28, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Beejeoma


Hi, I would like to know why the article I published was not approved. This will guide me in future contributions. Beejeoma (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:45, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Mehroofkm


Mehroofkm (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehroofkm, both User:Mehroofkm/sandbox and Draft:Smitam are simple, promotional copyright-violations of https://www.smitam.org/about Sam Sailor 17:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:32:28, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Srahul353


Srahul353 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srahul353, the draft was rejected earlier today by reviewer StraussInTheHouse, whose assessment I agree with. Sam Sailor 17:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Srahul353, the problem is the draft is a one-line description: a name, nationality and occupation. It was followed up by content, but it was functionally unreferenced (IMDb is not considered a reliable source). If you want to resubmit, you need to flesh out the content and show Babu has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Thanks, SITH (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:42, 10 April 2019 review of draft by Sethmains


Hi. I am new to Wikipedia, so there is a lot that is new to me. I submitted a draft of an article on Ely Playter that was sent back for revision. Most notably, there were questions about my sources. I was hoping to receive some advice on how to cite historic sources (old newspapers, archival material, etc.) for which there is no web address. Is that possible to do in Wikipedia? One of the sources I used was Findagrave.com, which I know is questionable, however, it provided an image of Playter's gravestone which verifies his birth and death dates as well as evidence of his wife.

I also added a number of links to archival collections related to Wikipedia subjects. Some were deleted as "vandalism" while other weren't. I was just curious to learn how this could be construed as vandalism.

Thanks.

Sethmains (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sethmains, Welcome to AfC help desk. Sources could not obtain from web, such as from printed books or journals, could be used. see What information to include|type of sources and their associated templates. Here is free Google Newspaper Archive which is a searchable database of old newspapers. Once you find the article you need, copy/paste URL. Citation Tool for Google Books - Search database at https://books.google.com with desired keyword(s). Once you find a page containing what you need, copy and paste page URL into the Citation Tool, and it will instantly generate a ref you can add directly to Wikipedia. Also do note sources can be any languages. Only sources are independent, independent can be used to demostrate/contribute to the notability of the subject. see WP:Your First Article and WP:GOLDENRULE for additional information. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sethmains. Thank you for your submission. It's refreshing to see a notable topic.
  • Unlike academic writing, which encourages citing primary sources, articles written for Wikipedia should cite mainly secondary sources, see WP:PSTS.
  • If you need to cite a newspaper article for which there is no url, the markup is almost the same as when there is a url. The main difference is simply that there is no |url= in the cite template. The citation of journal The York Pioneer in the draft is a good example of citing an offline source. If possible, identify the page of the source on which the information appears, using the |page= parameter. For offline sources it's a good idea to use the |quote= parameter as well. For example:
"Tempest in a Teapot". Daily Evening Tribune. Oakland, California. December 16, 1874. p. 2. Mr. E. W. [Ely Welding] Playter is Chairman of the Committee on Finance. His private business is transacted in San Francisco; his political affairs, like that of the average Oaklander, are entirely confied to this side of the bay. Such a little old dried up rooster would not likely get much of a showing in metropolitan public concerns ... The importance of this business demands a separate paragraph. Notwithstanding our space is every day being more needed and valuable for general purposes, we will be liberal with out friend Mr. Playter on this occasion. Hence we stand him out alone this way. He might get lost to the reader otherwise ... The States east of the Rocky Mountains are cursed with a weed introduced from Canada. It is a species of thisle and is an obstinate, useless and injurious institution. Here in Oakland we don't have any thistles to speak of, but we have Playter, also introduced from Canada. If the reproductive powers of Playter should prove as prolific as those of the thisle we shall soon be compelled, in imitation of our eastern brethren, to invoke legislative aid to eradicate the nuisance.
  • The cite templates may not be as good a fit if you need to cite a primary source document in an archive. You may use freeform text. Give the reader everything they would need in order to retrieve the source. That might be the archive, the collection, the box, the folder, and a brief description of the item.
  • It would be better to cite the Niagara Falls Gazette directly rather than citing the transcription by Find a Grave, but only eight WorldCat libraries hold the microfilm for that year, so it will be difficult to get, even through WP:RX.
  • In the case of Melvin Ormond Hammond and Henry Smith (Canadian politician), the fact that you were a new editor adding links to multiple articles in fairly quick succession may have triggered a "shoot first and ask questions later" response. You are handling the matter correctly by discussing it with the editor who reverted you. You should be able to convince them that the proposed links are acceptable under criterion #3 of WP:ELYES. If not, or if you get no response from them, then on the talk pages of the two articles propose the addition of the links.
  • If you can determine the relationship between Ely Playter (1776-1858) and Mayor of Oakland Ely Welding Playter (1819-1893), that would make an interesting addition to the draft.
--Worldbruce (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your feedback regarding my article on Ely Playter. I will keep working on it. I did make the connection at the time, but apparently, Ely Welding Playter is Ely's son. I'll just have to see how to source that information: https://localwiki.org/oakland/Ely_W._Playter

Sethmains (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:46, 10 April 2019 review of draft by Janinedigi


Janinedigi (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can you please help


I hope you are well and you can help. I have two very large changes to make to my Wiki site - or to add.

I have been named a 2019 Guggenheim Fellow (Non Fiction) announced today on Page A5 of the New York Times (I can also send the letter that told me I have received one) https://www.gf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-York-Times-Ad-2019.pdf


and I am currently also a Senior Fellow at Yale University Jackson Institute for Global Affairs http://jackson.yale.edu/person/janine-di-giovanni/

and a 2018 Edward R. Murrow Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations


Please can you add these? My page is locked so I can not do it

Thank you so much Janine di Giovanni

18:07:07, 10 April 2019 review of submission by 174.22.179.39


174.22.179.39 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a list of ski tricks.

18:26:15, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Johlippy


Blue Circle Foods should be park of Wikipedia, because it is a notable company and one of the market leader for sustainable seafood products in the US. It has been mentioned on trustworthy third party information providers for its efforts to improve seafood and protect it for upcoming generations. Moreover, the Blue Circle Foods' products can be purchased in man different grocery stores all over the United States. Furthermore, one of the co-founders is the famous Austrian chef Nora Poullion. Johlippy (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johlippy: No, the reviewers of the draft are correct. At this time the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:22, 10 April 2019 review of draft by Brandonsmt


Hi, Wikipedia, I have writen my first contribution. I have requested a Review buut it could take more than two moths. Ias there a way to do it all faster? I i make a donation will it be published? Brandonsmt (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was deleted for unambiguous promotional ism. As a note, asking is generally unlikely to speed things up (if everyone did it, we'd be back where we started). Making a donation will having, at best, no effect on whether it goes quicker or is accepted. Openly offering it like this risks being viewed as an ineffective bribe, and may actually hinder your efforts. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:09, 10 April 2019 review of submission by RainbowSilver2ndBackup


I've fix this with links. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RainbowSilver2ndBackup pls add another column for references and provide inline citation. Once you have done that pls pop back here and we will review it. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:13:56, 10 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ina0124


I want to make a page on Green Run Collegiate which doesn't exist yet, although it is mentioned in Regular Green Runs Wikipedia Page. Also they have the same address because they are located in the same building but are two separate schools. When I submitted for review they said that it already exists but a seperat page for Collegiate does not, what should I do to get it published?

Ina0124 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ina0124 Hi there are two schools with the name associated with Green Run in Wikipedia. There are Green Run High School and Green Run Collegiate. The Draft:Green Run Collegiate has been redirect to Green Run Collegiate. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Re review

22:05:01, 10 April 2019 review of submission by Rumbidzainokutenda


I have re-researched about my article and i have added some references to the article.Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


April 11

00:32:41, 11 April 2019 review of draft by LikeLizzyBiz


LikeLizzyBiz (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LikeLizzyBiz: - please take on what was said in the comments on the draft. Wikipedia requires high quality secondary sources - which rules out youtube and instagram. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:40:11, 11 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Geapsu


The article that was written for Steven Benjamin Damelin had all sources verified. I and my colleagues are not sure we understand what the reviewer is asking for. Steven Benjamin Damelin is a well known highly cited academic and we followed 100's of articles on other academics (including my own---George Andrews). His research papers are valid, published. His awards are real. His degrees are real. We would very much appreciate it if you edit this article so that it is accepted. We do not understand the request re codes and correctly formatted references---We need help. The referee states that he requires more evidence for Damelin---given who he is, we request your help to edit the article for us so it is ok to be published.

Thank you very much. Geapsu (talk)

Geapsu (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geapsu - It is not necessary to post requests for review in three places, or to create multiple copies of the draft that you want reviewed. Posting to the top of my user talk page and the top of the Teahouse is likely to be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you do not understand the request about removing the codes. That is because another editor tidied up the first version of your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:06:02, 11 April 2019 review of submission by Romejanic

Hello!

I would like to ask how I could improve my references and what is meant by 'independant to the source', as there aren't many resources or references which are secondary to the subject themself.

Thank you, Romejanic

Romejanic (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romejanic Hi, The info could be found on the grey panel on top page and just click on the blue highlited text and it will bring you to another page which the topic is stated in details. In brief, Independent source means the sources is independent from the subject (ThinMatrix) or in another word the sources have NO association/affiliation with the subject. We need sources that are independent, reliable sources (secondary reliable sources) Sources from IMBD, Linkin, facebook, official web site, home page, interviews, press release, user generated sites, marketing articles associated with the subjects and etc. are considered NOT independent and or NOT reliable. Sources are considered good to use. If no multiple secondary sources could be found where by the sources talks about the subject in length and in depth, then the subject would not be merit a page in Wikipeia (Not notable). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:40, 11 April 2019 review of submission by Scharrlib


Hi

I have made changes as requested and hopefully the page is OK now - please advise me of any other changes that are needed. Apologies this is my first page and I'm still learning, so am requesting another review and then hopefully publish. Thanks Andy

Scharrlib (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scharrlib. With the exception of medical schools (e.g. Sheffield Medical School) and law schools, subdivisions of universities such as faculties, schools, and departments are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. You may add a couple of non-promotional sentences about ScHARR to University of Sheffield#Faculties and departments, but there is essentially zero chance of an entire article on ScHARR being accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:52:17, 11 April 2019 review of draft by David Almond 1968


Hi, I cannot understand why my article is not being accepted - I have submitted a myriad of reliable and independent sources, both current and historical. I have spent almost 10 hours on this article. Please could you review and provide actual details on why it's being constantly turned down rather than simply redirecting me to the reliable sources page. I have read this many times and believe I have fulfilled these criteria. Many thanks --David Almond 1968 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Almond 1968 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:08, 11 April 2019 review of draft by Ankersmit1


User STRAUSSINTHEHOUSE has declined my submission based on the criticism that "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". Which sources does he mean? The scientific papers quoted are all of my autorship and of my work group. Does he mean that the scientific papers are not cited correctly? Or does he miss sources for other facts stated in the article? STRAUSSINTHEHOUSES' criticism is not detailed enough so that I could know where to start to improve my article. Please support.

Ankersmit1 (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankersmit1: the declining editor has left a response at User_talk:StraussInTheHouse#Draft_Hendrik_Jan_Leonard_Ankersmit. Essentially, in-line citations are needed on part of the declined draft. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:08, 11 April 2019 review of draft by Thedavidshow


Been waiting on a re-review of this article since January. It has been updated with all new reliable sources and is better-sourced than many of the retail stores or retail chain articles listed in Wikipedia. Have had a LOT of coaching and spoken to a lot of editors on this article and I believe it to easily pass the notability guideline and it deserves a place on Wikipedia. (Among many other things Price William of England visited the shop and this was covered extensively in the international press.)

Thedavidshow (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:47, 11 April 2019 review of draft by InvalidOS


I would like to:

  1. Know if the subject is worthy of an article.
  2. Try and get this article to not be start-class or higher upon creation.

InvalidOStalk 14:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@InvalidOS: hello. As far as the notability of Creepers are concerned, it is difficult to say; for the most part, characters and other affiliated symbols are not judged to be independently notable from the their parent property, and as such are not given standalone articles. Creepers are popular, and so you may find enough sources to indicate that they are notable enough to make an article separate from Minecraft, but note this will be an uphill battle. I recommend you continue to add to your draft (focus on sources attesting to the cultural importance of creepers), or if you are feeling confident you could try to expand Creeper (Minecraft). Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:50, 11 April 2019 review of submission by AsraSohail

I added a new topic named Shorkie Tzu. It is declined 3 times. I added relevant and confirmed information. There is no doubt in the reliability of the information. I also added a reference at the end so that you can verify. So what's the point in rejecting it all the time? AsraSohail (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AsraSohail: The draft has been rejected because http://shihtzumix.com/shorkie/ does not have the characteristics of a reliable source. You may ask for further guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:29, 11 April 2019 review of submission by Haimantirakshitdas

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9NocVRerh5mjtDVmMYQk3Q

Haimantirakshitdas (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:38, 11 April 2019 review of draft by Kimberlypgordon


HI -- I was asked by Prof. Jason Lewis to help him create his wikipedia page and it was flagged for copyright-- much of the content was lists of awards and a bibliography of his publications-- I am unsure of how to represent that any differently. I have rewritten his bio but still-- if we go chronologically, then it is difficult to not have similarities. Can you give me some guidance? Thank you so much!! Kim Kimberlypgordon (talk)

Kimberlypgordon (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:00:55, 11 April 2019 review of draft by AlpinistG


I'm still expanding this article with appropriate literature and references, but can anyone review this (and, if everything looks okay till now, approve) before I proceed to add more information? Thank you.

AlpinistG (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlpinistG. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. At the current rate you can expect feedback within 2-3 months. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:12, 11 April 2019 review of submission by Cb912


Hello! I am requesting a re-review because I have updated the draft to include a recent interview published by the Huffington Post, as well as updating some of the BroadwayWorld articles to information found in Playbill articles. A previous reviewer felt that BroadwayWorld articles did not count as RS.

Thank you!


Cb912 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

07:12:36, 12 April 2019 review of submission by Mjdiamzon


I've inserted references from notable sources. TRG is very known in the Hospitality Industry. They worked with Hilton Group, Best Western and other big hotel groups globally for over 2 decades now. Mjdiamzon (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:40:49, 12 April 2019 review of submission by Chinics


All the contents is factual and has no propaganda. All the content is verifiable. Could you please indicate which content violates copyrights. Chinics (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:55:22, 12 April 2019 review of submission by Chinics


Redacted section has been removed.

Chinics (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:08:58, 12 April 2019 review of submission by Ed Emery 2015



The person is eminently suitable for a Wiki page. He is a very important historical and cultural figure

The problem is that the only sources available are sources in the Kurdish-Sorani language - a language which I do not read or understand.

That is the reason why the article needs to be posted in its present form, so that we can then build on it.

The other problem is that the verification data for the singer's activities is contained in the many YouTube clips of his performances.

But Wikipedia does not permit me to include YouTube clips.

In short... what do you suggest is the best way to proceed?


Ed Emery 2015 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed Emery 2015. If the only sources are in Central Kurdish, then leave the topic to someone who can read the language. There is no deadline. There are millions of ways you could help the encyclopedia without reading that language. See Wikipedia:Community portal for places to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:16, 12 April 2019 review of draft by Krutika Samnani


I have submitted an article. Please review it and accept it and yes I have made all the changes I was suppose to do. Krutika Samnani (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Krutika Samnani: hello. Unfortunatly, I have reviewed your draft at Crave Eatables and decided to decline the draft as failing to meet WP:NCORP. Please note that to be included on Wikipedia, company articles must cite sufficient coverage in reliable, in-depth, independent sources; only one of your draft's four sources comes close to meeting this category, as noted by past reviewers. You can continue to try to improve the draft (try to find more sources like [2]), but note that if it is declined again, it will probably be rejected. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:39, 12 April 2019 review of submission by Sonnenalle44


I want to publish a page about an artist. Please can someone help me make it 'suitable' - so far I have had it rejected being too listy, and another editor unfortunately believes me to be involved with the subject. Any help very much appreciated.


Sonnenalle44 (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:59:40, 12 April 2019 review of submission by Chinics


I read that the article is rejected as it has been deemed contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. Could you please indicate the sections that need amendment in order to bring the article into conformity. Chinics (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:02, 12 April 2019 review of draft by SD1014


Hi there, I have been waiting for a couple of months for a reviewer to provide some guidance as the previous reviewer is on the fence about notability though he notes the submission passes other checks. I believe I have provided enough third-party sources to demonstrate notability (e.g., BBC, Psychology Today, Fortune, Financial Times, etc.), especially as there are others who have pages with far fewer news sources (e.g., Jeffrey_Pfeffer). Any guidance is immensely appreciated as I have done my best to be diligent with the writing and submission, as I have in the past when creating a submission for Alexandre Reza. Thank you so much! PS: I just realized one of my citations did not post correctly, so I will update that now on the submission. Many thanks in advance! SD1014 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

14:53:44, 13 April 2019 review of submission by Krutika Samnani


This time my draft was good enough with the article supporting content, then why did it got rejected? Krutika Samnani (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=892295277"