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
Nealuigi (talk | contribs)
35 edits
No edit summary
Line 824: Line 824:


[[Special:Contributions/63.139.228.146|63.139.228.146]] ([[User talk:63.139.228.146|talk]]) 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/63.139.228.146|63.139.228.146]] ([[User talk:63.139.228.146|talk]]) 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

== 20:28:06, 21 June 2019 review of draft by Nealuigi ==
{{Lafc|username=Nealuigi|ts=20:28:06, 21 June 2019|draft=Draft:Patrick_Bet-David}}


[[User:Nealuigi|Nealuigi]] ([[User talk:Nealuigi|talk]]) 20:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am following up to see if someone can help me to identify which specific sources are deemed unreliable in my new article submission. Thank you in advance!

Revision as of 20:28, 21 June 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


June 15

Request on 01:21:18, 15 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by BDubbs21


I don't understand why my submission was rejected.BDubbs21 (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BDubbs21 (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BDubbs21 Wikipedia may not be used to publicize or promote anything. Its articles cover only topics that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. In other words, not a band formed in the last few years, that is releasing their first album this year. See WP:BAND for ways to demonstrate that a band is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Independent, reliable, secondary sources must be cited to demonstrate that the group meets the criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:49:45, 15 June 2019 review of draft by Nealuigi


Hi, I am wondering if someone can help me to determine which sources are considered unreliable for my new article. Thank you in advance! Draft link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Patrick_Bet-David.

Nealuigi (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:51:54, 15 June 2019 review of draft by ElizabethPBallou

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hey, checking in on a question I submitted a while ago. Here's the original text:

I wrote a first draft of this article, and it got rejected for not having enough notable sources/linking to the NYVGCC's website as a source. Since then, I've reworked the page to have higher-quality sources. I've also deleted any facts that couldn't be independently verified in a source other than the nonprofit's website.

My question now is: should I do anything else before I resubmit? Am I making other big mistakes that I don't know about?

Thanks so much for any help you can give!

ElizabethPBallou (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElizabethPBallou. No one replied when you asked the same question on 7 June. This help desk is not a shortcut through the reviewing process. To have the draft evaluated and receive any relevant feedback, resubmit the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:09:23, 15 June 2019 review of submission by Farhad.klp

How can I improve the references for this submission to show proper notability of the company, if we assume the company has the notability? Farhad.klp (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad.klp Who are "we" you refereed to above? CASSIOPEIA(talk)

08:43:07, 15 June 2019 review of submission by Seanjudelyons


I' jut like to learn how to publish a wiki article. And Russell is a notable figure, there is plenty off proof online but since he is from a small town, nobody is giving him adequate attention. The reference attached should be sufficient, he was the first anglo indian representative of the state which is a huge deal for our community. We are anglo-indian's and I think him having a wiki page would do our community well. Seanjudelyons (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:07, 15 June 2019 review of submission by Seanjudelyons



08:54:51, 15 June 2019 review of submission by Seanjudelyons


~Hi Russell is a valued member of the anglo Indian community. He was the first anglo Indian member to become a member of the legislative assembly of the state. It would make our community happy if he had a wiki pageSeanjudelyons (talk)

Accepted We're shooting ourselves in the foot, backlog-wise, when we twice decline, then reject, an appointed member of a legislative assembly that just needed a better source. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:27:42, 15 June 2019 review of submission by Oscar135789


I am requesting a re-review as it was rejected, I have now added a couple more references as requested. Oscar135789 (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oscar135789. A press release and a photo caption from before filming began do nothing to establish notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia). Wait until the film is released, then revisit the subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:24:53, 15 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jameschamoun


The reason why my article was denied was because it doesn't meet notability criteria. I kept the article short and brief so that other content can be added later on, i have mentioned at least 7 or 8 very reliable sources which include Top magazine names as well as tv channels. I do not understand why it would not meet the notability criteria.

Jameschamoun (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jameschamoun. "Mentioning" magazine names and TV channels does nothing to establish notability. The author, title, date, url, and page number (or whatever bibliographic information is applicable to the source) must be cited, see Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do so. Primary source interviews in which he talks about himself without independent analysis by the interviewer do nothing to demonstrate notability. Be aware that in Wikipedia's current business-skeptical climate, there is almost zero chance of a "young entrepreneur", "best known" for incorporating a company this year, being judged notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:05:50, 15 June 2019 review of submission by Blairshwach


Hi There - Requesting a re-review as I updated my coverage so I have all primary sources.

Please let me know if there are other updates needed.

Thank you, Blair

Blairshwach (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blairshwach. Reread the reviewer's comment. Primary sources are the wrong kind of sources. You want secondary sources, sources like the Chicago Tribune or The Washington Post. Furthermore, only independent sources can establish notability, so not his firm's website and not press releases from his firm. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:36, 15 June 2019 review of submission by Baecien


I feel the wiki page was wrongfully denied and I need a more descriptive reason for the rejection. The "so-called" blatant advertisement has also since been removed. Baecien (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

03:36:46, 16 June 2019 review of draft by Geoffmalc


At 86 years old, I have been urged to create this page before it is too late and family knowledge of references is lost I have spent many hours trying to comply with your +requirements, re-formatting to keep it simple. I need to know what the continued problem is. The components of my draft are all verifiable. I hope my latest version, with appropriate reference numbers, is the one being scrutinised , not the early versions.. Geoffmalc (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographies are strongly discouraged and your draft has no evidence that you are notable enough in Wikipedia terms, for an article I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message at your user talk, Geoffmalc. --valereee (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:51:17, 16 June 2019 review of submission by 1brianrichardsmith


Hello, I would like a review. I think it's deserved to be on Wikipedia. Thank you. 1brianrichardsmith (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @1brianrichardsmith: Please take a look at our notability guidelines. Articles on Wikipedia need to be on subjects that have gained significant attention in reliable, independent sources. Examples of sources would be books, news articles, interviews by the media, etc. At this time that doesn't look to be the case for Brian Smith. If I can clarify anything about our notability guidelines, please let me know. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:07:49, 16 June 2019 review of draft by Kyle Riebe


Kyle Riebe (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Riebe: - this draft both lacked any sources, and also reads as an essay - not a neutral encyclopedic article Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:11, 16 June 2019 review of draft by Falconite007


Help regarding citing same reference multiple times. How do I do it?

Falconite007 (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Falconite007: - excellent question.
If you're editing using the wiki-editor (you write in a box and there are some {{}}) then Ref Beginners "Using the same ref more than once" does a reasonable job at explaining
If you're using the Visual Editor (it looks more like word when you edit, with no {{}} anywhere), then Visual Editor - reusing refs is the place to go.
Good hunting! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:28, 16 June 2019 review of submission by 2600:1009:B060:14F8:8DCE:FD92:E9FD:8EEF


CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CONTACT ME BACK WITH ASSISTANCE?? i HAVE RESUBMITTED THIS ARTICLE THREE TIMES AND IT STILL ISN'T BEING APPROVED. WHAT EXACTLY DO I HAVE TO DO TO CHANGE IT TO BE APPROVED? DO I HAVE TO CHANGE THE TONE? DO I NEED TO FIX ANY CITATIONS? CAN I TALK TO A HUMAN BEING?? PLEASE?

THIS ARTICLE IS ONLY PER A CELEBRITY CHEF THAT WANTS TO HAVE AN ONLINE SOURCE FOR HIS ACHIEVEMENTS AND RECOGNITION. I AM REQUESTING STEP BY STEP DIRECTION ON HOW TO DO THIS AND MAKE IT APPROPRIATE TO BE APPROVED.

SOMEONE PLEASE GET BACK TO ME ON THIS!!

2600:1009:B060:14F8:8DCE:FD92:E9FD:8EEF (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to SHOUT. The first 9 sources do not even mention Boccuzzi, all content needs to be supported by a source that confirms the content. Theroadislong (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:02, 16 June 2019 review of submission by Lawagstaff2


Lawagstaff2 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a notable person Devokewater (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:24, 16 June 2019 review of submission by Falconite007


I have already submitted a draft (written in sandbox) which is pending review. Can I submit another draft now? When I go to my sandbox, I see the contents of the previous draft. I'm afraid if I clear the sandbox, the submitted draft ill get deleted.

Falconite007 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Falconite007 Greetings. I have moved the page to Draft space - see here Draft:Supernode Proof of Stake. Pls remove all external links from the content of the draft. Your sand box is cleared now and do use Wikipedia: Article Wizard to create your new draft. Do use the "horizontal" template for inline citation for web sources - see Template:Cite Web. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:01:06, 16 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mbstet21


I don't know why my Draft cannot be submitted and published. I've had an account for almost two months and have made more than 10 edits to the Jacob Hornberger article I am trying to publish. Thanks for your help.

Mbstet21 (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:46:55, 16 June 2019 review of draft by RecordAR


Hello. Thank you for your assistance. I would like to revise this entry so that it is approved. This article is intended as an informational resource, not advertising or advocacy. CredibleMeds aims to inform consumers about potentially fatal drug interactions.

1. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S. CredibleMeds is a free resource that provides information about the potential for certain drug interactions to cause cardiac arrest and aims to reduce drug-induced heart failure. Is this too unbalanced as a Wikipedia article? Perhaps too specific by highlighting Torsades de pointes?

2. We used primarily scientific sources as our references. Would these sources help support the article's legitimacy? http://qtinformatics.com/crediblemeds/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272941081_CredibleMeds_Independent_information_on_medicines https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/treatments/pharmacological/non-opioids/qt-intervals-antidepressants https://holisticprimarycare.net/topics/topics-h-n/holistech/1837-crediblemeds-new-private-public-collaboration-aims-to-reduce-inappropriate-antibiotic-use.html https://cpd.pharmacy.ubc.ca/sites/cpd.pharmacy.ubc.ca/files/uploads/Update_2016/DLi_WS4_Drug_Interact/CredibleMeds%20Filtered%20QTDrug%20List%20Feb%2021%2C%202016.pdf (Univ of British Columbia) https://www.sads.org/living-with-sads/Drugs-to-Avoid#.XQZzNY97nIU

3. Would it be better to combine this listing with its host? AZCERT maintains this resource. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arizona_Center_for_Education_and_Research_on_Therapeutics? AZCERT

Again, thank you for your assistance.

RecordAR (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)RecordAR[reply]

RecordAR (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RecordAR. 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) 06:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Worldbruce. I am the only user contributing to my account. However, my colleagues helped me to collect the reference material that I cited in the article (thus the "we"). RecordAR (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)RecordAR[reply]

20:19:06, 16 June 2019 review of draft by JAP321


JAP321 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need to ask how could I add pictures to the articlesJAP321 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JAP321 Greetings. The copyrighted party of image needs to be irrevocably agreed to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License before the image could be use in Wikipedia. See here for info at Wikipedia:Uploading images and you could upload the image at [Upload Wizard]. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

05:29:12, 17 June 2019 review of draft by Rishikesan T


Rishikesan T (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Hi,[reply]

My wiki article got rejected with the reason 'do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject'. But the 4 references I have listed are all independent sources and carry necessary information about the subject. The first reference is from an article in Tugboat which is a journal published by TeX users group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUGboat). The second is another article that has been published in https://www.linuxtoday.com/. The third reference is a detailed interview of the subject that has been featured in January 2008 issue of TUG India by the TeX users group. (TeX users group is a community that is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX). The fourth is again an article from tug.org that has been retrieved from the internet archive. Based on these references, the article that has been submitted is true to the facts. So, I need some clarification on whether it is the way the references has been included that has resulted in the rejection. Considering the case, I request you to kindly look into the matter and provide your recommendations so that I can get my article published at the earliest.Rishikesan T (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rishikesan T. The third source (TUGindia) lacks independence and is not secondary. It is a primary source interview in which Radhakrishnan talks about Radhakrishnan, with almost no independent analysis by the interviewer. It could be used as a source, but cannot be used to establish notability.
The other three are short on significant coverage. The first establishes only that Radhakrishnan is the founding secretary of TUGIndia, the second that he is the founder of FreeDevelopers-India, and the third that he is of River Valley Technologies. These are the sort of passing mentions that exist for innumerable people. They do not demonstrate that he is remarkable, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be an encyclopedia subject. Wikipedia aims to include biographies of people closer in noteworthiness to the likes of Jagadish Chandra Bose, Narendra Modi, R. K. Narayan, or Sam Manekshaw. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written about CV Radhakrishnan. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:24:30, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Swampcygnet


Keeps getting rejected due to lack of secondary sources, but how many do you need? The The Youth are published in a few sources that I have already listed. How many more do I need to list?

Swampcygnet (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swampcygnet. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three sources, but each one has to tick all the boxes across - significant coverage, independent, reliable, and secondary - or it doesn't count.
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Sounds of the Universe Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN An EP listing on a music sales site
Dummy Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Mostly a primary source interview where a participant talks about themselves, although there is one paragraph by the interviewer covering TTY
PRS for Music Foundation Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN A capsule history written by TTY
Clash Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Doesn't mention TTY
NTS Red XN Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Possibly some deep link contains significant coverage about TTY, but it appears to be just music by TTY
Worldwide FM Green tickY Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Primary source interview in which TTY members talk about TTY
Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
With only one album released on a notable label, it is likely WP:TOOSOON for TTY to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:06:30, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Elysium.Nguyen.aus


Hi I was wondering why my article got declined?

Elysium.Nguyen.aus (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Elysium.Nguyen.aus#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:31:11, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Gdams1


Hi there, Draft:AdoptOpenJDK was recently rejected for not being notable enough. I've spoken to @K.e.coffman who has suggested that I get a second opinion.

The project is backed by several notable companies including; IBM, Microsoft, GoDaddy and Pivotal (See https://adoptopenjdk.net/sponsors.html for the full list). AdoptOpenJDK is also referenced in several other Wikipedia articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=adoptopenjdk&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1). Thanks for taking the time to read this and please do let me know if there is any improvements I can make to the article to rectify the problem.

Gdams1 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gdams1. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics, ones that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as demonstrated by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A topic is more likely to be suitable if it "became" something rather than is "rapidly becoming" something. Notability is not inherited from the backers of the initiative. Nor does notability derive from being mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia.
The way to convince reviewers that the initiative is notable is to cite three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of it. A common mistake novice editors make is to rely on sources that lack independence, such as primary sources where people involved in the initiative talk about it, or sponsors of the initiative, or trade publications (which have a limited audience and an often too-cozy relationship with entities in the industry they cover).
Books written by people not connected to the initiative would make good sources if they contained at least a page or two about it, especially if published by an academic press. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources discusses the reliability of some other sources you may be familiar with, and may help you understand what factors into whether a source is reliable for a particular purpose or not. It contains links to relevant policies and guidelines, and the reliable sources noticeboard, where discussions of many more sources are archived. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:52, 17 June 2019 review of draft by Helloajnabi


Helloajnabi (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Helloajnabi: Your draft has been accepted in the meantime. It is now located in article space and will probably get indexed by search engines very soon, if it hasn't been already. Congratulations to your first article! Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:47, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Gindog


Gindog (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:49:18, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Party1967


Chinnatty 11:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


12:51:12, 17 June 2019 review of draft by Britaylor77


How can I add the blue columns that say "films" and "television series" to my filmography table?

Britaylor77 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Britaylor77. I'm not sure what you mean, but may be able to steer you in the right direction. Help:Table provides general instructions on how to create tables. If you see good tables in an article, such as the tables of film and television roles in Steve McQueen filmography, the best way to see how they are constructed is to edit them in the source editor. You can copy all or part of the table to your sandbox to experiment with it, just be sure to cancel your editing of the original page without making any changes there. Hope that helps. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:56:28, 17 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Illbadler


I understand that Wikipedia does not consider Allmusic.com and Discogs.com to be reliable sources. I'd love to be directed to sources that Wikipedia does consider reliable regarding people who work in the field of audio engineering. I'll note, in the meanwhile, that discogs.com enumerates 96 production credits for Mr. Walker and allmusic.com notes 29 credits. Also, the article begins with a citation from the New York Times. Many thanks Illbadler (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Illbadler (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Illbadler. Discogs, being user-generated, is an unreliable source and should not be used as a reference at all. AllMusic is unreliable for some things, but reliable for others. For details, and a list of sources that Wikipedians have found useful when writing about music, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:52:17, 17 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Manishsinghon



Manishsinghon (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:57, 17 June 2019 review of draft by Falconite007


Hello, I just created a draft. Wikipedia is suggesting that I move the draft to 'Draft Space'. Can you please tell me how to do it, and what does it mean? Falconite007 (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. @Falconite007: I've moved it for you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:31, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Tripledigitmail


Removed what I thought to be seen as "basically an ad" section (removed "partnerships"). The content of the article uses the same neutral language as the citations.

Tripledigitmail (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:20:31, 17 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by MaryGaulke


Hi! This draft was rejected on grounds of insufficient notability. The subject has been the focus of extensive coverage in The Boston Globe, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, and Boston Business Journal. He is also credited in independent sources with having significant influence on modern fundraising models. In my opinion, Mr. Starr clears the bar set by WP:BIO.

Additionally, the reviewer described the draft as a "fluff piece". I did not omit any negative information available in reliable sources, and I believe my wording is neutral. I also sought out input from editors who have worked on related topics, and Wikiuser100 made some updates to the draft prior to its review.

Would someone be up for taking a look and clarifying where there is room for improvement?

Please note, I have a conflict of interest: I work for a communications agency for which the Pan-Mass Challenge (of which Mr. Starr is founder) is a client. However, I never draft and submit an article on behalf of a client if I don't believe that the subject has encyclopedic value. If nothing else, I would really appreciate any feedback that can help me realign my expectations for my work in the future.

Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaryGaulke. One key is the phrase "independently notable" in the reviewer's comment. Examining half of the cited sources at random, only one, The Wellesley Townsman, contains significant coverage of Starr. The other five (Boston Globe 2018, The Eagle-Tribune, Boston Business Journal, STAT, and CapeCode.com) are about PMC, not Starr, and mention him only briefly, usually as the source of a quote about PMC. They do not address Starr directly and in detail, so do not help establish that he is notable. Throw them away, and any others like them, they torpedo your effort.
The second issue is that the draft reads like something put out by the marketing department rather than a biography in an encyclopedia. On this I concur with the reviewer. Judging from this, the fact that it isn't obvious to you how promotional it is, and because of your conflict of interest, you are not the right person to write about Starr. A better approach would be:
  1. Go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and find the best category under which to list your request.
  2. Describe the very basics of how Starr is notable, no more than a couple of lines. Be up-front about your conflict of interest by mentioning it in the request.
  3. Choose the best 3-6 independent reliable sources that contain substantial information about Starr. Don't restrict yourself to Google, major newspaper coverage exists going back to 1981. Provide links in the request for those available online.
  4. You were unable to drum up interest in the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts. There is a more focused Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boston, but it is less active. There is an active community of editors at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Boston. Optionally, post a link there to your request, being sure to mention your conflict of interest so that people reading your post understand where the request is coming from.
Wikipedians are always looking for things to write about, so someone may start an article based on your sources. It often takes a year or two, and won't be the same as the text you produced, but what you produced isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:21:23, 17 June 2019 review of submission by Danielbush


I have added a reference Danielbush (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danielbush, please note that Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory or the yellow pages, and so companies must be demonstrated to be notable through the use of multiple independent, reliable source that discuss the business in significant detail. At present, none of your sources meet this standard--they either are not independent, or else do not actually discuss the company itself or give reasons why it is notable. Hope this helps. Nolelover (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

00:00:24, 18 June 2019 review of draft by S923


The text in the article was taken directly from the source, it's the only online source from what would qualify as a reputable publisher.

Can you provide guidance on how to change the text, or do you think it's inappropriate to have an article published at all? AngusWOOF (talk)

S923 (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S923. A single source is almost never enough to establish notability, and thereby justify including an article in the encyclopedia. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. Sources need not be online. Perhaps if you revisit the topic in a few months or years, more will have been written about the company that you could use as source material. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Let me do some more research and see if I can find additional sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by S923 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:10:42, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Aızhanzhaisanovaaaa

Good morning I have submitted the Article Rixos President Astana

But you have deleted the article. Would you be so kind to explain me the problem, so that I could change the article. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aızhanzhaisanovaaaa (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:34:10, 18 June 2019 review of draft by 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B


The article was auto-declined based on not meeting notability in the past but now meets notability... according to policy. Why was it declined without being looked over?

2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B, I'm really not sure that it does. I had a look over the sources that have been added since the last deletion discussion, and there's just a lot of recapping his social media activity without any significant coverage of him. For example, if I removed all the references that are just author pages (like this, this and this) and trimmed down the play-by-play of his social media activity, then there's not much left. Nolelover (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:31, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Amolshinde143


Amolshinde143 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amolshinde143: - there doesn't appear to be anything included to make him notable (in Wikipedia terms). If his source of being notable is as a politician, there are strict rules on inclusion - see politician notability. You also only have 1 source, which is revolvy, which definitely isn't reliable. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:41:56, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Falconite007


Hi, one of my drafts (V Systems) was reviewed by @Redalert2fan. It was declined, and I'm a bit unsure about the reason. Was it deleted because the source from which I quoted in not genuine, or is it because I copy-pasted directly from the source? If its the latter, can you please give an example (from the draft) where I have copy-pasted directly? I tried to use my own words throughout, but I might have missed out in a couple of instances.

Falconite007 (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Falconite007. Both. The draft contained copyright violations or too close paraphrasing of sources, and cited sources that are not reliable. I've removed the copyright problems as well as the sources that are unreliable and the content that was sourced to them or was unsourced. The topic does not appear to be notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:34, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Sylvia Nescher and Yair Nesher


Please let me know why this page is not accepted....there is no explication and we're still waiting to know. Thanks, best wishes Ifat

Sylvia Nescher and Yair Nesher (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvia Nescher and Yair Nesher: Your draft is still waiting for re-review. The review process is currently very backlogged, so you may have to wait a bit longer. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:50:34, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Pratap.Rohan


Pratap.Rohan (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratap.Rohan: Please read the comment on your draft. There are two problems with it. First, you have no citations, which violates Wikipedia's policy on pages about living peopl that requires every statement about living people to be cited to a reliable source. The second problem, which even adding citations cannot fix, is that this person doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR, which describes what actors are eligible to have Wikipedia articles written about them. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:58:10, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Pratap.Rohan


Because i want to make certain changes plus want to put some links Pratap.Rohan (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratap.Rohan: - hi, unless you have some additional major acting roles that weren't included then just adding links won't help. Even a great format won't help you to meet our requirements for actor notability. That could be summarised as significant roles 2+ films or TV series. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:50, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Jack-cummins


Jack-cummins (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a page in my wikipedia sandbox so that I can get it published. But whenever I finish editing it and press save changes, only half of it will show up in the edited project. I don't know why but I need all the writing there so that I can get the page published

@Jack-cummins: - hi there. I've fixed it for you - you forgot to close one of your <ref>...</ref> tags. Have fun editing. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:26:28, 18 June 2019 review of submission by 71.198.50.178


Tom Hill is notable for successfully coaching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Sakkari as her career is definitely on the rise.

71.198.50.178 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most formal guidance on tennis coach notability is Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines, which despite the title is an essay rather than a guideline. According to it, Hill would be notable as a coach if Sakkari entered the WTA rankings top-10. Her peak so far has been number 31. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:52, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Makar.91

Hi! I've wanted to publish this article because I wanted, that Betinvest company have Rich snippets in the Google search results and their competitors are already have the same articles on the wiki — EveryMatrix, Sportradar, Playtech and many others. And, as I looked at competitors, I've written information that it doesn't contain an advertising function. If some parts should be edited — please, suggest it

Thanks

Makar.91 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Makar.91:, unfortunately that's not what wikipedia is for--it's not an advertising platform and doesn't exist to promote one company over the other. Our standard for what "qualifies" for an article is notability, and having third-party sources discussing the subject of the article in some significance. Right now your only two sources are from the company itself--so not third-party, and a listing without any indication of why the company is important. You'll need to add independent sources discussing Betinvest in order to improve the article. Nolelover (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:38, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Jforakei

my submission of article for "dreizehn XIII" has been denied. I really dont understand why, because there're thousands of other underground bands and projects on wikipedia with much less references and biography and yet those articles were accepted. For instance,this band below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masquerade_(Finnish_band)

the explanations given to me aren't convincing at all,sorry.

Jforakei (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jforakei:, please have a look at our policy here which lays out what a band needs to do to become notable enough for an article. The first criteria, being "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician", is what the reviewer says you fail--the sources you've used are not reliable or independent. Articles on blogspot and such are not sufficient. Furthermore, the fact that other similar bands have articles does not really have any influence on this discussion, as your article is judged on its own merits. Nolelover (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:09, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Ortho2017


I think that the title of the draft article should be changed (as per comment received) to

Waqf of Ibshir Mustafa Pasha Complex

How should I do this. Should I delete and start again? Many thanks

Ortho2017 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortho2017: Do not delete and start over. See WP:MOVE for how to move a page to a new name. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:28:28, 18 June 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:A17E:4AE3:D197:4968

It’s been 2 months since I waited for my article to be submitted but the film releases in Japan in 1 month.

2600:1700:93B0:1350:A17E:4AE3:D197:4968 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2600:1700:93B0:1350:A17E:4AE3:D197:4968, your article has been reviewed and declined because there are insufficient reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Please add more of those kinds of sources. Perhaps more sources will publish about the movie closer to release? Nolelover (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:01:44, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Falconite007


Hello, a draft that I had submitted after this one got reviewed. Did I make a mistake in submitting this one, or is no particular order followed while reviewing drafts?

Falconite007 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Falconite007, you made no mistake--all the submissions are put into a large category that reviewers can go through, so there is no order to what is reviewed first. Nolelover (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:02:50, 18 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 90210grl


Hi. I am writing about my draft article, "N2 Publishing." I received notice that my submission was not approved because "Article has been deleted several times between 2012-2015."

Does that mean there can never be an article on this topic? A lot has changed since 2015, and I think the article and the sources reflect relevant media coverage warranting this article's inclusion.

I would appreciate any feedback so I know how to proceed.

Thank you.90210grl (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


90210grl (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@90210grl: Being deleted before isn't an automatic disqualifier. The editor reviewing the draft probably meant to list that as a comment, not the entire decline reason. The decline reason should've been:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:10:05, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Mizpat


Hello. I am experienced in editing/copyediting and in WordPress website building, but I am new to Wikipedia article creation, so I am using the Visual Editor and I have some questions.

FYI: I am creating this article as a favor for a former professor and friend, Refugio I Rochin, which I have disclosed.

FYI: I posted this query on my Talk page 4 days ago but haven't seen a response.

FYI: I don't really understand the purpose or workings of the Talk page or the User page for my account.

Q1: I clicked the link Submit your draft for review! and I see it in the page called Category: AfC submissions by date/13 June 2019, but the warning box titled "Draft article not currently submitted for review" is still there. How and when does that warning box go away?

Q2: In the References section is a warning message in red: "Check date values in: |date= (help)." I skimmed the Help page but can't tell what's wrong with the date in the reference. It's similar to all other dates in all other references in the list. Can you identify the problem and how to fix it?

Q3: How and where do I find comments/edits/questions by other WP editors on this article? I've signed up for email notifications and the article is on my Watchlist, but is there anywhere else I can check? Will they show up on this Talk page?

Thank you, Mizpat (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mizpat: You need to click the blue box which says "Submit your draft for review!" Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:59, 18 June 2019 review of submission by RyanNewman20


Hi, I apologize for what I'm guessing is a rookie mistake, but could you help me understand what I need to do to get this submission approved? I believe I have read through the common mistakes/auto information/most copied and pasted answers to this, but I need a little help. Please tell me what I should do, thank you in advance. Ryan N

RyanNewman20 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is judged by looking at the depth of coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Your draft has none. Editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage on the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Hi RyanNewman20, your submission was rejected because there doesn't appear to be any indication that this specific metric is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. In general, subjects are notable when there is significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. What you have here looks more like a dictionary entry, or something that is more suited to a wiki about fantasy sports, and note that the sources you have are not independent, since it appears that you, the creator of the term, wrote them. Hope this helps. Nolelover (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


June 19

01:34:47, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Darenreif01


SimplePractice (SP) is the leading practice management software for behavioral and mental health providers in the US. They have over 50K users and according to Capterra, an online peer review site, it is the Most Popular Mental Health Software. The company, headquarter in Los Angeles, now has over 100 employees and serves customers in all 50 states. Darenreif01 (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Darenreif01#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:41:16, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Ourworldsmile1


Can you give me a chance to Edit It, and also I was Show the Page that I copy the Biography of Jack Bin Ourworldsmile1 (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ourworldsmile1: You can edit and resubmit, but it is just going to be rejected again unless there are significant advancements in A-K-A Jack Bin's career that allow them to meet the requirements listed at WP:NMUSICIAN. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:54:12, 19 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Grayghostta



Grayghostta (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC) HI,[reply]

I'm GrayghostTA and submitted an article. I don't know what the lead name on my article is Wondering why it was rejected, assuming it was because I have not edited enough?

Be interested in your comments.

Thanks, JRH

Hi Grayghostta, your submission was rejected because there doesn't appear to be any indication that this specific car is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. In general, subjects are notable when there is significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It's often recommended that you shoot for at least three references when writing an article, which you do not currently have. Hope this helps. Nolelover (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:28, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Tom.fenwicke120


Tom.fenwicke120 (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.fenwicke120: Please read the comment left by User:Whispering on your draft. You seem to have written an "advice" article, which is not what Wikipedia is for (especially when it comes to pages that might be interpreted as medical advice). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:06:47, 19 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Texacomexico


I’m an artist I want to make an autobiography about myself

Texacomexico (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Texacomexico: Creating an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. Thank you. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:26, 19 June 2019 review of draft by Rayne Supple


I received a message that this submission was autobiographical. It is not. It is for a professional baseball player. I am his agent. I didn't think such submissions violated your terms as I see a similar entry for 'Griffin Roberts' another professional baseball player. Thank you for you attention to this matter. Rayne Supple (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayne Supple: The editor that left that notice assumed that it was an autobiography because your username matched the article title. Please see the username policy at Wikipedia:Username policy, which states that you should not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. You can request a username change by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username, but please keep in mind the sections of the Username policy WP:PROMONAME and WP:ISU. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:26, 19 June 2019 review of draft by Jarvis crypter


Hello,

as the revision/review of this article takes much longer than expected, I would like to ask if it is possible to do changes to this article while it is being reviewed? requesting for updates that can enhance the article

Appreciate your time! User:Jarvis crypter (talk) 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Jarvis crypter yes, absolutely. You can continue to make any edits and improvements to the article, and the reviewer will review the article at whatever stage it is at. Nolelover (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nolelover could you please review the article and let me know your view of it?

Thanks User:Jarvis crypter

Jarvis crypter, I'm no expert but right now I'd think that you might still need one or two more sources about Informatics. The fact that it operates J-Gate helps, but are there any other sources discussing the importance or the company in that industry? Note that you can use non-english sources as long as they are still reliable and independent. Nolelover (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:15, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Rayne Supple


Thank you for the clarifications regarding submissions for baseball players. Makes sense. I am puzzled by the entry 'Griffin Roberts' american baseball player. None of your requirements are met in this entry. Maybe I missed something.

Rayne Supple (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:32:22, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Lil Young Rapper


Lil Young Rapper (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil Young Rapper: Lanze doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN, which describes which musicians get to have articles on Wikipedia. Feel free to resubmit your draft once Lanze's career has advanced to the point that you can demonstrate that they meet those standards using citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:11:21, 19 June 2019 review of submission by 148.75.165.78

Found and added additional published, reliable, secondary source references that are independent of the subject that shows significant coverage about the subject

148.75.165.78 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:47:39, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Tomusange


Tomusange (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomusange: Kiirya Beats doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN, which describes which musicians get to have articles on Wikipedia. Feel free to resubmit your draft once their career has advanced to the point that you can demonstrate that they meet those standards using citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:52:22, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Cswendeman

Prosecutor Gramiccioni has been an integral part of New Jersey law enforcement for over 20 years now. He has an impressive resume as a member of the military, the US Attorney's Office in NJ, working with now former Governor Christopher Christie (many of those who have worked with Christie have their own pages, including Chris' wife, Deboroah Gramiccioni) and now, as the head law enforcement official in Monmouth County, one of the largest counties in New Jersey. I have added further details to his page, please reconsider this request to have his page published. There are many pages on Wikipedia with persons who have similar careers and half of the description and or details on their pages. The resources I have used, majority have been written by local or national authors, unaffiliated with the Prosecutor's Office or Gramiccioni. Thank you very much for your consideration. Cswendeman (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Cswendeman#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:07, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Swampcygnet


How many more secondary sources do I need for this page to be approved? Thanks

Swampcygnet (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swampcygnet: Three. But see my answer to your earlier question. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

00:12:59, 20 June 2019 review of submission by 95.92.37.92


95.92.37.92 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I apologies, I was re-submitting the same thing without realising because I was supplied a google doc with the wikipedia ready formatting but it was badly organised. Is there any chance you could re-review the changes I've made? Thank you and I hope you guys can be a bit understanding with the situation.

@95.92.37.92: - your draft's primary issues weren't formatting, but a need for better sourcing.
You have loads of sources, but an issue with finding ones of sufficient quality for a company. Companies have fairly high notability requirements.
You need sources which are "in-depth, secondary (newspapers, books etc), independent (which rules out interviews) and reliable". Sources which many companies have (share prices, IPO declarations etc aren't suitable - see WP:ORGCRIT for a easy but more in-depth consideration).
Finally, blanketing an article with sources actually slows down consideration of reviews. Put the top 4 sources that meet all of the above on the talk page - it'll massively ease the process. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:05:11, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Brickpa

My article about sabari anandhan has reviewed as sufficiently not notable for inclusion on wikipedia. I had clearly mentioned all citations needed for the article and also I had mentioned citations which are externally needed to link with the Subject Brickpa (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brickpa, you have not added independent, reliable sources that actually discuss Anandhan in detail. The Loyola Young Entrepreneur magazine article, for example, might be a good source but you have not linked to it directly. Please add multiple sources of that nature in order to show that the topic is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Nolelover (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:42, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Andreas Overbeck


Andreas Overbeck (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there,

How can all competitors in the collaborative space be listed on Wikipedia (with an objective description) while SquidHub cannot. Here's a list of just a few:

- Redbooth - Wrike - Teamwork.com - Basecamp (company) - Asana (software) - Trello

You'll see a lot of collaborative/project management/productivity companies being listed if you look at e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Project_management_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collaborative_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Groupware

The SquidHub article is written in the same objective and descriptive way as all the other companies listed on Wikipedia. Therefore, we would kindly ask you to review the article again and consider it appropriate for publishing. If you still find it inappropriate, then please let us know what is required before it can be accepted at the same level as all other collaborative platforms currently listed on Wikipedia.

If you need external validation on the platform, you can check some of the articles published by authorative sources like TechRepublic: https://squidhub.com/news

All the best, Andreas

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Andreas Overbeck#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:59, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Brickpa

My article about sabari anandhan has been marked as not notable for inclusion on wikipedia. I had clearly mentioned all citations needed for the article which I wrote and also I had mentioned all required External links for this articles. And help me for further changes need for this article. Thanks... Brickpa (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate request for above. Please don't make a duplicate until 48 hours have passed without a reply Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:16:13, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Arunkx

This is the article about the world’s only Astro- Scientist who researched and amassed immense knowledge on astrology and made all his efforts to rectify the mistakes followed in Astrology. People come to him and believes in his predictions. He is a big influencer and works for the betterment of society. Arunkx (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arunkx, none of the sources you have provided are independent and reliable. Please add sources like that which discuss Vashist in significant detail, or else the topic is likely not appropriate for Wikipedia. Nolelover (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover, I have edited the article and have provided the source. Could you please review it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkx (talk • contribs) 04:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arunkx, I looked again but it doesn't appear that your new sources are what Wikipedia requires. For example, a newspaper article would be reliable and independent, and would need to discuss Vashist in detail. Most of them are just home pages of things mentioned in the article. None of the links you've added are independent, or even really discuss the subject of the article. For example, linking to the google play store listing for an app is not the same as linking to a independent journalist writing about the app. Does that make sense? Nole (chat·edits) 04:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover, that made more sense. Thanks for the advice. I have added and edited the sources which now doesn't point to an application in play store and all. Kindly have a look — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkx (talk • contribs) 05:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arunkx, the first source you added is not reliable--it's a store and blog. The second source does appear to be reliable, since it's from a newspaper, but the article is about the Lal Kitab, not about Vashist, so it does not help you show that he is notable. In your awards sections, your links just go to the pages of the organizations, not webpages that say that the IBB award was given to Vashist. You also added this link which so far is your best source by far, even though it does not discuss Vashist very much. Try to find a couple more sources like this one, where a credible source talks about him and explains why he is important. Nole (chat·edits) 16:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:50, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Juanestebanp94

I made a revision of the whole text to made it more clear, also i reviewed the references and literature to make them more usaful. Also I went to their webpage and took the logos of the different products to add them to the section of pruducts to make the article more appealing. Finally i changed and added some data to the infobox. Hope is enough to make it acceptable. I'm making this article because I found that one of the products has a wikipedia article (Aimsun Live) but the rest of them and the developer don't have anything, so I felt kinda confused. If I get this one accepted, I would be happy to make the article for the rest of the products. Thanks. Juanestebanp94 (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Juanestebanp94#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:43, 20 June 2019 review of draft by RomcherChk


RomcherChk (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I'd like to improve my article by providing more (reliable) reference sources. I find it rather difficult, though, as it's a general article about an EU institution. I've provided 2 sources already plus 2 reference web-sites. Any ideas how to improve my article even more? This is my first article, so any tips are much appreciated. Of course, I went through an article on referencing in Wikipedia and some others, but I am still struggling with getting my article approved. Thanks.--RomcherChk (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RomcherChk, right now your problem is that none of your sources are independent--they all come from EU or Ukrainian government websites. Wikipedia requires notability to be shown through third-party reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article, so has the advisory mission been discussed in any news articles or the like? Without those, it will likely be deleted. If none of these sources exist, perhaps some of the content could be put onto a page like Ukraine–European Union relations? Nolelover (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover,Thanks for the explanation. I've inserted a couple of references to online sources other than EU. I'd appreciate if you took a look at them and let me know what you think. P.S. And thanks for the tip with Ukraine - EU relations page! EUAM Ukraine should be mentioned there, too. Thanks!--RomcherChk (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RomcherChk, so for the new sources, the Gazette piece is the kind of thing you want, yes. To a lesser extent, the kyivpost article is a good reference for the part of the article that it is used in, but might not be the strongest source in demonstrating the notability of the EUAM as a whole, if that makes sense. That article is obviously more about Kestutis then it is about the EUAM, and you want your best sources to fully discuss the subject of the article in significant detail. Along those lines, the reliefweb piece only mentions the EUAM in passing. Right now I still think you're right on the line, but if you were able to find another source (usually we say to novice editors that the magic number is three good sources) along the lines of the gazette piece then I would be comfortable accepting the article. If not, you absolutely have enough to write a section for the EU-Ukraine relations article. Nole (chat·edits) 16:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:47:24, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Manishsinghon


Manishsinghon (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team,

Ennscloset.com is a leading make up barnd in india. Its been used by so many celebs and notable person in India. Please check the instagram page or Google it. Its an profitable company as well. This is faetured in so many magazines and newspaper as well..Please check the resource part...Kindly publish it... Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Manishsinghon: - Instagram isn't either reliable or a secondary source, and just a high number of google hits doesn't clearly indicate anything. The current issue is that the draft's sources are either from a publication that isn't reliable or isn't independent (the publication or an author has a vested interest in pushing the product - this reasoning also rules out most interviews). There are a couple of exceptions but they don't talk about the company itself for more than a few lines. Companies have higher notability requirements than some other articles, so it needs to be clearly demonstrated Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:06, 20 June 2019 review of draft by CP842b


CP842b (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to change the name of the article from "G3 Canada" to "G3 Canada Limited" - please advise the best way to do that.

Hi CP842b, please don't do that, it's counter to our standard for company article titles. Such suffixes are only used to resolve conflicting titles, and only rarely at that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:42, 20 June 2019 review of draft by Michaelparkerrealkast


I have edited the draft per instructions by Robert McClendon. However this is my first time to create a wiki page and I am not sure if the draft has been resubmitted correctly with new edits. Is there a way I can find out that new edits and draft are submitted?

Thank you.

Michaelparkerrealkast (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michaelparkerrealkast. The large yellow box at the top of the draft tells us that the draft has been resubmitted and is in the pool to be reviewed. With the current backlog you can expect to hear back within about four months. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:31, 20 June 2019 review of submission by 61.28.135.180

I wanna make a wikipedia for my starting youtube channel about vlogging 61.28.135.180 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@61.28.135.180: - Wikipedia doesn't exist to help market you, nor does it talk about "up and coming" ideas, products or shows - as an encyclopedia it summarises topics already covered in secondary topics. If your youtube video takes off, media covers it and someone else decides to write about it, that's fantastic, but otherwise it's not suitable I'm afraid. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


June 21

01:39:52, 21 June 2019 review of submission by EagerBeaverPJ

Hi, so I started a draft about an ongoing major news event, the 2019 Chennai water crisis, but on my draft page there is a notice that says my draft may take 8 weeks or more to be accepted since there are more than 4000 drafts waiting for review. So if it is not reviewed fast enough can I just go ahead and create a page directly for it at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Chennai_water_crisis&action=edit&redlink=1 since this event is ongoing and an article for it needs to be published quickly? Thanks, EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EagerBeaverPJ, greetings. An article created via AfC or newpage, will subject to be reviewed before it is in mainspace of Wikipedia if it is accepted. Your draft page is declined at the moment and if the subject has further development beside on June 19, then readd info and sources to resubmit, but as of now it is WP:BREAKING and need to be WP:LASTING. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:46, 21 June 2019 review of submission by Brickpa

As the last reviewer of my article on sabari anadhan said me to update the exact link to Loyola college young entrepreneur magazine but the site is out of scope under its reconstruction. And I Wish my article to be uploaded soon on Wikipedia and soon after the site reconstruction,I will provide the exact link to the magazine. Thanks.

Brickpa (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last reviewer actually said that the topic is not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:45, 21 June 2019 review of submission by Sobrien22


Hi! How do you make the page to set up "Life, career, etc"

Sobrien22 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sobrien22: Put each heading on a new line, surrounded by two equals signs on each side (e.g. == Life ==, == Career ==, etc). See Help:Section for more info. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:36:54, 21 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Belarus5566


I have updated a post. Thanks

Belarus5566 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Belarus5566, right now you do not have any sources in your article. You need multiple independent, reliable sources (like books or newspaper articles) that discuss Sahil in order for your submission to be accepted. Note that the page you linked to on az.wikipedia.org also does not have any sources. Nole (chat·edits) 16:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:03, 21 June 2019 review of draft by 63.139.228.146


I submitted a draft for a new page titled RED MUSIC which is a newly created record label as of 2017. The submission was declined by AngusWOOF, citing that there's already a page for RED MUSIC at RED Distribution, and that I should make edits to the RED Distribution wiki. Unfortunately, this is incorrect. RED Distribution and RED MUSIC are two different business units and serve separate business purposes. Additionally, RED Distribution is no longer an active entity. Is it possible for me to reverse this declined post? 63.139.228.146 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

63.139.228.146 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:06, 21 June 2019 review of draft by Nealuigi


Nealuigi (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am following up to see if someone can help me to identify which specific sources are deemed unreliable in my new article submission. Thank you in advance!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=902863477"