Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 574: Line 574:


[[Special:Contributions/2409:4063:4E02:CBB:0:0:A7C8:6605|2409:4063:4E02:CBB:0:0:A7C8:6605]] ([[User talk:2409:4063:4E02:CBB:0:0:A7C8:6605|talk]]) 09:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/2409:4063:4E02:CBB:0:0:A7C8:6605|2409:4063:4E02:CBB:0:0:A7C8:6605]] ([[User talk:2409:4063:4E02:CBB:0:0:A7C8:6605|talk]]) 09:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

== 11:30:01, 7 August 2019 review of submission by Kribondhar ==
{{Lafc|username=Kribondhar|ts=11:30:01, 7 August 2019|declined=Draft:Camping_Co}}
Hi,
Hope everything is fine with you.
I have made every necessary changes to the article camping co but still there is issue with the notability of the subject as commented . I have attached two newspaper mentions as of now also few article mentions about the subject in various websites. Also i am in the search for more digital copies of news mentions. So it will be very helpful if you suggest and help me in publishing this article. As this will get a better educational visibility about such a venture idea which will eventually add values in the tourism sector of the northeast India

Thanks in advance with regards
Krishanu
[[User:Kribondhar|Kribondhar]] ([[User talk:Kribondhar|talk]]) 11:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:30, 7 August 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


August 1

07:24:43, 1 August 2019 review of submission by 116.68.247.65


116.68.247.65 (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


07:36:15, 1 August 2019 review of submission by Spawnspawn

Double standards. The current person has more reasons to have article in Wikipedia than this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_McMorrow Spawnspawn (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spawnspawn: As the reviewer (@Zxcvbnm:) noted, the sources have to be about the subject among other things to establish notability. Just because a game is notable, does not mean the game's author is (and vice versa).
The article you linked has been tagged for notability issues. Unless additional sources are provided, it will likely not survive a deletion discussion. The difference is that no one has reviewed it yet, because it was created directly. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:41, 1 August 2019 review of submission by MaskedSinger


Has already been declined 3 times due to promotional language although to be clear, it wasn't until the 3rd time that it was explained to me what was actually promotional about the page. Updated it accordingly and would now like to resubmit it.

MaskedSinger (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:47, 1 August 2019 review of draft by MisMurphy


I have been waiting for a review for 3+ weeks and the number of submissions is getting longer rather than shorter. Anything I have done wrong or need to do in order to be reviewed within the 8 week estimate?

MisMurphy (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MisMurphy: - I'm afraid the key bit is that it's 8+ weeks - currently the longest ones in the queue are up to 14 weeks. We've had an extremely high rate of submissions for the last couple of months, and with roughly the same amount of reviewers the backlog obviously grows. You've not done anything wrong, but I can't guarantee a review within 8 weeks. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:25, 1 August 2019 review of draft by Stephanierr86


I am seeking some help in making a small change in creating this article. I made a mistake when creating the title and I don't know how to change it. I would like it to simply read "Terri Maxwell" instead of what's there. Can you show me how to correct this or direct me how to get it changed? Thank you.

Stephanierr86 (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephanierr86: I moved it to Draft:Terri Maxwell for you. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:09, 1 August 2019 review of draft by Mountain9


I can't find a save button for my sandbox and I inadvertently pressed the publish button. I'm sorry I did that. Please can you tell me how to save a draft in my sandbox prior to submitting it for review? Many thanks Mountain9 Mountain9 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Mountain9. "Publish changes" is the button that saves a page, any page. It doesn't submit a draft for review. The button that does that is typically blue, and labelled "Submit your draft for review!" or "Resubmit", if the most recent submission of the draft has been declined. If you want to save work in progress without agreeing to Wikipedia's Terms of Use, licensing your contribution, and publishing it where other people can see and edit it, you must save it somewhere off-wiki, such as on your home computer. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:12:33, 1 August 2019 review of draft by BlakeB93

I have been waiting more than 8 weeks now for the article to be done. When is it going to be reviewed? Can you assist me in getting it done?

BlakeB93 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC) @BlakeB93: it was declined for being in a tone not appropriate for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia by @Theroadislong:. Unbekannter z34-56r-ghf-aq2-d0r (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

00:14:51, 2 August 2019 review of submission by ShirleyMarcus


ShirleyMarcus (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I was missing notable, verified articles. I have added 8+ of them now.

Subsequently deleted at the request of the author. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:26:10, 2 August 2019 review of draft by VicenteAssensio

Can you plase point out what part of the article is not referenced by a "reliable, secondary, published, independent" source. It's not clear.

Thanks

VicenteAssensio (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VicenteAssensio. I'm not sure that's the most pertinent question to ask, since no reviewer has said that's the problem. The most recent review says the draft fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic.
The draft cites a single source inline, and quotes a second without, for some reason, citing it inline. The first is a primary source, an appraisal. Primary sources don't help establish notability. It is unclear whether the second source may be used on Wikipedia. Is it published, in the sense that an archived copy exists somewhere that the public can examine (possibly at considerable cost and inconvenience), or is it a report produced privately and locked away in the vault of whoever commissioned it? Sources must be verifiable. If it may be used at all, as a technical report on an examination of the violin, it's another primary source, so it doesn't help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:32:31, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Hrmehrotra

Hello Team,

I found 3 and 4 companies named with "CloudConnect" so i am looking to get the one where, i am working in Wikipedia for authentication of the firm. please help me, do i have to provide any more details or is there anything wrong?

I appreciate your help. Hrmehrotra (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrmehrotra: As the reviewer noted, the article lacks sources. You need to add at least 3 or so independent and in-depth sources. The two in the article do not satisfy the criteria explained in the decline reason. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:26:56, 2 August 2019 review of draft by Barankeegnu


I've added more links and references as it was proposed in declining reason. Some of the references were declined by Wiki (for example AliExpress, there were an article about CDEK China there). I can even add more references but most of them are in Russian, I don't feel it has a lot of sense. Barankeegnu (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barankeegnu: Sources do not have to be in English. But sources have to be in-depth about the subject. Not part of a list, not a company profile or directory entry, not written or presented by someone from the company or a brief passing mention without any details. I checked the sources (I speak Russian) and none appear to satisfy this. I agree with the reviewer's conclusion. The criteria in the decline reason explain exactly what sources are needed for WP:GNG, but mainly significant. In the end, most companies do not pass the notability criteria for Wikipedia as there is little to say about them other than to make a company profile, which is against Wikipedia's purpose. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:48, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Sameerbhosle9


Hi, can you please suggest necessary changes or suggestions to this article as it is not getting approved. Thanks

Sameerbhosle9 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:18:12, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Benjamindavidharvey


Hi - I have referenced a publication 'Knowledge, Service Products' by Nigel Watson as a primary resource - is this a suitable/ notable? It appears as the spirax sarco website but this is because it is a link to the publication pdf. Any help would be appreciated. Many thanks-

Benjamindavidharvey (talk)

Hi Benjamindavidharvey. The draft references http://www.spiraxsarcoengineering.com/Pages/home.aspx. The publication Knowledge, Service Products would be http://www.spiraxsarcoengineering.com/AboutUs/Documents/Knowledge,%20Service,%20Products.pdf. It is not an independent source because it was commissioned by Spirax-Sarco Engineering plc, the parent company of Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group. So it does not help establish notability.
The reason for the STOP sign on the draft is that rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for a stand alone article in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. You could propose at Talk:Spirax-Sarco Engineering the addition to that article of a modest amount of information about Watson-Marlow. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thank you for this

I would argue that the decision to not even offer an opportunity to revisit the page is very harsh. Watson-Marlow is cited across many pages across Wikipedia. It is a company that turns over nearly a quarter of a billion in sales worldwide. It is a significant, global player in pumping technology and fluid management engineering

Examples where Watson-Marlow are cited as manufactures/ a world leader:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peristaltic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinusoidal_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metering_pump

This is an example of competitor who have been in operation for less time and is not a world-leader in a single technology like Watson-Marlow, its sales are based on a diverse pump range.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prominent_(Unternehmen)

An example of a large pump group but whose references are their own website and a very weak article that mentions them indirectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundfos References[edit source] ^ "Our company". Grundfos.com. Retrieved 2018-02-23. ^ http://www.gea.com/global/en/news/corporate-news/2015/gea-acquirers-leading-supplier-of-hygienic-pumps.jsp

The decision to not allow for an edit seems to comes with the oversight of these pages and I would ask that it is reconsidered so I am able to shape content with reliable sources as the subject is without doubt notable when considered in relation to the above.

@Benjamindavidharvey: Harsh? AfC could instead decline the draft every time it's submitted, each time encouraging you to fix the problems and resubmit. I recall a draft that was declined 14 times that way. The current backlog is 21 weeks, so you do the math. Would you prefer to be strung along for five and half years, until you finally give up? Or would you prefer to know up front that the topic will never be accepted for publication?
You write "Watson-Marlow is cited across many pages across Wikipedia. It is a company that turns over nearly a quarter of a billion in sales worldwide. It is a significant, global player in pumping technology and fluid management engineering". So what? None of those satisfy the criteria in WP:NCORP, which is the guideline Wikipedia uses to determine which companies merit a stand alone encyclopedia article. If you don't like Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, you may wish to explore alternative outlets with different inclusion criteria.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because anyone can edit it. Being mentioned in Wikipedia doesn't make a company notable. You, as someone with a conflict of interest with regard to Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group, should not be editing Peristaltic pump, especially not to insert the claim that the group is "widely recognised today as being the world leader". If you do something like that again, you're likely to be blocked from editing.
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. Wikipedia doesn't exist to make your company more competitive.
You are correct that Grundfos is a spectacularly crappy article. It was created in an era (2005) when requirements were much looser. Also, as mentioned above, any idiot can edit Wikipedia. Several major problems with the article are flagged, and if it can't be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it will be deleted. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Article alerts, you'll see that the deletion of 57 articles about companies is being considered today, and many more are being considered for merging. Bringing articles up to current standards is a slow and never-ending process. Meanwhile, the existence of poorly sourced articles is not a good excuse to create more of them. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why.
You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:16, 2 August 2019 review of draft by JIm DeNunzio


Hello. I have an article in the Draft section that I am trying to publish. Is there anything else I need to do other that wait for it to be reviewed? I know that it may take 8+ weeks to publish, I just thought I would see if there was any improvements to the article that I need to make. Thank you for your time.

JIm DeNunzio (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:54, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Yafimpico

subject is a notable figure in a category with little representation, Kapler is a well known producer in a religious jewish music genre, please review the info again, he is not an artist but a producer of the most influential religious jewish songs in the last few years.

Yafimpico (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


22:16:54, 2 August 2019 review of submission by 41.113.14.159


41.113.14.159 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

03:22:59, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Kimhancey


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} I added many inline links for the notable persons with whom Daniel Doen Silberberg has studied and taught. I added more references and sources. Thank you for taking another look at this. Kimhancey (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:18, 3 August 2019 review of draft by Carrolquadrio


I am trying to submit for review an article on the Hollywood Hotel in Sydney Australia but it seems to be rejected on the basis of an article already existing. The thing is that the article that already exists is in California not Australia. How should i proceed please? Should i change the name of the draft or otherwise? Thankyou--Carrolquadrio (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Carrolquadrio (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have resolved the issue and it is now awaiting review, thank you.--Carrolquadrio (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Carrolquadrio. Are you referring to the message "Warning: The page Hollywood Hotel already exists. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located to the correct title"? That isn't a rejection, just a warning in case people didn't know that there is already an article with that title. You know that, aren't writing about the same hotel, and as a brand new editor can't change the draft's title, so there's nothing for you to worry about. If a reviewer accepts the draft, they'll note the warning and move the topic to a new title to distinguish it from the other Hollywood Hotel. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Actually I got the title wrong, the title is Hotel Hollywood not Hollywood Hotel. None of the work is copied and it was just declined as seeming like an advertisement with too many issues relating to tonality. I want to delete the page with the name Hollywood Hotel (but I am not sure how to do this) and I have created the new article Hotel Hollywood taking out any phrases that might imply value. What is noteable about the Hotel is the publican is iconic and just died.Perhaps I should make the article about her and not the hotel? If so, how would I do this? What is your opinion please?--Carrolquadrio (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrolquadrio:. When one starts reasearching something that seems to have the makings of a Wikipedia article, it isn't always easy to see what the core topic will be. It looks like your research has led you to focus on Draft:Doris Goddard. A review is likely to take a while, the current backlog is 21 weeks. You may continue improving the draft while you wait, or check out Wikipedia:Community portal for other ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:03:41, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Jayanagas

GrabOn is a coupons and deals platform with six years of standing in the market with proper attirbutes and credentials. It can be compared with Groupon. The article is not an advertisement nor is it an undue publicity to the company. Since it provides deals and discounts on almost every purchase and they are genuine and authentic, I request you to review it once again. Jayanagas (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was declined is because it has a serious advertorial tone. The draft reads more like the website "about" page than a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used as a means to promote the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:49, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Tarab Khan


If I remove the external link (www.tarabkhan.in), hope my article will get published or do I need to remove any other link? Please guide !!

Tarab Khan (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarab Khan. User:Tarab Khan/sandbox was deleted for being unambiguous advertising. Drafts usually have to be egregiously promotional to be deleted for that reason. So no, evidently removing the external link would not have been nearly enough. If Tarab Khan is notable enough to warrant an article, and you wish to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the best thing to do would be to provide any useful sources and request that an independent editor create the article. Specifically:
  1. On your user page, disclose any connection you have to the person.
  2. Go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and find a category under which to list your request.
  3. Describe the very basics of who Tarab Khan is, no more than a couple of lines, and avoid puffery. Be up-front about your conflict of interest by mentioning it in the request.
  4. Find a number of independent reliable sources that have substantial information about the topic, and provide links to them in the request. The only really good one I found is [2], but there are also some weaker sources, such as [3] and [4].
Wikipedians are always on the look out for topics to write about. If the topic has promise, an editor with no connection to Tarab Khan may eventually start an article based on your sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:32:06, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Akram.altameemi


Akram.altameemi (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Akram.altameemi (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Hi I want help to fix the errors found in the articles I wrote if I found a mistake - I have a draft I wrote today but I do not know how to bring it to the audit did not show me notice lifting to the audit Akram.altameemi (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Ali Ramzi Neamah Thanks to all Akram.altameemi[reply]

The poster also asked at Wikipedia:Help desk#ALI RAMZI NEAMAH, and was given good advice there. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:43, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Dextergonzalez

I've edited the page and added more sources of information. This page has a lot more to improve but please consider publishing this page. Kindly indicate the things that needed to change, thank you. Dextergonzalez (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dextergonzalez. Malls can be notable for their economic, social, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage over a period of time in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Robinsonsmalls.com and parent company jgsummit.com.ph are not independent. The remaining three sources are all from the week of the mall's opening, so they don't demonstrate lasting significance. Moreover, Philstar and BusinessWorld are plainly regurgitations of the same press release, so not independent of the mall. ABS-CBN also has echoes of the press release and of jgsummit's announcement of the opening, but there may be some original reporting there.
The reason for the STOP sign on the draft is that rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia) at this time. No amount of editing can fix that. At the moment, the mall merits only a line in Robinsons Malls and a sentence or two in the economy section of San Pedro, Laguna. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again in the foreseeable future. You may re-examine the topic in a year or two, by which time more may have been written about the mall in suitable sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:36, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Vyrussbeatz


I'm requesting for a review due to the first catastrophic mistake by making information seem promotional, which wasnt intended. Neccesary correction has been made by reading through the proper guidelines. Thanks.

Vyrussbeatz (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vyrussbeatz. The draft is wildly non-neutral. Why doesn't it mention his defeat in the 2015 election to represent the Asa/Ilorin West Federal Constituency? Why doesn't it mention the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission investigation of the alleged N50m ($138,000) bribe paid to him, allegedly to manipulate the outcome of the 2015 Nigerian general election? Based on my searches, that's the only way in which he might be notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:32:00, 3 August 2019 review of submission by TransporterMan

I fixed the refs in this draft at the request of the author and advised them to resubmit it for further review. I'm not sure they did the resubmission right since it does not appear in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfC_submissions_by_date/22_July_2019. Could someone check to see if it's been resubmitted properly? TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: Yes, it has been. The big yellow box at the bottom of the draft tells us it is in the pool to be reviewed. Thanks for giving them a hand. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:29:22, 3 August 2019 review of draft by Moonstar36


Moonstar36 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


How do I delete the page I started Ronnie Jacques... silly me not spelling it right...Thank you!! :)

Hi Moonstar36. You may delete the draft by adding the code {{db-self}} to the top of it; it will be deleted shortly thereafter. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:33, 3 August 2019 review of draft by Teachingtool


Hello I have edited the article on Helmi Sharawy in response to Dan and would like it to be checked for approval please if possible? Many thanks!

Teachingtool (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

Request on 05:13:01, 4 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Prasmita


I am trying write wiki for BBC Sajha Sawal presenter. But I am not able to because of lack of reference. would you mind hep me where the error is so that I can fix it.

Prasmita (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prasmita: You've not tried to improve the draft at all since it was declined on 30 May. Did you read the instructions in the pink box, which tell you how to add references? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:39:39, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Tom (LT)


I would like to:

  • Comment that I do not think this article should be accepted in its current or any form, as it:
    • Is very poorly written and will take a lot of time to convert into correct English
    • Contacts content that is already present throughout our Wikipedia
    • Does not actually reflect "Bowel Function" but a potpourri of other topics related to the digestive system and intestinal tract

I would also like some pointers as to how I can do this by myself in the future? It is difficult to work out where to start or how to do things on AfC so I'd love some pointers. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT) (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:41:26, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Tom (LT)

Similar to the above comments I'd like to indicate that:

  • I think this draft can be moved to mainspace - it is suitable referenced and independently notable and yes, it is WP:NOTFINISHED but there's no need in my opinion for it to be in draft space (I will tinker when it's moved)

Tom (LT) (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:43:22, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Tom (LT)


Tom (LT) (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:22, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Crsweeney

My client has requested me to create this Wikipedia article to help support her name in the desired industry (performance based), thus a notable page enlisting her credential would be most sufficient. Please provide a reasonable explanation for the refusal of this particular Wikipedia page. Crsweeney (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crsweeney: - you need to declare on your userpage your paid editing (and who it's for, and which article/draft you're editing) is before you make any further edits, otherwise you risk being blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Your phrasing of your request also causes some concern - we don't exist for marketing, we only record individuals already notable, rather than helping that along.
As an actor, the subject needs to play a significant role in multiple notable performances (top 3/4 characters, probably). It's rare for stage performances to demonstrate their notability - they'd need multiple reviews of a show Nosebagbear (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:34:47, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Kribondhar


Hi , I have made the necessary changes in the article and utmost care has been taken so that it complies with the wikipedia community standard. The article is regarding a Camping company which is providing first of its kind overlanding expedition experience to the travelers. So it is a notable topic and can be included in the wikipedia so that a number of people can actually learn about the new kind of adventure tourism trend in India. Hope the community accepts the article this time. Thank you With Regards Krishanu Dhar Kribondhar (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kribondhar: - it's not what a company does that makes it notable - it's how much reliable/independent secondary coverage it has. It has the news article, though half of that is a quote, so doesn't count. I wasn't able to find any content in the book (which you only linked to a google search) that related to the company. All the other sources weren't independent/secondary. I believe the previous reviewers are correct and that notability can't, yet, be established. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:55, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Justilvarghese


Justilvarghese (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Justilvarghese: - there aren't any sources, so the draft is automatically going to fail. Actors need significant roles in two notable films. They are mainly notable films, but many don't seem to list Ala (whether as Ala or Sunayana). She might be notable, but you need sources to clearly show that she is in a significant role in at least two of these films. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:31, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Jayanagas

This is regarding the article GrabOn. I have made necessary changes to it. Expecting a review and publish of it. Thanking you all. Jayanagas (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


August 5

02:00:55, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Lalatendu2019

Hi, since this is my first article, please tell me why this was rejected. There are plenty of similar profile/ pages on other casting directors.

I created this page as I could not find any on Wikipedia and i thought it will be helpful for new actors/ stragglers to find more information on Indian movie casting directors.

Thanks. Lalatendu2019 (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lalatendu2019: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girdhar swami. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:00:07, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Defp619


Thank you for taking the time to review the article. May I ask why is was rejected? I'm new to Wikipedia and figuring out the rules here.

I noticed that you marked it as a conflict of interest. I found an article of Starr Online being featured at Whole Foods [1] and have seen her as prominent in the disability community. She was a big advocate and leader for children and adults with Autism, from what I can find online.

References

  1. ^ [1]

Defp619 (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Defp619: Wikipedia only includes articles about people who have already been written about in depth in other publications. Please add references to show that Taxman has been written about in depth by multiple reliable, independent publications. If you cannot find such sources then they are not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. The patch.com link is a mere mention of Taxman, not an article about her. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Defp619. The linked Wall Street Journal and New York Times articles fail verification. They don't say what you claim, indeed they don't mention Taxman at all. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:25:15, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Mariferchis


Mariferchis (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariferchis: This subject appears not to meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. The only way it might become an article is if you can show that multiple other reliable, independent publications have written in depth about Scotching. Independent excludes anything written by the technique's inventor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:05, 5 August 2019 review of submission by 終端如

re-edit 鍾顓如 來自於台灣，只想編輯自己真正的維基百科資料。 終端如 (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

終端如 Your draft is in Chinese this is the English Wikipedia we would need it translated into English. You could also go and create an article on the Chinese Wikipedia. Whispering(t) 14:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:51:34, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Venky0235


Venky0235 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Venky0235: This draft is not suitable to become a Wikipedia article. Please read WP:DECLINED. I have tagged it for deletion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:31, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Grahamfried

I have edited my submission so that it no longer cites any primary sources (which was the cause for my first draft's rejection); it now references only secondary sources, which I believe should make it publishable. Grahamfried (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahamfried: The sources you've cited are insufficient to meet the WP:NCORP criteria. You would have to find further sources that demonstrate that multiple independent, reliable publications have written about Whitefish Lake Institute in depth. Examples could include articles in national newspapers, scientific journals, or television documentaries. Wikipedia isn't a directory of organisations - it is not about everything. It is an encyclopedia. Instead, I recommend you add to Whitefish Lake (Montana). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grahamfried. Although primary sources generally should be avoided, you are mistaken about that being the problem. The rejection of draft it is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Adding non-independent sources (one written by the executive director, the other a capsule description supplied by the organization as part of their fundraising) does not help. No amount of editing can fix the problem. Wikipedia may not be used for advocacy, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:12, 5 August 2019 review of draft by Wikieagle01


Hello, I just wanted to know how long it would take for the Pete Wilkinson Wikipedia page to go live that I submitted? I uploaded on 29th June. Thank you in advance for your help.

Wikieagle01 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieagle01: the current backlog is over four months, so it will probably take at least until 29th October. Unbekannter z34-56r-ghf-aq2-d0r (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:48, 5 August 2019 review of draft by 70.95.94.136


I'm kind of a newbie editor, and I don't know how to insert links or anything. It would be great if some other editors would write down information they know. Because most of what I know about this topic is that it existed. There's a Korean version of this article that you can read. I'm just making the English version. My Korean reading is poor, so it would be nice if someone would translate all that text on the Korean page. Google Translate is useless apparently.

70.95.94.136 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:03:14, 5 August 2019 review of draft by Atomburke1


I am submitting this article about a living person.

Alina von Davier is a notable scholar and pioneer in the field of psychometrics, especially Computational Psychometrics. Her research has been cited over 2000 times, per google scholar.

The article has been declined and I can't find a sufficient reason for its denial. I appreciate any help you can offer on this. Thank you AtomBurke1

Atomburke1 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atomburke1. The draft was declined for two reasons.
First, it contains information about a living person for which no source is cited. All of the possible explanations for this are bad. If you know the information because of a close connection to von Davier, and especially if you are being paid to write about her, you need to disclose that conflict of interest. If you found it in a reliable source, but neglected to cite the source, you need to cite it. If you made it up, you need to take it out. Assuming the last is not the case, Wikipedia biographies should generally be chronological, so put her MA first, her PhD second, and her post-PhD career third. (Her books should also be in chronological order.)
Second, the draft fails to show how von Davier is notable. The draft gives the impression that it cites no independent sources (the bulk of any article should be based on such sources), although the American Educational Research Association source probably isn't really authored by von Davier as the draft makes out. In postings you have written that she is "recognized as a pioneer" and "her work has been cited over 2000x". Those might relate to specific criteria under WP:PROF, but the draft makes no claims like that. Whatever criteria she meets, the draft needs to say so and prove it by citing independent reliable sources. Who, for example, says she's a pioneer? Finally, the lead should say why she's notable, instead it says she's an adjunct professor. Whoop-de-doo. See MOS:LEAD for how to write a better lead. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:22, 5 August 2019 review of submission by MA$HRVA

I have been writing this article Draft:Shripad Vaidya and making time to time changes as advised by expert reviewers. A part of this article was also written by an expert reviewer in addition to me. I always welcomed others to write in this article and not done any changes in their edits. In this way I was developing the article and trying to learn by doing lot of hardwork by following wikipedia guidelines. I was assuming that I will get a period of 6 months (as written in guidelines) to rewrite and improve this article. But suddenly article got rejected and even the resubmit button disappeared. This seems to be injustice for the disciplined newcomer like me.

As far as the notability of the subject of the article is concerned, I feel that the notability criteria is being fulfilled for the following reasons:

  1. Significant coverage of the subject is available in English, Hindi and Marathi language. The Marathi language wikipedia page of the subject is also available.
  2. Reliable sources are available and have been mentioned in the references. They encompass various published works in three different languages in almost all forms of media. Also the number of references mentioned are from different authors and publications.
  3. The references mentioned are independent of the subject.
  4. There are verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
  5. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources.
  6. The outside world has already taken notice of the subject.
  7. The reliable sources given cover the subject in context of multiple events.
  8. The article is neither a self-promotion nor paid promotion as the work of the subject mentioned in the article is not his source of income. Also I am not a paid editor.
  9. By writing this unique article regarding the work done in the subject of Environmental Human Development, I was trying to enrich the wikipedia knowledge base for the subject Environmental Human Development. As per my knowledge, I have not found any article on any environmentalist working in the field of Environmental Human Development in English Wikipedia (though it exists in Marathi language wikipedia).
  10. The environmentalist's achievements in the field of record breaking have been noted by the highest and famous authorities in that field all over the world.

Under this situation, I request all the concerned authorities to give me a chance to rewrite the article (because I have made a lot of study on that) and also re-review it accordingly. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 19:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Write Right!! 19:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@MA$HRVA: - I see that you were previously asked for your best 3 sources. While you provided them, you completely failed to engage with someone trying to review them. There's another 3 in the actual article - I don't know who added them. Sources 2 and 3 of them are decent. While I won't review this article, if you post your best 4 sources on my talk page (feel free to have up to 2 in another language), I'll discuss them with you, and let you know how he's doing on the notability front.
When it comes to the other reasons that this article has been failing, the insane, completely unhelpful, mess of references adds nothing. For a given fact, no more than 3 sources should be used. Where 1 or 2 sources are used, do not increase them to 3. A limit of 2 for most facts is fine. Use the best sources. Regardless of you being paid or not, it's reading as promotional. Cutting the sources down will make that easier to combat. I don't quite believe it's beyond saving, but it needs major work. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:16:13, 5 August 2019 review of submission by AnjeUno2020


AnjeUno2020 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnjeUno2020: Since there isn't any information other than the infobox, and no sources, it would automatically fail review. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:39:30, 5 August 2019 review of submission by Decipher King


Thank you for the review.

Kindly let me know what exactly the issue is with the article. I tried to make it as clear as possible and not in a promotional way, these are the basic information i know about this company.

Please let me know if i ommitted something or added something that shouldnt.

I will gladly make the necessary changes and republish. Thanks for the effort in advance.

Decipher King (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Decipher King The problem with the draft is that the topic is not notable. No amount of editing can fix that problem. There is no option to resubmit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

01:30:09, 6 August 2019 review of submission by 202.68.171.218

We have update in line with feedback.. 202.68.171.218 (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DavekickrOZ. Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals.
With regard to the draft, you may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:42:00, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Peter.R.Hill

I have added multiple references and added content.Peter.R.Hill (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter.R.Hill. If you wish to submit the draft for a second review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. If you believe the draft doesn't need a second review, then so long as you have no conflict of interest, you may instead WP:MOVE it to article space yourself, and let it take its chances there.
Before you do either, however, fix three things:
  1. It isn't clear what source "[Gordon, David. The Chevron Story]" is. Is it a book? If so, make sure you have the title correct (I couldn't find it in worldcat.org), add the publisher, the copyright year, the ISBN if it has one, and the page number(s) that support the content where cited.
  2. Add a page number to the citation of Elva: the cars, the people, the history. It's difficult to access because only five WorldCat libraries hold the book. So it would be helpful if you added a brief quotation of the source to the citation, as described at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional annotation.
  3. The draft states some opinions in Wikipedia's voice, such as "when the demands of managing his teams and business forced him to hang up his helmet" and "at pivotal times in their careers". That is not allowed. Attribute the statements inline, such as "when, according to so-and-so, the demands of ...", or remove them.
--Worldbruce (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:09, 6 August 2019 review of submission by 202.184.113.208


202.184.113.208 (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Volllllllllllllllllllllllllll Zoogs.

{subst:#time:H:i:s, j F Y}} review of submission by 202.184.113.208



I'm not sure what the above is supposed to mean, but the draft was rejected because despite several attempts, it didn't have suitable sourcing. The fact that it's rejected rather than declined is because it appears that notability CANNOT be met, even with further editing. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:44, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Marco8181


Marco8181 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:01:53, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Ras2066


Good Morning, I never received a response to my request to have a re-review. Can you please take a look at this revised article and let me know if it fits your requirements? Thank you!

Ras2066 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ras2066. No, it does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. The bulk of any article should be based on independent sources. The draft cites none. Do not be surprised that the draft was rejected, or if it is deleted as advertising, and be willing to adjust your approach. The reviewer summed it up well by saying you should STOP, and wait until someone else writes an article on the topic. You can encourage this by:
  1. On your user page, disclose your connection to Michelassi.
  2. Go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and find a category under which to list your request.
  3. Describe the very basics of who Michelassi is, no more than a couple of lines, and avoid puffery. Be up-front about your conflict of interest by mentioning it in the request.
  4. Find a number of independent reliable sources that have substantial information about the topic, and provide links to them in the request. His employer's material about him does not count as such a source.
  5. Optionally, on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine post a link to your request, and make sure to mention your relationship to Michelassi so readers understands where the request is coming from.
The topic has promise, so a member of the WikiProject (or any editor that regularly responds to article requests) may start an article in article space based on your sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:41, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Manas.chafekar

Hello Team,

I have submitted an article for your review on July 7 2019. Can you let me know the tentative time when this article will be reviewed and provide comments? Manas.chafekar (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manas.chafekar. The current backlog is 21 weeks. That suggests it might be reviewed the first week in December. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:01, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Jayanagas


Hi all, The page for GrabOn, coupons and deals platform was created as the deals and coupons are really useful and attractive for any user. Before trying t create a page I checked wikipedia for similar global platforms. I found GroupOn to lead the pack and its Indian version GrabOn is no different and operates within the territory of India. I felt a wiki page would help Indian buyers looking for deals and coupons to be well informed before actually getting on to purchase. So, please review the page, objections and help me publish it. Thanking you all.

Jayanagas (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanagas It's already been reviewed and rejected. Wikipedia isn't your personal promotional vehicle, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean we have to have a page for everything else. Whispering(t) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:52, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Andremartinsc


Andremartinsc (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


16:12:22, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Tuwarg


Hi, With the draft, I've added my comment on discussion page. It seems to me reviewer have not looked at it. I've added there some information why I consider subject notable and how sources meet requirements. If that's not enough, still it would be nice to receive more detailed information why the topic is not considered notable. Could you provide more feedback or rereview the submission? Thanks.

Tuwarg (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:08, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Crueldrama


Crueldrama (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:42, 6 August 2019 review of submission by Gineg80

Hello! This is my first Wiki page. I sent it for review over 3 months ago but nothing has happened yet. I just wanted to make sure I submitted it correctly. I couldn't find it listed in the pending articles, and not sure how to verify if review is in process, and when I should expect it. I created this page in celebration of this little known Costa Rican singer I met, who turned 100 last May. I wanted to give him this little international recognition as a birthday gift. It's now late for that, but I'd love it if he could see it sometime soon! Thank you all

Gineg80 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gineg80. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 21 weeks. About 550 drafts have been waiting longer than this one. You can monitor that number by checking how far the draft is from the top of this page. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

06:05:51, 7 August 2019 review of submission by Platipusica

Hi guys! Can anyone advise why was this page moved to Draft? Looks like the Reviewer (SamHolt6), advised that "the article is primary to WP:PRIMARY sources, and was declined by WP:AFC several times. Incubate." What does it mean Incubate? I see heaps of Web Frameworks approved even with less references, not sure what is the norm. One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottle_(web_framework), has less references (5), so why double standards? Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagare_(web_framework), or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webware_for_Python ???? Amassing. Not a single external reference for both! I do not understand this process, it's frustrating to say at least. I've collected 7 references, tried my best to present this info here, and did not receive any communication that the page was moved to Draft! Any communication at all. Nothing on Talk either, here is citation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drafts" "As a matter of good practice the editor moving a page to draft should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors." So what do I do now? Wait till December b/c someone decided that this is not good enough? And than another year if rejected again? Guys, if that is so, half of the Web Frameworks (free and Open source software) should be put back to Draft on the basis of notability. Like this I've mentioned above. Very disappointing for the first time Wikipedia contributor. You just lost me. Not worth my time, sorry. Gone surfing.... Platipusica (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really guys? So now the Reviewer (Theroadislong) is saying that "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." And previously other Reviewers (StraussInTheHouse‬, Mjs1991‬) did not have any criticism on that note, but they requested more References, which I've clearly provided. Looks like some articles can be published with no References and notability what so ever.

other crap exists is not a good argument for creating an article.The first sentence "primary goal is to allow development of database-driven business web applications easily and quickly, based on DRY principle, with emphasis on CRUD." seems like straight forward advertising speak to me? Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am with you. However, why no one advised me about this 6 months ago? How shall I write this in non advertising manner, which changes to implement if :other crap exists is not relevant at all? Thanks

08:30:32, 7 August 2019 review of draft by Yabirkaur31


Yabirkaur31 (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:45:51, 7 August 2019 review of submission by 2409:4063:4E02:CBB:0:0:A7C8:6605


2409:4063:4E02:CBB:0:0:A7C8:6605 (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:30:01, 7 August 2019 review of submission by Kribondhar

Hi, Hope everything is fine with you. I have made every necessary changes to the article camping co but still there is issue with the notability of the subject as commented . I have attached two newspaper mentions as of now also few article mentions about the subject in various websites. Also i am in the search for more digital copies of news mentions. So it will be very helpful if you suggest and help me in publishing this article. As this will get a better educational visibility about such a venture idea which will eventually add values in the tourism sector of the northeast India

Thanks in advance with regards Krishanu Kribondhar (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=909752305"