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 699: Line 699:
I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer me, because by not finding references on the internet, I don't know how to proceed. I have publications on paper that talk about it and explain the history, but they are not digitalized or published on the web (something normal because it is something old) thanks for your help {{unsigned|Mikelmurf}}
I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer me, because by not finding references on the internet, I don't know how to proceed. I have publications on paper that talk about it and explain the history, but they are not digitalized or published on the web (something normal because it is something old) thanks for your help {{unsigned|Mikelmurf}}
:Sources don't have to be online to be used - see [[Wikipedia:Offline sources]]. If the sources meet the other criteria (significant coverage, reliable, independent), their accessability is not important. <span style="color: darkgreen"> ~~ </span> [[User:OxonAlex|<span style="color: darkgreen"><small>Oxon</small>Alex</span>]] [[User talk:OxonAlex|<span style="color: darkgreen">- talk</span>]] 10:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
:Sources don't have to be online to be used - see [[Wikipedia:Offline sources]]. If the sources meet the other criteria (significant coverage, reliable, independent), their accessability is not important. <span style="color: darkgreen"> ~~ </span> [[User:OxonAlex|<span style="color: darkgreen"><small>Oxon</small>Alex</span>]] [[User talk:OxonAlex|<span style="color: darkgreen">- talk</span>]] 10:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

== 11:09:47, 20 October 2019 review of draft by MelvinSeja ==
{{Lafc|username=MelvinSeja|ts=11:09:47, 20 October 2019|draft=User:MelvinSeja/sandbox}}

Hi, my draft article was declined because there is another draft article [[Draft:Diego_Tryno|Diego Tryno]] that was posted before mine ,so i merged my draft article with the old draft article .My worry is the old article was posted in June ,and it still hasn't been reviewed ,i checked the history and there has been numerous edits from different users, now that i added part of my article in it does it mean i have to join the waiting 'gang'of users? haha we all need a laugh here and there, anyway is there a way to review the old article faster so that i personally don't have to wait for long?
[[User:MelvinSeja|MelvinSeja]] ([[User talk:MelvinSeja|talk]]) 11:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:09, 20 October 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


October 14

04:21:01, 14 October 2019 review of submission by Babitahamdard


Babitahamdard (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:07:58, 14 October 2019 review of submission by Mohit Dhaaliwal


06:07:58, 14 October 2019 review of submission by Mohit Dhaaliwal


Mohit Dhaaliwal (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohit Dhaaliwal: No question has been specified. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mohit Dhaaliwal, Looking at your draft, I see that it had no sources. In order to be included on Wikipedia, you need multiple reliable sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:28, 14 October 2019 review of submission by Sandhyasab


Sandhyasab (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Draft:GREED Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Please improve Greed instead. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC) Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Please improve @ existing article: Greed Gpkp [u • t • c] 15:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC) why my article subbmission is delaayed ?[reply]

Note: The draft in question Draft:GREED was originally declined. I CSDed it for blatant copyright issues as it was basically copy-pasted from various sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:49, 14 October 2019 review of submission by Zionstar888


Zionstar888 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

please why are my articles rejected severally?
Draft:Mordecai Uka Dike is unreferenced and promotional in tone with commercial links to purchase his books it has been correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

05:59:44, 15 October 2019 review of submission by JamesTOswald


Hello, My article on Matt_Godbolt was rejected by David.moreno72 for being not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would like to make the case that Godbolt is a notable person following from section 2.3 of wikipedia's notibility policy for persons dealing with creative professionals. While it could be argued that C++ Developers are not actually Creative professionals, The majority of Godbolt's talks and the projects he is involved in are all "Creative" in nature, speaking more on the philosophies of development and developing tools for educational use rather then proprietary gain. First I would argue he meets criterion 1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.", Godbolt is the poster boy for CLion, the 4th largest C++ IDE with 8% market share at the moment (see this study). You can observe Godbolt right there on the front page just by visiting CLion's website. On top of this, Godbolt has been invited to give 5 separate talks at CppCon (the worlds largest C++ convention) years in a row alongside some of the other largest names in C++, who already have Wikipedia pages, (see Herb Sutter, Bjarne Stroustrup). As for criterion 3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.", Godbolt's flagship project, Compiler Explorer, is a significant piece of software and is widly used by many programmers including famous programmers such asAndrei Alexandrescu (see the citations on the rejected page for more info on the validity this confirmation). Ontop of this, he was personally invited to give a talk on the history of this project at CppCon 2019. (looking at the requirements for notability I see I cant cite Alexa rank as a reason for notability, but I feel I should mention its quite up there for C++ developers if you're interested in doing any independent investigation). For criterion 4(b), "won significant critical attention", I will restate again his invitation to the worlds largest C++ conference's to personally speak about his work, and will also point out that his work has been cited and his tools used by many other C++ programmers, including being featured on multiple episodes of C++ Weekly (episodes 83, 172, 188 SE). I hope this establishes Godbolt's notability for inclusion on Wikipedia, Please let me know if there are any other problems or if the article needs anything else before it can be published.


JamesTOswald (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesTOswald: To be notable, a subject must have been covered in reliable, independent sources. Almost none of the sources on the article were independent of the subject. A google search revealed no sources that meet our standards for notability. This person appears to just not be notable at this time. Wait a few years, see if they've become notable, and you could always create an article then. Unfortunately, there are 8 billion people and very few meet the standard to be included in Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:45:11, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Bhesch

I am requesting re-review because I have been notified that this page is not ready for inclusion on Wikipedia yet many other organizations like [Texas College Democrats] have a page very similar to this one. Please explain. Bhesch (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhesch. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article that does not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean it is welcome. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. It is not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:00, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Smehra2801

Hello Wikipedia,

I have tried a lot in providing the resourceful information about this artist through News Articles, General Publications and alot more. Today I have added again as I have read their news in Dainik Savera - Newspaper and updated it. I would request you to please have a look at and help me making it notable. Smehra2801 (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smehra2801, Firstly read WP:BFAQ#COMPANY
For a business to be notable in Wikipedia terms, it requires significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. None of your sources meet all of these criteria.
In your case I imagine Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability applies. Not every business can have a Wikipedia article, and if sources meeting these criteria don't exist there is nothing you can do.
In addition, the tone is far too promotional - Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:41, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Kapa89

I added two sources describing the software Kapa89 (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kapa89, Both sources are blogs that are not considered as reliable sources. You should find significant coverage from reliable sources to show the software is notable, otherwise it is not suitable for Wikipedia.--94rain Talk 12:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:07:42, 15 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by AniSingh1991

It has been twice that my draft is getting rejected even after following all the guidelines. Proper references are being provided, the content is taken care to be not promotional, valid data is provided and everything else. My draft name - STUDDS Accessories.

Please revert as soon as possible.

Please

AniSingh1991 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AniSingh1991: Your draft was deleted instead of being declined, which means it was promotional to such a level that it warranted speedy deletion and there was no point editing it -- it would need a full rewrite. It seem unlikely that it had "proper references", as you state. This looks like a run-of-the-mill company, so I doubt it is notable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we have specific sourcing requirements: there has to be significant in-depth information from reputable reliable publications. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the guidelines have been followed but still the draft is getting It has been twice that my draft is getting rejected even after following all the guidelines. Proper references are being provided, the content is taken care to be not promotional, valid data is provided and everything else. My draft name - STUDDS Accessories.

Please revert as soon as possible.

Please

AniSingh1991 (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AniSingh1991. If you think you're following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but your drafts are nonetheless being deleted, then you almost certainly don't understand the rules. Although "valid data" is a good property for drafts to have, it is insufficient. The topic must be notable, which most companies are not. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. It would be wise to edit existing articles for a few months or years to gain experience before trying to create new ones, especially ones about companies still in existence.
Whatever you choose to do, this is not the right place to ask for a deleted draft to be restored. A number of essays have been written for people in your position:
These may help you understand why the page was deleted, and what your options are going forward. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:51:10, 15 October 2019 review of draft by Rocciadurissima


Hello, an article I wrote has been declined, based on the fact that sources are not all external. I wonder: how is it possible that the notability criterion is not met when someone goes on TV and has millions of views on YT? And why are sources such as discogs and youtube excluded, when by fact they are the only way to effectively prove claims about notability and discography? That's a bit of a paradox. Thanks. Rocciadurissima (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocciadurissima: Wikipedia does not base notability on popularity or similar factors, only on presence of reputable independent sources. There are specific guidelines for such sources, as stated in the draft's decline reason. We don't write original content, we only aggregate what other sources have already discussed. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:02, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Chirag-Behre


Hello,

I have made a few changes and added links to the content. Kindly review the same.

Regards, Chirag-Behre (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chirag-Behre: None of the sources are independent of the subject. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:56, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Sourabh kachru


Sourabh kachru (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourabh kachru, your article was likley declined for two reasons: A. as it stands, the article does not meet wp:42 - there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, in order to verify the content of the article. B. Because the article appers overly promotional. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. If you are being paid to create articles, are are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:53, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Thebigl42


Hi,

I agree that adding Amazon reference doesn't increase the validity of the page. However, I've also added links to Columbia University, Harvard University, Google -- all of which are notable institutions of our time. This is the most exciting and influential media start up coming out of Kathmandu, Nepal and it feels odd for Wikipedia editors to refuse entry.

Thank you very much.


Thebigl42 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thebigl42, at the moment, the sources that are independent of the publication are simply mentions of the publication and its founder, rather than in depth coverage. See Wikipedia:Trivial mentions.
This only means that at the present time, the subject is non notable.
This doesn't mean that once it has become a more established fixture, independent, in depth, sources won't become avaliable, at which point you can write an article. This is expanded in the essay WP:TOOSOON - this isn't a reflection on what the magazine will become - In 2006, the article for the iPhone was removed, under similar reasons. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:51, 15 October 2019 review of submission by Bhesch

How can this article be improved to be approved by Wikipedia? Bhesch (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhesch: Right now your article cites zero independent reliable sources. Also, while College Democrats of America is a notable organization, individual chapters usually are not. See WP:BRANCH. shoy (reactions) 18:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Shoy: But for example, the Texas College Democrats does have a page without any notability comments on that page. Please explain. Bhesch (reactions) 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhesch: I turned Texas College Democrats into a redirect. It does not need its own page, and in fact a version of the page with even more information was previously turned into a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas College Democrats. shoy (reactions) 18:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:09, 15 October 2019 review of draft by Creatorsforum


I would like to find out how we can improve the Wikipedia page and get it approved. We tried submitting the draft, but it's been pending review for months. We tried submitting or moving the draft to an article space, but it was deleted and reverted back to a draft with a different name. We don't know if the information, format, etc. is wrong and would like to get the draft reviewed, hopefully, approved and moved to article space as the show is believed to proceed with Season 2 in a month and Season 1's Wikipedia page is not even approved/authorized. It's been taking forever. Kindly advise? Creatorsforum (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creatorsforum (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Creatorsforum: For starters, I have left a note on your talkpage about WP:PAID editing, you might also wish to read WP:COI. I'm not sure who "we" refers to, but keep in mind that editing for pay requires disclosure, and that accounts must only represent a single person, such as "Dave at Creatorsforum". In terms of the content of the article, the issue is that it is not properly sourced and it reads like an advertisement. Ideally, you need more sources. Said sources need to be reliable, independent, secondary sources. What that means is the source should not be written or related to the subject of the article, as are many of the current sources. Really the best sources are things like news articles and books. Once you have better sources, you then need to make sure the article reads like its part of an encyclopedia. It should be neutral, and read like an uninvolved review of the subject. As is, the articles reads like it is trying to explicitly promote its subject. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

05:23:20, 16 October 2019 review of submission by Bhawika Mehra


Bhawika Mehra (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawika Mehra, No question has been specified. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bhawika Mehra, In reading your draft, it is not supported by reliable and independent sources. It also reads like an advertisement, and is overly promotional in nature. It needs a rewrite and new sources to enter Wikipedia. However, it does not appear suffucient sources exist at this time, which is why the submission was declined as non-notable. There are 8 billion people, and very few qualify for inclusion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:04, 16 October 2019 review of submission by Meethashimn


Meethashimn (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meethashimn, your draft was declined for being not sufficiently notable - please see wp:42, a condensed version of this policy.
We require all articles to meet this standard, so that content in the article can be verified. If reliable sourcing doesn't exist, we can't confirm that the article is correct, thus we can't have an article.
Additionally, If you are being paid to create articles, or are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:35, 16 October 2019 review of submission by VonWerdt


Hello everyone! An article I've written was recently declined and the message I got referred me to here, if I have any questions about how to fix things. For some context: I'm to write an article here on wikipedia about my professor of roman law. (I'm her assistant.) I've already successfully done so in german, my native language. I translated the article to english myself, as I'm bilingual, not really changing anything. The article was pending for a while and I just saw now that it was declined for the reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I take this to mean that the article lacks independet sources on the subjectmatter. I admit, the only reference in the article is a reference to a book she co-published. However I don't believe there are any other references I could add, since she doesn't have a biography written about her. I linked her info-pages from the universities she works in under "Weblinks". Perhaps I should move those to "References"? I'm not sure how I could change the article so it fits the criteria better. The exact same version in german was accepted rather quickly, which surprises me even more. I also worked on a chinese version with some colleagues from China and I know they had some issues at first as well but those seme to have been cleared. Any help or suggestion is very welcome. VonWerdt (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)VonWerdt[reply]

VonWerdt (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no independent biographies, you will instead have to consider the impact of her work. Has any one else written substantially about what she has written, say a review or counter argument? WP:NPROF talks about requirements for articles on academics, if the cannot pass WP:GNG, the general notability guidlines. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:09:12, 16 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dancetome


Would you please tell us what is wrong with our wikipedia page named "Alex Bros Jewellers" we have created and what changes we must do to get it approved. The page was created under the username "dancetome". The other pages we referred which are our competitors have been approved. Please guide us through the process.

Dancetome (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Dancetome (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]



WHY IS IT REJECTED? ANOTHER JEWELLER AGAIN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hill_Jeweller

@Dancetome: The reason it was rejected was it was very promotional. Promotional wording includes " strong foundation" "the cornerstone" "adorned" "deep understanding" "finest quality" "inspired " "authenticity and expertise" "unparalleled" "exclusive encounter between elegance". The Michael Hill Jeweller page is not fantastic, but at least it is neutrally written, and does not extol the virtues of their merchandise. Instead it has plenty of history. See if you can find what newspapers and magazines have written about Alex Bros Jewellers, and base your writings on that. Greek language material is OK too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:30:41, 16 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dcs ifm



Dcs ifm (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


REJECTION OF MY PAGE Dcs ifm (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dcs ifm, your draft was declined for being too promotional - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your business.
If you are being paid to create articles, or are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:23:06, 16 October 2019 review of draft by UMMAA


Hello, I am in the process of editing this submission to make it comply with feedback from previous editors. In the case of this institution, most of the relevant sources are internal to the University of Michigan, though not published by the museum itself. Are these viewed as outside sourcing? UMMAA (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should you return with a new username, the problem with the draft is not notability, as is the case with most rejected drafts, more the style. At the moment, the article is written in a promotional style you would expect from a company's website, not the formal style exceptected from an encyclopedia. For example, the first statement in the article is that it is known for its contribution to the understanding of a global human history. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if you are being paid to create articles, or are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this and follow the paid editing policy - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:37, 16 October 2019 review of submission by Alexander Andronkin

Comparing my page with other Wiki pages, we (meaning this company I work for, we only want to have an information presence on Wikipedia like all companies) assume that by 'multiple indepth sources' you refer to the References section. All other areas from what I can see are for linking to other wiki pages, and I've added a number of those links. So, I now have added extra Resources links to the page. We are a fairly young company so do not have lots of external sources, but I assume that young companies are not barred for this, only for trying to be salesy which I have not done. Please let me know if there is anything further you require. Alexander Andronkin (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Andronkin, firstly, if you are being paid to create articles, or are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI.
Secondly Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place to promote your business.
Your draft was declined as the company does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic - see wp:42. If these criteria aren't met, we can't have an article, simply because it is not possible to verify the article is true. If these sources don't exist, there is nothing you can do other than wait for them to exist - please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:06, 16 October 2019 review of draft by Stark and Stark


It has been 12 weeks seeks we last resubmitted this page, and still have not heard anything... can someone please look into this ASAP and let me know what we can do on our end to help move this process along? We first submitted this almost 4 months ago!

Stark and Stark (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently declined by JTP. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:46, 16 October 2019 review of submission by Milljohner


Hello, the article I created and wrote for our company, GameMine, has been rejected. I have cited sources with strong credibility and authority e.g. TechCrunch. Why am I being rejected despite being entirely fact-based? thank you. Warm regards, John

Milljohner (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for helpers, the draft is Draft:GameMine ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Milljohner, Many of the sources are not adequete. The MarketsInsider source is actually just a PR news release, which means its not independent. The Bloomberg source is not WP:SIGCOV. I'm on the fence about using Cheddar as a source; I need to clarify whether its suitable. I would say: try to find additional sources if possible. That can only help you. Also, make sure the article is neutrally worded so as to avoid being declined for advertising. Keep up the work, and with luck you should get it approved. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:07, 16 October 2019 review of draft by PK2112


How can I change the title of this article? I want to remove the word "Brushless"PK2112 (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PK2112 (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PK2112. On Wikipedia, a page is renamed by moving it to a new name. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:30:07, 16 October 2019 review of submission by CheatCodes4ever


THIS IS RIDICULOUS YOU MUST ACCEPT THIS PAGE OH AND BY THE WAY SINGLES FROM EPs ARE NOT SINGLES FROM ALBUMS TOO AND CAN I LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT’S WHAT I LIKE by BRUNO MARS WAS RELEASED ON JANUARY 30, 2016 I never made that edit but it’s right, check genius

And by the way acccept this right now there is no reason all of your reasons to delete it and decline it are incorrect. If you’re not happy with the page, you should be helping me with it, not deleting it. Wikipedia Editing is about editing, not deleting and declining. By the way, it’s a fact that you always lie lie lie you just keep on lying and lying Again this whole website is a whole lie and if you decline this again I’m going to tell you that this website is ruined and I don’t want you to do this again. You can’t. So fix up this website and make it reliable.

CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheatCodes4ever, Lets have a look at the notability criteria for albums:
  • Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it - No
  • The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart No - the Billboard Comedy Albums Chart isn't a national chart
  • The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country It has not
  • The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award No
  • The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. - Nope
  • The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network - It was not
  • The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network - it has not
If you can prove the album meets any of those criteria, it can have an article. Otherwise, it can not. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CheatCodes4ever, Also your userpage shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works - You’re supposed to make pages of everything. Please read both WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:EVERYTHING ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:12, 16 October 2019 review of draft by Rwdepalma


Rwdepalma (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rwdepalma, The sentence you have written would go better as an addition to the Fats Navarro article, not as a standalone article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

03:29:32, 17 October 2019 review of draft by Ramongonsalis123


I published this again with proper resources and changed the unreliable ones still nothing happened, can someone help me in actually getting this to being published.

Ramongonsalis123 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramongonsalis123: The problem is that the fighter's accomplishments are insufficient to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. The notability criteria for mixed martial arts fighters revolve around their fights for top-tier MMA organizations. If Desert Force Championship were top-tier, he would need at least three (3) professional fights for it, or to have fought for the highest title of it, neither of which is true. Moreover, Desert Force Championship is not a top-tier MMA organization. Unless there's more to his fighting career than the draft says, the topic is not acceptable for publication on Wikipedia. You may wish to consider alternative outlets for your writing about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:14, 17 October 2019 review of submission by 1.127.111.98


1.127.111.98 (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a person, or any subject, to be considered notable for wikipedia, it has to meet WP:42 - it has to have had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Unless you are a programmer who has been covered in reliable sources, it is not possible to have an article. This is because it would not be possible to verify the contents of the article - if there are no reliable sources, the article could essentially just say what the subject wanted it to. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn
Additionally, writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:11, 17 October 2019 review of submission by Vasareliepaite


Hello, I would like to know why my article about Dione ice cream is declined? It looks like I've done everything properly (citations, etc). Could you please explain what should I do better (add something, or make some corrections, etc)? It would be really helpful, thank you!

Vasareliepaite (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vasareliepaite, the article was rejected by AFC because it wasn't deemed to be notable - see WP:42 - Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. In your case, I imagine the problem was significant coverage. Simple mentions of the company existing, or routine press release type mentions aren't determined to be significant.
Now, for whatever reason, a user moved the article out of draft into the encyclopedia. They are well within their rights to do this, but I don't think it was a good decision when the article isn't ready. Because of this, it has now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dione (ice cream) - what happens next is determined by consensus in that discussion. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:22, 17 October 2019 review of submission by Millie Vago


Millie Vago (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm having a lot a trouble dealing with the publishing of my article because I don't get why is it that declines. I took all of the external links from the body text and put them as "cite", as I think it should be; or so I understood. Could you please help me?

Thank you!

@Millie Vago: The most recent declination was for content that sounds like an advertisement, not for your referencing style. The topmost box on your draft has some helpful links about how to improve your draft. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! What should I take out of it? It's a Biography, and as such, it contains a lot of refferences about work places and companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millie Vago (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Millie Vago, I recommend you follow the advice given to you by TheRoadIsLong, the last reviewer regarding phrasing. Remember, this is an encyclopedic article, which should read neutral. Wikipedia is not for promoting people, it is for gathering useful and notable knowledge. You also need to go through the references. Only include references that directly talk about the subject, are reliable, and independent of the subject. Unusable references should be removed. Uncited claims should generally be remove, as this is a biography of a living person. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:03:12, 17 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ashleyj618


An article for MB Real Estate was recently rejected for not being sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. What can be added to this entry for approval?

Ashleyj618 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleyj618, the subject needs signifigant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The sources listed were either promotional, or just mentioned the subject in passing. If you can find those sources, do and add them. But it seems that such coverage may not exist, in which case the subject is just not notable. Alas, there are millions of businesses and we can't cover them all. Only a handful actually qualify for inclusion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:29, 17 October 2019 review of draft by TrevlacT


I am trying to understand what, if any changes are needed to the article to meet the "noteability" requirement. Margaret Hamer/Maggie Browne was a popular children's author as was her mother Sarah Sharp Hamer for whom there is an existing Wikipedia page. When I look at Sarah's page it appears to have a similar form, and references a page for Maggie Browne which does not exist. My intention was to plug that hole by providing a Maggie Browne page

Would providing references to her books for sale on Amazon be considered better citations ?

I am not trying to challenge the decision, simply to decide what type of changes or additions are needed for acceptance.

TrevlacT (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TrevlacT (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TrevlacT, To get the article passed you need sources that talk about her as a person. Using Amazon sale links is not acceptable. Ideally, you'd find newspaper articles or a book written about her. But regardless of the form of the source, it must be reliable and secondary, not primary. Keep trying at it, work to revise it, and don't be afraid to ask more questions here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


October 18

01:52:04, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Nitrous1200


Additional Sources found and cited.

Nitrous1200 (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitrous1200: You have already submitted it, please wait for it to be reviewed. Expect this process to take ~2 months. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nitrous1200, I have reviewed it. Several issues remain, chiefly the sourcing and the wording. More reliable sources are needed, and as this is a biography of a living person (per WP:BLP) most statements require an inline citation as well. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:15:39, 18 October 2019 review of submission by NickHailey

I think the subject is now notable for a page. NickHailey (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NickHailey, I have submitted for review under your name, and I invite you to be WP:BOLD and fix it (one of Wikipedia's core ideas!). If you think this person is now notable, you must improve the article to show that. Find reliable sources and expand the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NickHailey: - hi there. Reviewers will look at the draft itself - it doesn't need content added directly to the help desk. Best of luck with your editing Nosebagbear (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Review

07:50:05, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Mainowner

I would like to write few more article about school and temple in my location .But previous article not yet published .Please let me know i can write more article ?.If i maid any error in submitted article , i need to rectify it next article.When my above mansion article reviewed?

Mainowner (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mainowner: - you can have multiple drafts pending. In terms of timing of review of your original draft, - currently we have a major (though shrinking) backlog, with drafts there about 14 weeks last time I checked. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:09:55, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Elenmelkonyan123


Hello I need help with Draft:InLobby. My article submission has been rejected for not being sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia and the reviewer commented it as basically advertising . However I have done a detailed research on the topic , found notable sources for my article, followed all the guidelines and haven't used a primary source...So please, if you have a time read my draft and explain me, which parts they qualified as advertisment and what can I do to improve it. Your comment on it will be highly appreciated ! Elenmelkonyan123 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenmelkonyan123: Sources 1 and 3 look like recycled press releases from non-WP:RS websites to me (press releases are not independent). Sources 2 and 4 are interviews, so they aren't independent of the company either. If these are the best sources you can find, then this company is not notable, and no amount of editing will ever be able to fix that problem. shoy (reactions) 14:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:25, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Sanjaysharma5882

I just need advice, why my article is rejected.

Please give me feedback so I can work on this and request for re-verify. Sanjaysharma5882 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaysharma5882, The article is overly promotional, and the subject may not be notable. You need to find multiple reliable sources that mention the subject with significant coverage. If a reference does not mention the subject, don't include it. Regardless, the page is not written like a neutral encyclopedia article and only serves to promote its subject. Please read WP:N to understand the style of writing and presentation expected on Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:21, 18 October 2019 review of submission by JaneShuttleworth


Please could you advise how this article could be more 'neutral'. I carefully researched other Wikipedia articles for similar organisations before writing this, and modelled my submission on work already approved and published. The article is an entirely factual representation of a non-profit-making organisation so if you could highlight aspects that are considered not to be neutral, I'd be grateful for the guidance.

In respect of sources, the article references 20 external sources, including the BBC, the Guardian, Classical Music Magazine and local print press.

A number of published Wikipedia articles refer to Samling Institute or its programmes in the body text or in references (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Banfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuccia_Focile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Jegunova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justina_Gringytė https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Allen_(baritone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobel_Buchanan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Costa-Jackson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuna_Scott_Sendall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wnukowski). Having a page for Samling Institute that these references can linked to would improve the credibility and give greater depth to these articles.

Finally, it seems strange that an organisation that has been given the title 'Institute' in the UK should not be considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute which says In the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man the term "institute" is a protected word and companies or other organizations may only use the word if they are "organisations which are carrying out research at the highest level or to professional bodies of the highest standing" [1]

JaneShuttleworth (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well for example this "The Samling Artist Programme brings together emerging classical singers and pianists – usually in the final stages of their studies, or the early stages of their careers – with internationally recognised artists, directors, actors and movement and language coaches in a series of week-long, intensive, residential masterclasses. Participants are selected through a combination of recommendation and audition. The coaching is predominantly carried out in private, but the residential week ends with a public masterclass and concert." is entirely unsourced and promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute

13:49:23, 18 October 2019 review of draft by Johnny234424


I don't understand what is wrong with my article that it keeps getting rejected. This article and submission is for a English Course I am taking in college. If this article doesn't get accepted by sunday night then I'll fail my mid-term. Please help or explain why they won't accept it. Thank you. Johnny234424 (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny234424: - I believe the inline sources are being refuted because you're using primary/non-independent sources, that is, they can't be trusted as independent reliable sources. I personally feel it's pretty close - it needs a couple of sources to support the key things (who he played for etc) and then you can either find more sources to support the other facts or trim them.
Wikipedia cannot run to external deadlines - we specifically discourage courses from requiring acceptance as a minimum criterion. I'd advise raising our inability to guarantee acceptance (or even a review) on a short or medium timescale, rapidly. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny234424: Like Nosebagbear says, we can't change our guidelines to meet artificial external deadlines. If your professor really wants to assign Wikipedia articles as coursework, then they need to work with WP:WEP in a structured fashion. shoy (reactions) 15:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny234424:, Nosebagbear and Shoy hit the nail (mostly) on the head. At the time, internal citations weren't used. Now they have, which is great! Additionally, Krevis meets our notability guidelines for NFL players, which is awesome. What was concerning to me was some of the sentences in the article that come across as way too informal for an encyclopedia, and can't be backed up with the references provided:
  • According to him, he liked the sport more than studying. He was known for being a punishing lineman and earned himself quite the reputation during his college years.
  • In 2019, his estimated income is $100.000-1 million.[8] He is retired and doesn’t play professionally but is still active on social media and likes to include himself in the sport industry.[9] He prefers to go to the games, rather than watch it on TV.[10]

Did you interview Krevis as part of your assignment? Bkissin (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:00, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Doggygirl1234

Hey! I am trying to edit a page for my friend Lauren she has millions of followers online and tons of articles. I have included someone that just mention her but there are a lot of articles fully about her in her references, do I have to shorten the article? Here page was up on Wikipedia for years but was deleted after an editing war. Please let me know if you can advise. Thanks so much! Jenn Doggygirl1234 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doggygirl1234, We strongly advise against editing the articles of people you know, as that constitutes a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). If you are editing the article, only sources that are reliable, independent should be used. All others, and their information, should usually be discarded. Additionally, several of those sources must have significant coverage of the subject to ensure her notability. If such sources cannot be found or do not exist, then the subject is not notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Captain Eek! This was helpful, I have never met lauren but followed her online for years, how do I know if sources are reliable, independent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doggygirl1234 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doggygirl1234, well I suggest you read the policies (linked above) to get a feel for it. In general, a source like the New York Times is reliable and usually independent. It is a reputable major newspaper, and its content is made by its reporters. A bad source would be a press release by a company used in an article for that company: the source is inherently biased towards that company. Social media posts and youtube videos are not usually reliable or independent. Articles that feel like clickbait, or clickbaity websites, are often not reliable either. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:35, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Zionstar888


Zionstar888 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, I have re-edited this article, so I will like you to review it once again... Thank you very much!

You have not re-submitted yet, but the draft is still no where near ready for accepting, please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources and even if he really is "a dedicated cross-cultural missionary, an Author, and award winning Graphic designer." I don't think he passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:20, 18 October 2019 review of draft by Vinvibes


Hi, its after a long gap that I have made an attempt to publish on Wikipedia, and would like someone more experienced to check my draft and point out how it can be improved, and get published. Thanks in advance, regards User:Vinvibes 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinvibes: I'm afraid that draft doesn't seem to exist at the moment, nor do I see a similar draft which you have edited recently. Did you forget to save the draft? Am I missing something? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that you have just created it. I suggest you submit the draft for review. It might take a bit to get reviewed, as there is a large review backlog, but that'll give you time to keep improving it and working on other articles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, its great to interact after a long time; so how else can I improve on it? Any suggestions? Thanks in advance, regardsVinvibes 17:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinvibes (talk • contribs)
Vinvibes, I have gone ahead and submitted and reviewed it on your behalf. Main issues here: needs better sources to establish notability. Most of the sources just seem to be interviews of him, which is not sufficient. Also, is overly promotional: the wording should be neutral. The anecdote about wearing his fathers clothes should go. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - will remove this part...what else comes across as promotional? If you go thrugh the content, I have tried to just glean the gist of facts and used them, and left out the rest simply because it would seem too promotional. Thanks for the effort, regards Vinvibes 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Vinvibes, Both his motive and his tagline should go. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEekHi, I have removed whatever you asked me to omit, and have managed to find about 3 more fresh links, which I have added, but am yet to resubmit. The thing is what I have realized about these references is that they are independent alright but mostly relevant to Canada or Nigeria. I explored them around a bit and found that they are typical online mags but not exactly world renowned, they are more country specific or subject specific. Is that why they don't seem valid? And I have also followed your advice and put a message in the Teahouse for help. Thanks & regardsVinvibes 21:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinvibes:Alas, most of the sources do not appear to be independent. Better sourcing will be required. Interviews do not usually count towards notability.Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek:Hi, yes, much of the info is indeed revealed through interviews...so what do you suggest I should do about this on? Can I keep it here as a draft till I am able to find some featured article over the coming week or so? Thanks & regards, Vinvibes 09:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:07, 18 October 2019 review of submission by 2A02:C7D:1A72:8300:FDCA:651E:7029:DACB


2A02:C7D:1A72:8300:FDCA:651E:7029:DACB (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:42 to understand the basics of notability. If you can find sources as outlined, the subject may be included. But the current sources do not establish that the person is notable for inclusion. Work to find more, and better sources. But it may be that the subject is just simply not notable at this time, which is common; there are 8 billion people but only very few can make it onto Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:12, 18 October 2019 review of submission by ASHUDU


ASHUDU (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC) because he is a notable person and we are gathering information for his other sources to edit more parts of this article.[reply]

@ASHUDU: - two things:
1) You say "we are gathering" - are you an organisational account?
2) Nothing in the article indicates that he is a notable individual unless and until he's such a famous political strategist that reliable, secondary sources are covering him Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:04:20, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Coe-1878

Hello, I'm trying to create a new article on Professor Kumares C. Sinha from Purdue University. I've made the title in the article wizard, but when I try to enter text a notice indicates the following: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Can somebody let me know what is necessary to be able to create this page? thanks. Coe-1878 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coe-1878, Were you trying to create a draft version? Or a final version? What was the exact title you tried to enter? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Coe-1878 and CaptainEek: This message means that the title was blacklisted locally or globally. AFAIK the title of the page can be found in the logs, but you need admin rights to access it. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Schmidt mobil, Coe-1878, Yeah its on the local title blacklist as "((User)|(Draft)).*[Ss]inha.* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bikram Jit Sinha". Anything with Sinha in a draft title gets flagged. I'll drop a note on the admins board to try to fix the issue. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:05:34, 18 October 2019 review of draft by Juliaferrari


Juliaferrari (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to learn how to make a submission about the small press that I am part of and also to link my name to my deceased partner's website who was Dan Carr. Can you help me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliaferrari (talk • contribs)

@Juliaferrari: First off, read our conflict of interest policy and our policy on promotion.
If you want to try again, then try following these instructions on how to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

05:56:37, 19 October 2019 review of submission by RahulJ730

I have removed all the promotional content on which the objection was raised. I have provided News links too. Still Wikipedia thinks it's an advertising. Please show me which lines of the content look like advertisement. And, please re-review my article once and suggest me the changes you want. RahulJ730 (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RahulJ730, For starters, all of the sources about her life need a reliable source that is cited inline. Also, the medical claims made at the end need a WP:MEDRS -- a more stringent source than usual. The whole public interaction section should go. And the global presence feels like I'm reading a LinkedIn, not an encyclopedia. It should probably all be removed or briefly summarized under career. Also, please go through all sources to ensure they are reliable and independent. If they aren't, get rid of them. You likely need to find more sources regardless as well. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:56:34, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Huskhod

why your article submission was declined? Huskhod (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huskhod: Wikipedia isn't a free alternative to advertise a company. In addition, Wikipedia has to adhere to copyright laws. Therefore, we cannot accept material from elsewhere on the web. This especially important because it can put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:08, 19 October 2019 review of submission by JamesTOswald


Hello AFC, Thank you for the feedback on my article. Since my first review, I have added much better independent sourcing to establish notability, I now have citations to 4 independent interviews from the subject, 2 independent articles on him, As well as 6 or so other independent sources that mention him and his work. Ontop of this I removed any sections that are not backed up with independent sources (early life and family life), as well as subsequently removing sources which were not independent in the first draft such as the subjects blog and youtube. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve this article. Thank You,

JamesTOswald (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are still using YouTube, Twitter and blogs which are not reliable sources and interviews are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Hello, Thank you for your quick reply! The single YouTube reference is a link to when the channel info page when it was created, and its original names, this is not self published and is automatically generated by YouTube. The twitter reference is pointing out something of little relevance in a subsection and ill get rid of what it cites as well as the link (ill keep this in mind for future articles). As for interviews not being independent sources, Can you please point me to accepted policy on this? I spent a long time looking at Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources#Non-independent_sources and was under the impression that when establishing notability for a person, The only way to do so was through independent articles and interviews of the on the person (how else would we get any information on the person other then interviewing them or having a 3rd party interact with them?). Looking at Wikipedia:Interviews it appears all of my linked interviews meet independence criterion. Please correct me if I am wrong, and let me know if there is anything else. Thanks so much! JamesTOswald (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I've removed the twitter citation JamesTOswald (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material." Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong That's for reliability rather then independence, also since "If the material is primary, then it is treated as if the interviewee had written the same content on their website or Twitter. As long as we can be reasonably certain that the material was written by them, then the Wikipedia policy on primary sources applies. Such material can be used, but needs to be used with care, and only to cite facts that can be verified from the source itself." Since I am using it to cite facts that can be proved from the source this would still allow it to fall under reliability, no? JamesTOswald (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JamesTOswald, For material in-text, primary sources such as interviews should be used only sparingly. For establishing notability, interviews are not sufficient. To establish notability, only reliable, independent, secondary sources can be used. Look for articles in news sites, newspapers and magazines, references in books, or the like. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:49:40, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Brettq888


Brettq888 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

I was told to ask for assistance with editing my article I drafted here for tips to make sure that is passes review next time. So, is there anyone who can give me some advice or assist me?


Thank you

You need to provide reliable independent sources that talk in-depth about the term/concept. This means no passing mentions and no sources from organizations related to the concept. For starters, can you cite multiple reliable sources that support the statement: "Fraud Orchestration is a paradigm, a unified approach to fraud investigations, operations and fraud compliance." That would be the first step. Without such sources, it's a neologism, as the reviewer stated. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:02, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Shifaradiowala

I have queries about what I could use as source for citation for my Article since IMDB doesn't qualify do news sites like times and mumbai mirror do? If not those then what other sites can I use for citations? I am fairly new to the site so thank you for the help. Shifaradiowala (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shifaradiowala. Major newspapers such as The Times of India and Mumbai Mirror are generally reliable sources for pop culture, as are entertainment magazines such as The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Although reliable, they may not always be independent. They may reprint press releases, either explicitly or as churnalism. They may also use an interview format to let someone talk about themselves without independent analysis by the interviewer. Even when they are reliable and independent, they may contain only passing mentions of a person, such as in a list of cast and crew, without going into any detail about them. Books are often good sources, although they too must be evaluated for reliability, independence, and significant coverage. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:05, 19 October 2019 review of draft by Wikimility


Sk sahoo is a actor i am her best friend . I want to add his biography on Wikipedia so i try this page . But you tell me it is not possible ? Please help and support my friend

Do you want to verify he is actor or not please search on Google SubhraKant Sahoo actor Wikimility (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikimility. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to write about your friends (or yourself, your family, or your organization). If you want to improve the encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to do so. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:50:12, 19 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Baozon90


2019 maine black bears women field hockey team season

Baozon90 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baozon90, The issue here is several fold. For starters, you've left the templated parts of the article that you're supposed to replace with your own text. You also have only one source, and basically no information. Please see 2018–19 Boston Bruins season as an example of a hockey season page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:57:50, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Notjoemama1

To whoever it may concern, The Wikipedia page about Nathan Duttlinger was rejected due to lack of notoriety for Wikipedia. However, we disagree. Not only has the page been cleaned up and now appears much more professional, but Nathan is also a person with enough notoriety for Wikipedia. He has been quoted by many people to be an inspiration and a role model, and is a two-time qualifier for the Fortnite world cup. I'd like to mention this because of the fact that this year's Fortnite World Cup winner has his own Wikipedia page, so why can't he?

Regards, Notjoemama1 Notjoemama1 (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notjoemama1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It contains biographical articles about notable people. It is not like Facebook or other sites where people "have their own pages". Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft lists three "sources", but none of them mention Duttlinger, so it fails to demonstrate that he is notable.
I don't see an encyclopedia article about Kyle Giersdorf, but as this year's winner of the Fortnite World Cup, he's more likely to have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time than Duttlinger, who you say has qualified to compete for the cup, but not won it. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

02:17:18, 20 October 2019 review of submission by 2402:8100:2190:ED1B:0:0:1859:225


Dear Wikipedia Admin we Will Submit Another News Source if you want and how to Verify This Page. I have Already mention proof of WP:NACTOR .

Pls Tell me Briefly.

2402:8100:2190:ED1B:0:0:1859:225 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be any proof of WP:NACTOR. Regardless, the article appears to be a repeated recreation, and will likely be deleted as an attempt to game the system. The only sources appear to be press releases, which are not suitable for use as sources. Really what you'd need would be articles in reliable newspapers. But those don't appear to exist for this person. That means this person is just not notable at this time. There are 8 billion living people, and only very few are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Please move on to working on a different article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:43:12, 20 October 2019 review of draft by TPCross


Can I inquire about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:National_Institute_of_Social_Sciences

Nearly 11 weeks ago, I addressed the issues raised by the editor.

Many thanks.

TPCross (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TPCross, It is awaiting review. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, although there is an emphasis on very new and very old drafts. The review time is currently longer than usual, as there is a large backlog of drafts. The typical review time is currently more than 8 weeks. Hopefully your draft will be gotten to soon. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:00:28, 20 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 83Gulf


I'm trying to reference my new article - Flexibound but I can't find authoritative refs i.e.: online from universities, news articles, e-books. All is see using the search: flexibound, flex-bound, flexi boung, flexibind, flexi-bind, flexi-binding, fexi binding...anyway you get the idea. All search terms list .com websites that are booksellers or printers. I can't find anything from .edu, .org, .gov,...trust me, I'm very good at search. No news anywhere about this type of binding. I don't have any books that would explain what it is, so I can't ref that Yet, it is a word "flexibound" that's used everywhere if I was buying the book or wanted it printed. The only reason I wanted to make the article was because I never heard the term before and so the 1st place I naturally looke was here. I don't want to mark it for deletion, I don't give up that easy. PLEASE HELP!! I have very little hair left.

83Gulf (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

83Gulf, Howdy hello! I suspect that Flexibound is just not notable enough for an article of its own in that case. Articles make it onto Wikipedia becuase they have reliable sources write about them. If something doesn't have any sources writing about it, its not notable. Your quest may work better as an addition to the Bookbinding page, instead of as a page of its own. But in trying to find more sources, I recommend turning to ...you guessed it a book. A book about bookbinding or book making might have what you need. But you seem to have exhausted most traditional sourcing; there really may not be anything reliable written about it. Some things just aren't written down :/ Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:34:52, 20 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Healing Counselling


I requested 'Perpetuity Diet' to be placed on Wiki and it was declined. Please advise how I can get the Perpetuity Diet posted as I did not believe it was promoting a person, product or belief, so I am a little confused as I am a Psychological researcher and it is not about me or what I believe in.

The Vegan diet promotes a long and healthy life as other diets do, please advise how I can list this on Wiki.

Thank you

Robert Lower 0425738093

Healing Counselling (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healing Counselling, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. To feature your diet in the encyclopedia, it needs to meet all of the article criteria in Wikipedia:Everything you need to know. Most importantly, it must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If it doesn't have this, we can't verify the article's contents, therefore we can't have an article.
Additionally, if you are being paid to create articles, or are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:16, 20 October 2019 review of draft by MelvinSeja


Im requesting for help because my article was declined because there is an exisiting draft. Isn't there a way my own draft article can be merged with the existing draft article without me editing someone's article? because the draft article diego tryno ,is now 9months old and it doesn't have much information as mine has. MelvinSeja (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MelvinSeja, You are free to merge them together, simply copy information from one to the other, following the first step of WP:MERGETEXT - as their both drafts the following steps don't matter.
No user owns any Wikipedia article (WP:OWN), and you can edit any page here (within reason) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:15, 20 October 2019 review of submission by Mikelmurf

Hello, I would like to know how to proceed to publish this article. I have searched a lot of information and I have only found it in physical format through specialized music magazines. 

Formerly there was a website where the history of this record label was explained, but unfortunately it is no longer available. I can't find any article on the internet, which makes reference to this record label (which is why I decided to make it fair by publishing an article about it on Wikipedia, so it wouldn't be forgotten) I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer me, because by not finding references on the internet, I don't know how to proceed. I have publications on paper that talk about it and explain the history, but they are not digitalized or published on the web (something normal because it is something old) thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelmurf (talk • contribs)

Sources don't have to be online to be used - see Wikipedia:Offline sources. If the sources meet the other criteria (significant coverage, reliable, independent), their accessability is not important. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:47, 20 October 2019 review of draft by MelvinSeja


Hi, my draft article was declined because there is another draft article Diego Tryno that was posted before mine ,so i merged my draft article with the old draft article .My worry is the old article was posted in June ,and it still hasn't been reviewed ,i checked the history and there has been numerous edits from different users, now that i added part of my article in it does it mean i have to join the waiting 'gang'of users? haha we all need a laugh here and there, anyway is there a way to review the old article faster so that i personally don't have to wait for long? MelvinSeja (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=922165333"