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 446: Line 446:


[[User:Wagon Master Johnson|Wagon Master Johnson]] ([[User talk:Wagon Master Johnson|talk]]) 12:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Wagon Master Johnson|Wagon Master Johnson]] ([[User talk:Wagon Master Johnson|talk]]) 12:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

== 15:33:51, 2 November 2019 review of submission by RazorGaming ==
{{Lafc|username=RazorGaming|ts=15:33:51, 2 November 2019|declined=Draft:Mohammad_Qunaibi}}
I did significant changes :)
[[User:RazorGaming|RazorGaming]] ([[User talk:RazorGaming|talk]]) 15:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Lafc|username=RazorGaming|ts=15:33:51, 2 November 2019|link=
<!-- [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Your submission name here]] OR [[Draft:Your submission name here]] -->
}}

Revision as of 15:33, 2 November 2019

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

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


October 27

04:00:39, 27 October 2019 review of submission by Indianbeauty

May I know the reason for why the Google books link 'WOW! INDIA: 500 INCREDIBLE RECORDS AND FASCINATING FACTS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY' https://books.google.co.in/books?id=JVilDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT88#v=onepage&q&f=false is not a verified source. Please advice. Thank you. Indianbeauty (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indianbeauty, I don't see anyone questioning the verification of that source. But that's not the issue here: the issue is notability, which this statue does not seem to have. To be included on Wikipedia, sources need to have coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Of the three sources, 2 are not independent, as they are written by the theme park that built the statue. The book may be reliable, but additional sources would be needed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:08:43, 27 October 2019 review of submission by Jibola Toriola

{{Lafc|username=Jibola Toriola|ts=07:08:43, 27 October 2019|page=

I have tried on many occasions to successfully submit this Wikipedia for my client/artist - Jibola Toriola ( artist - Jhybo )

I can tackle most things but I’m finding this very over complicated . Do Wikipedia offer a service where the draft can be completed by an experienced agent ? And if so what are the fees ? . My client is very deserving of a Wikipedia but I do not have the experience to complete this . 80% of the information is there and I understand why the draft has been declined . I am not finding this easy at all and we really want it finalised . I joined two years ago and have been writing this on and off . I would be grateful if you can advise if that service exits . Thanks


Jibola Toriola (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for promotion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:08, 27 October 2019 review of draft by IsuzB


Hi, I tried to publish this page on Marek Szczesny previously - I am not directly in touch with the artist, but have met him at exhibitions and I'm in touch with his wife, so as the page isn't about me or my business, I did not declare conflict of interest originally, but the page got rejected and deleted on this basis. I have again edited the text following feedback, guidelines of neutrality, credible references, stated conflict of interest on my profile and, as I now understand that I am still not an autoconfirmed editor (I'm slowly building up my edits), I submitted the proposed article through AfC back in May 2019. It looks like there has been one review other than myself and a friend (Davefantazy), but it has not yet been reviewed or considered for publication. Is there something that I should do that I haven't? Do I need to press 'Submit your draft for review'? I haven't done this as I don't want to risk deletion again or a negative impact on my Wikipedia account. I've tried to follow the guidelines as stringently as possible and as much as I understand them, but please let me know if there is something more I need to do.

IsuzB (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted the draft for review yet, so yes, you need to press 'Submit your draft for review' BUT your draft has very few independent sources, the galleries are primary sources so cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:15, 27 October 2019 review of draft by NeWiPl

Respected Experienced Wiki Editors,

I am editing a page created on this subject. I am not doing it for any commercial reasons neither do I represent the person. This person’s books are widely used and I have it in our library too. He has gathered world’s leading intellectuals and have done some laudable work in publishing volumes on the foundations of science.

Anyone with a science background can affirm this. His books are widely accessed and are published with Springer (not with some random paid journal abiding the rules of Wiki). You can see the download rates of his both books here and here.

Can someone tell me what else does one need to improve this page?

I have included the Google Books citation and so on.

Thank you,

NeWiPl (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NeWiPl, While the subject seems to have edited many books, nothing has been written about him. To prove his notability, you need coverage of him by news sites, newspapers, books, media, etc. The fact that he wrote a book is not enough (unless you try to prove that he meets WP:NAUTHOR, which I do not believe he does), other people need to have written about him. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:42, 27 October 2019 review of submission by Shannonfairweather

Hello, I am requesting a re-review as I added more references that prove Dirty Water Media is a subject of significant coverage. The company has been around for over 10 years and is one of the biggest local media companies in Boston. Please consider a re-review. Shannonfairweather (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shannonfairweather, There are many local media companies, but very few make it onto Wikipedia. I do not agree that DWM is the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Almost all the existing sources are not independent, i.e. they are written by DWM or closely affiliated with DWM. Additionally, the existing article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Regrettably, the subject just isn't notable at this time. There are millions and millions of companies, so we have to have high standards regarding inclusion, and DWM just doesn't meet those. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:16:00, 27 October 2019 review of submission by Pholcomb9


Pholcomb9 (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Is there anything that I can do to get this page live, or does the fact that Nick is not "notable" yet make it an automatic no? Within 5 minutes, I found multiple pages on top basketball recruits in high school (examples below).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaden_Springer • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalen_Johnson

I find it a little unfair and inconsistent that these pages can exist, but the page that Nick and his mother reached out to me to create cannot? Can you please provide me with more clarity on this?

Thanks,

Pat

Hi Pholcomb9. A conflict of interest is created by the fact that Nick and his mother asked you to create the article. Editors are strongly discouraged from writing about topics with which they have a conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's requirements. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So it generally isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines
The relevant subject-specific guideline is WP:YOUNGATH. The draft cites a local newspaper and a stats site, neither of which does anything to demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia). In the reviewer's evaluation, no sources exist that would. If you can prove that wrong, you may ask that the draft be reconsidered. Also, as his career progresses, and the guidelines WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NHOOPS come into play, he may become notable. Until then, it may help to bear this in mind:

Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."

— Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)
--Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:11, 27 October 2019 review of submission by Bdushaw


Bdushaw (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To report a puzzling situation... Yesterday I created a stub for the article Montjuïc (Girona). I was in the process of several other related edits having to do with the generic "Montjuic" term, so I wasn't able to immediately develop the article as much as I would have liked, but still I thought it was barely sufficient to stand until I could get back to it today. In the mean time, the article was moved over to this system of new article creation review for new users. I am not a new user, having created several articles and brought others up to "Good" rating. But now my (newly revised) article is stuck in limbo with a notice saying that the review to release it could take 8 weeks! There are several errors in process that I can think of, one of which is that I should perhaps have begun the article on my Talk page as a start, though I wanted to include the article in the Montjuic disambiguation page. Another error, seems to me, is that the person who shuffled the article in to this review process should first have checked the status/experience of the article creator. (While I am here I note that according to the rules I should be able to review my own article!) Anyways, here we are! All in all, I would have preferred to have the stub article just deleted, or, better, a pause for 24 hours say to wait to see how the article develops. (Even the main Montjuic article is severely lacking in proper citations.) Bdushaw (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I've just noticed there is already an article Montjuic (Girona), a redirect. - the difference is in the "i". Bdushaw (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bdushaw. The stub you created was subjected to WP:DRAFTIFY by a new page patroller. That's a different process from Articles for Creation, so I don't want to speak for them, but the stub cited no sources, so you can probably see where they were coming from. They meant well. You developed Montjuïc (Girona), and it's back in article space, so hopefully all's well that ends well.
In case you ever experience this again, WP:DRAFTIFY says anyone may object to a draftification, and if they do, the draftifier is required to undo their move. They may then take the article to AfD, though, so the simplest and least drama-prone thing to do would be to improve the draft and move it back to article space yourself. As an autoconfirmed user without a conflict of interest, Articles for Creation is an optional process for you, there would be no need to wait for someone else to review the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:52, 27 October 2019 review of submission by 100.8.176.146


All citations seem proper. Please help identify where the credibility issue is.

100.8.176.146 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources linked, they don't talk much about Zaidi as a person, just in relation to his company. That makes me believe that his company might be notable, but there isn't even an article for that yet. As is, hes always presented alongside his couisins, so perhaps the "Zaidi couisins" would make for a notable article. But as is, the coverage is just not enough. See WP:42 for a succinct explanation of notability requirements. What you'd need is more articles that focus just on Nabil Zaidi or give him significant coverage. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

02:46:36, 28 October 2019 review of submission by Dezoysas

I need to move my page to the actual tittle. It says tittle is black listed. I cannot understand. Please explain.

Dezoysas (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dezoysas, I assume you mean User:Dezoysas/sandbox. What is the exact title you would like to move it to? Some pages are "blacklisted" because they are frequently associated with spam. For instance, only admins can create pages with the f-word in the title, to prevent abuse. However, well meaning pages are often caught up in these black lists. Just tell me the title and I'll help you figure it out :) Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dezoysas, After looking at your submission, I've realized that much of it is directly copied from the source. That represents a violation of our copyright policy. Please do not copy from sources. See WP:COPYVIO for more information. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:48:14, 28 October 2019 review of draft by BecDjapovic


I need help understanding where my submission process is up to. Thank you for your quick reply.

BecDjapovic (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BecDjapovic, It appears you currently have different versions of the same draft. Neither of them are currently submitted, which means they aren't in the review queue. If the issues raised in the last review have been fixed, you may resubmit one of them for re-review. Please be patient, as the review queue is currently very long and it could take more than 8 weeks to get reviewed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:21:43, 28 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Streetmilitia


Thanks so much for the review feedback on my first ever Wiki page creation, I would like to learn more specific on the overall assessment why it was rated as not notable sufficiently. Is it a topic that I should just give up or is there anything that is still missing in the context that I could continue to fill out the blank to make improvement and eventually it will be accepted for publication?

Streetmilitia (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Streetmilitia. Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). The only glimmer of promise is that the company is publicly traded. Per WP:LISTED, that is not a guarantee of notability, but such companies often are notable. The draft cites sources that are not arms length (GSMA, About Us, Lenovo, Qualcomm, Baidu), are indiscriminate (Bloomberg), are trivial mentions (Lenovo, Qualcomm), or are primary source interviews with little or no independent analysis (Xinhua, stock.jrj.com.cn). None of them help show notability, so you would need to start over from scratch.
Writing a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks that someone who hasn't edited Wikipedia much can attempt. I advise you to gain substantial experience editing exiting articles before trying to create a new one, especially one about a company that is still in existence. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:23:30, 28 October 2019 review of submission by Dezoysas


Dezoysas (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your early reply. I understand your concern. You can observe that, I am the author, publisher and the copyright holder of the related source. That is why I got information from the source. But, I added reference. Is that still copyright violation? If you think still it is copyright violation, then let me make a significant change. I need to change the title to "Structured Formal Reverse Proofs with NO Statement Labeling". Still I am editing the article.

Hi Dezoysas. If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy, you can license that text so that publishing it here does not violate copyright. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that material written for publications other than an encyclopedia can rarely be reused here, because it was written for a different purpose. So even if you can legally copy something, you may not be able to use it in Wikipedia.
The draft has been moved to Draft:Structured formal reverse proofs with no statement labeling, in accordance with MOS:TITLES. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:39:23, 28 October 2019 review of submission by AlexOBT


Hi, this page was declined, so I'm checking whether it will be possible to get it approved by adding more references or info. The reason given was not enough independent references. I included about 4, which were all reviews - do we simply need more of these types of reference? Or are these not considered credible enough, and I should bolster them with other types of source that mention the group? Is there a more general issue with not being notable enough? I took my cue from this page to see what level of fame a troupe should have to get a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_improvisational_theatre_companies#Improvisational_theatre_companies_in_the_United_Kingdom and I'd modestly suggest Hivemind Improv are more notable than at least 1/3 of the troupes that do have a page! Is there any kind of evidence/citation I can use to demonstrate this? Thanks!

AlexOBT (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:21, 28 October 2019 review of submission by 106.66.43.52

Dear Team Pls Edit Rahul Megh Arya Wiki Page. These Page Reject due to citation and News Source but this page have Already News Source on Google. You Can Check in News or Google . 106.66.43.52 (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both these "news" article appear to be promotional press releases, which are not suitable for Wikipedia. There are not other sources provided. Do not remove AfC templates. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:13, 28 October 2019 review of draft by JamesGordon69


I am not sure what else to cite. Because this is an episode of Looney Tunes, there aren't many professional sources I can site for this. I still believe it should be an article because basically every single episode of Looney Tunes is culturally relavent in its own right and every other Looney Tunes episode has a page of its own.

James Gordon (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesGordon69. According to Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1950–59), Wikipedia has no articles about at least four Looney Tunes cartoons from 1953 alone. Perhaps not all are notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a stand alone article). If Kiss Me Cat is truly culturally relevant, then I would expect plenty of sources to exist, and would think the draft could say much more about it and its cultural relevance than a plot summary and a sentence about production. Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation or Wikipedia:WikiProject Film might be able to suggest where you could look for non-primary reliable sources, I suggest you reach out to them. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:24, 28 October 2019 review of draft by Paologabriotti


Hello, I need help as my draft about a cultural organisation has been denied for publication. The reason stated is that I express the company view point and I don’t provide reliable sources. I understand the comment of the reviewer, although I don’t agree with it, but I don’t have more specific informations to try to solve the problem. The organisation (which is not a company) operates in the cultural field and is internationally recognised, it works since twenty years with Italian and International renowned artists and it already has wikipedia pages of art festivals they organized. I have opted for a synthetic text, with only descriptive basic informations about the organisation and its activities, providing links to the already existing wikipedia articles, academic publications related to the their artistic field of research and a couple of articles coming from renowned international art magazines (directly readable online). About the company view point I don’t know if it may be because I tried to be synthetic, but I thought it was better to keep it short, descriptive and to allow potential further interventions. Do you think I should expand the text? Do you have any suggestions possibly more specific on what to edit? Before editing for a new review I would like to hear an extra opinion. Thank you very much for the attention!

Paologabriotti (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paologabriotti, The tone is overly promotional. For instance, I would rewrite the lead to be much more neutral such as Xing is a cultural organization based in Bologna, Italy, founded in 2000. The organization focuses on experimental artistic practices, which it presents in cultural initiatives, festivals and public events. Regardless, better sources are needed to prove that the company is actually notable. Please read WP:NCORP to see what is required. The tldr version is: you need coverage in multiple reliable media sources independent of the subject. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:17:07, 28 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Atharva anil khetle


I want to publish my page I am new on Wikipedia please help me to publish my page

Atharva anil khetle (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atharva anil khetle, The page is currently blank, so there is nothing to publish. What are you looking to write about? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:14:50, 28 October 2019 review of submission by Wikiabc123wiki


Wikiabc123wiki (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiabc123wiki, The page is about a company. For us to include it, it has be covered by multiple reliable independent sources per WP:NCORP. If you can find those sources, you may try to get the article approved again. But if such sources do not exist, the subject is not notable. The problem with the existing references is that they are not independent. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


21:46:05, 28 October 2019 review of submission by Bigboy19189


Bigboy19189 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC) post it[reply]

Bigboy19189, You seemed to have two drafts in your sandbox, one entitled hockey, the other on stranger things. However you did not include any useful content. Furthermore, those pages already exist. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:25:20, 28 October 2019 review of submission by Ars Combinatoria


I am seeking another opinion regarding the subject's notability as a musician. Please see the talk page Draft talk:Debbie Brooks for why I believe the subject is notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Other advice about improving the article is appreciated as well.

Ars Combinatoria (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:49:15, 28 October 2019 review of draft by Inca28a


Inca28a (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please, could you help me, with a less complicated vocabulary how can I improve this article?

Thank you so much!

Inca28a (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inca28a, Currently you have only a table of songs. You also need to include regular written words alongside the table. Briefly discuss Fraser, and his discography.Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

02:04:30, 29 October 2019 review of submission by 2604:2000:1304:C915:D52F:F3C1:2F07:EB63


2604:2000:1304:C915:D52F:F3C1:2F07:EB63 (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


07:28:06, 29 October 2019 review of submission by Bzcons44

I am interested in 'Indie' music and the latest article on the website "bandsstartingout[1]" puts Tunecrank in the top ten, yet there is no Wikipedia article on them. I have heard that editors TOMCAT7 and LASER BRAIN have an interest in music so perhaps they can review my draft. Bzcons44 (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bzcons44, Howdy hello! Your draft has been reviewed by a veteran AfC reviewer, who has noted a few issues with your draft. Mainly, you need better sources. Social media is generally not a good source. What you need is coverage by the media. The official guideline is coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources, you may read WP:NCORP if you wish to read the nitty gritty of it. If you'd like a more accessible version, WP:42 is a great summary of what it takes to get on Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Bandsstartingout Website".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

08:49:27, 29 October 2019 review of submission by Herbert.der.Koala


Hello! I am sorry, I am new on wikipedia and I wanted to make a wiki-site for my group MAREY and I forgot to put the references (twice) but now I got them and I hope they're alright? There aren't so many references, but the best I could find to proof that we were on Tour with the singer Jael and that we're under contract with deepdive records. Motor Music (Entertainment) hasn't updated their wensite yet, this is why I didn't included them in our references yet.

Thank you for re-revewing my page!!


Herbert.der.Koala (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your group is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:27, 29 October 2019 review of draft by Tilemi


Hello, The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:European_Research_Consortium_for_Informatics_and_Mathematics was rejected, a reviewer said: This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, ERCIM, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

Consequently, I have updated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ERCIM How can the two pages be merged, or the rejected one removed so that only https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ERCIM is reviewed ?

thanks in advance for your help

Tilemi (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Tilemi means declined, not rejected. I don't understand your decline of Draft:European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics because Draft:ERCIM was not at that time also waiting to be reviewed. It doesn't appear to have ever been submitted for review. Would you care to take on straightening things out? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were two copies of the draft, under different titles: Draft:European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics and Draft:ERCIM, the later one being an article that had once been in mainspace and was draftified (for unspecified reasons). As for why I declined the one before it was even submitted, see WP:IAR. The "waiting to be reviewed" language is boilerplate that technically doesn't apply here.
I see this same issue was raised several months ago by @Pgk707:, and never followed up on.
I can help sort all this out, but before I get into that, there's something that puzzles me. Tilemi, you say that you updated Draft:ERCIM, but it was actually Pgk707 who made those edits. Are these two different accounts that you're using? Do you also have some relationship to ERCIM? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:10:42, 29 October 2019 review of submission by Mpastorleary


Hi David, I don't see why my article isn't sufficiently notable considering that other brands like Knockaround https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockaround have a wiki page. Could you please tell me how my article can be published?

Mpastorleary (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mpastorleary. The only way the draft would be published would be if it met the notability guidelines for companies. Most business do not. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. Knockaround may have satisfied the guidelines as they stood when the article was created in 2011, but the guidelines are significantly stricter now. Knockaround cites a large number of sources, but at first glance they're of extremely low quality, so perhaps it should be deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:00, 29 October 2019 review of submission by Stout.ashlynn

ASTRO Gaming is one of Logitech's seven brands, and we would really appreciate help getting a Wikipedia article published. An article exists for ASTRO Studios[1] and references ASTRO Gaming. We'd love to expand on the history of the company and its products. Please advise. {{Connected contributor (paid)}} should only be used on talk pages. Stout.ashlynn (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stout.ashlynn, This item is not notable enough for a standalone article, as it fails the requirements of WP:NORG. There is just not enough reliable and independent coverage of the company. Any useful content might do better to be expanded on the ASTRO Studios page. As is, the Astro studios and Logitech pages are both quite poor. I recommend you turn your efforts to suggesting changes on the talk pages of those articles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Astro Studios". Wikipedia. Retrieved 29 October 2019.

October 30

06:49:07, 30 October 2019 review of draft by Believers Care Society


Believers Care Society (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:49:00, 30 October 2019 review of draft by BFP1


I would like help with tidying up the presentation of the External links reference. BFP1 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)BFP1[reply]

BFP1 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BFP1,  Done. The external link has to be all on one line for the formatting to work. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:15, 30 October 2019 review of submission by Neaifefe


Hi! I have added external links and references, as well as information of awards, certificates, products, and services. Thank you! Neaifefe (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neaifefe, The issue here is how the article is written. The text is not at all encyclopedic. Wikipedia presents subjects neutrally, weighing positive and negative attributes, and using non-charged wording. You seem to have literally just copied the company's own bio from their promotional website. Not only is that a big no-no because it violates copyright law, it also means that the text is just an ad. Wikipedia is not an ad platform. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:24, 30 October 2019 review of submission by 97.107.223.116


97.107.223.116 (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just want this article to be published, I find many of the criticisms given here do not apply to many other articles I see. This is a non-controversial topic about a semi-famous figure who has had a decent amount of media attention, and this Wikipedia page is for public record.

Past edits have greatly modified the language to be more objective and journalistic.

I think it is a bit unfair for some Wikipedia editors to claim that some of the sources used for this article are not as professional as they claim the standards to be; it is unfair for people to privilege some media sources and to disparage others.

Please, if there is anything actionable I must do to get this article approved, I will do it, but you cannot fairly tell me, vaguely, that someone somewhere there doesn't feel that these sources are sufficient enough.

Thank you.

You have not told us what the draft is? Theroadislong (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@97.107.223.116: pinging IP in case they're still attached to it Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:53, 30 October 2019 review of draft by Mritch999


How do I center embedded photos? They’re all appearing on the far right of my article.

Mritch999 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can add a "center" attribute to the File link. I've done this for your first photo as a demonstration. That being said, I'd recommend NOT doing this. Trying to do fancy things with layout is usually a losing game. Your article is going to be viewed in many different formats; on web browsers, in many different sized windows, with people using alternate skins or custom CSS rules, on mobile devices with small screens, using alternative applications like the Wikipedia mobile app, using screen readers by blind people, etc. Just going with the default layout is usually the best strategy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I've moved your sandbox to Draft:John Manley Barnett, which is where AfC submissions generally live. You can continue to work on it there. I did notice that you've used a lot of photos that look like they were copied out of newspapers and other sources, without obtaining the required copyright permission. I think you're going to have trouble there. Please see Commons:Commons:Licensing for more details. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:25, 30 October 2019 review of draft by Samanthaamia


Hello, I have made the changed suggested and my article is still being declined. I know this artist, the one I am writing about, personally and have the permission to post anything including rights to photos and etc. He is a known artist, music engineer, producer and singer/songwriter in the Latin music industry. I would really like to have this page approved and set as an ARTICE under the name of JHONI THE VOICE written by me SAMANTHA MIA (SAMANTHAAMIA) Thank you in advance.

Samantha Mia 21:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Samanthaamia. Unlike Facebook, blogs, or personal websites, Wikipedia is not a place to write about anything and everything. The community of editors decide by consensus which topics to accept. As one of those editors, you can suggest a subject and have a voice in the decision, but you need to convince others that the topic is notable (meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria). No one is entitled to have an article published here just because they want one.
The most fundamental gauge of notability is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Draft:Jhoni The Voice cites no independent sources, so it will not be published. If any existing articles are as poorly sourced, they should be improved, or if that is not possible, deleted. The reviewer couldn't find any appropriate sources for the draft, so they rejected it to let you know that you shouldn't waste any more time on it. If you add acceptable sources to the draft (don't start a second draft under another name, just keep editing the one that was rejected), you should be able to persuade some reviewer to re-evaluate it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources lists sources that Wikipedians' have found useful in writing about musicians. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:32:20, 30 October 2019 review of submission by Wei4Green

I have found 10 reliable secondary sources for the draft. I'm still working on this draft, but there isn't enough Wikipedians to work on the article. I recently contacted #TeamTrees team for their permission to upload their logos and designs to Wikimedia Commons, so this draft still has more room to be expanded.

I created Team Trees and TeamTrees as redirects on 2019-10-25 before this draft was created by User:Ccmee6464 on 2019-10-26. If this draft was approved, will the draft merge with Team Trees or TeamTrees with its edit history and page statistics? I'm not sure if the draft should be moved to Draft:TeamTrees for now because #TeamTrees (# sign can't be added in the title name because of technical restrictions) is the WP:COMMONNAME in my opinion. —Wei4Green • #TeamTrees🌲 22:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wei4Green. If you believe you've added enough coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources that the reason the draft was rejected no longer applies, you may resubmit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. If it is accepted, its edit history will be preserved. The accepting reviewer will decide on the most appropriate name and will, if necessary, delete a redirect to make way for moving the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: So you mean the edit history and page statistics will be merged onto Team Trees if accepted? Is it OK if the draft is still a stub? —Wei4Green • #TeamTrees🌲 01:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wei4Green: Drafts are accepted regardless of quality assessment; many are accepted as stubs. If the accepting reviewer decides the correct name is Team Trees, they will delete Team Trees (the redirect), then move the draft to Team Trees. All of the properties of a page (history, page statistics, talk, etc.) travel with it as its name changes, its namespace changes, or as it is deleted. It isn't a merge. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

04:05:14, 31 October 2019 review of submission by Moorlock


Moorlock (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could a specialist in WP:NACADEMIC take a look at this - I think this might be a historical example of NPROF C#5, if the ref confirms his position which by its use it probably does. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, I'm not an expert in NACADEMIC, but I also saw this page and believe it notable. I think there is a strong C5 argument and would be inclined to accept. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:24, 31 October 2019 review of submission by JouftarMullar


JouftarMullar (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Why My Article is deleted?[reply]

JouftarMullar, You article was unsourced, did not assert the subjects notability, and was just promoting the subject. You also appeared to have a close connection to the subject. We don't cover just anything on Wikipedia, only subjects that have been reliably covered in the media. The rapper you wrote about seems to just be an average person, like you or I. Only folks who are "notable" can be included. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:42:41, 31 October 2019 review of submission by 41.114.75.132


41.114.75.132 (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


How to be permanently available in the Wikipedia


@41.114.75.132:, with a complete lack of sources and functionally no content, this isn't notable and doesn't look likely to become so. Please take a look at Musician notability for what would make a musician notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:06, 31 October 2019 review of submission by Magyfarag

because I Forgot to add the reference URl to the subject Magyfarag (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

05:37:52, 1 November 2019 review of submission by Leafeator

Hello! I tried submitting my first article today, but it looks like that years ago the same article was deleted for not being notable. I believe that the person may be notable now (I guess, ultimately I'm not sure?) but I was asked to "request a copy of the deleted article so that a reviewer can compare and can verify that this is better than the deleted article." I was just looking for help on how to request a copy of the deleted article? Thanks!

Then once I get the copy, if I think that the new article is better than the deleted one, how do I present the old copy to the reviewer? Leafeator (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the deleting admin RHaworth. shoy (reactions) 13:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what that was on my talk pagein my mailbox. I will take a look at it. (Given the wide separation in time, I would guess successive agents, but it doesn't matter.) I will look. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, User:Leafeator. As User:RHaworth says, don't get too hopeful. I have looked briefly at the four files. They are in an unformatted state, so that I will have to load them into sandboxes to view them properly, which I will, within 72 hours. It looks as though the original one is longer than the one that I rejected, and the original one was deleted at AFD, so it is unlikely that I will conclude that the recently deleted one is better. Two of them, including the one that was the subject of the AFD, look to be Start class, and two of them, including the one that I rejected, look to be in between Stub and Start. I think that it is more likely that the subject or the subject's publicist was paying four different editors than that this is suckpoppetry. I won't release the results of the examination until the requester makes a conflict of interest disclosure. (It isn't that I think that they will be honest, but only that if they lie, that gives us more rope.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information User:Robert McClenon. To confirm do I need to be the one making a COI disclosure? Maybe I should just try cutting my teeth on another comic author who doesn't yet have a page but may qualify for one? Looking to learn more and it seems as if I may have stepped on a landmine, sorry. Leafeator (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, User:Leafeator, it is the editor submitting a draft who is sometimes asked to make a conflict of interest disclosure, because conflict of interest disclosure is a Wikipedia policy in accordance with a WMF Terms of Use provision. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:RHaworth or some other administrator, can you please check the spelling of IhilaLesnikovaGersh (talk · contribs). If that is correct, there is no message on their talk page indicating that the draft was deleted. (Two of them have no record of contributions, but that is because the draft was deleted and they didn't ask about it on a talk page or in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I run xtools on this. The result is that this account has exactly one (deleted) edit to Draft:Rob Fee, which was creating the page. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Victor Schmidt mobil - In that case, the editor was not notified when their draft was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:07, 1 November 2019 review of submission by Neaifefe

Added the infobox. Neaifefe (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neaifefe: This article is still a blatant advertisement for the company with no reliable sources. Please read WP:NCORP and specifically the WP:CORPDEPTH section for examples of sources that do not establish notability. This company is not notable enough for Wikipedia. shoy (reactions) 13:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:31:29, 1 November 2019 review of submission by Bethany m m


Hi, I've tried to edit this content for approval but keep getting knocked back even after making amendments. A competitor has a similar page so the content must be relevant. Please can someone advise exactly what needs changing.

Thank you.

Bethany m m (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany m m Just because a competitor has an article, doesn't mean your company qualifies for one, see other crap exists. Your draft includes 9 references to your own website, Wikipedia requires independent sourcing to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Bethany m m#November 2019. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:05, 1 November 2019 review of submission by Catalystico


Editor DGG posted this in comments in regards to rejecting the article: He might be notable someday. But he is still a student, from a wealthy family, and it does not seem he has yet any substantial accomplishments. The references are PR, and WP does not do that. Much of the article doesn't even refer to him, but to his family, and their wealth, and the notable people he has met. the part that is about him is about his childhood, and high school education, and his stay at university. His claimed "notable work" is an undergraduate student paper. One highlighted quote is a student recommendation, quoted from WeChat. The other other is a tribute to him from his younger sister, quoted from a blog. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There are some objectively untrue statements that are of concern: 1. Yes, although the subject is a student and from a wealthy family, it does not mean the subject in question "has yet any substantial accomplishments". I think its safe to say that there are plenty of successful and notable individuals from wealthy family's and students. A subjects background, race, current job or situation should have no bearing on whether or not he is included in an encyclopedia, as long as his achievements are notable.

2. DRR claims that "the references are PR, and WP does not do that. Much of the article doesn't even refer to him, but to his family, and their wealth, and the notable people he has met." Again, DRR uses the subject's family and wealth as grounds to reject the article. Aside from the "Family" section, which is naturally about the subjects family, the rest of the article refers entirely to the subject in question - from a child to later adulthood, and is clearly not PR. DRR's statement about the article 'not referring to him' is clearly questionable. Regarding the 'notable people he has met' - why is this criteria for rejection? It's almost guaranteed that individuals on Wikipedia, who are by their very definition of inclusion 'notable', have met notable individuals throughout their life.

3. "His claimed "notable work" is an undergraduate student paper." I am in agreement here, and it should be edited / deleted. This however, is still not grounds for an outright rejection of the entire article. It is easily amendable, and the article could have been declined instead. Also, one could argue that DDR's statement about the subject's work being "just a undergraduate paper" is condescending and patronizing - there are plenty of remarkable undergraduate-level academic studies created by a multitude of students worldwide, and the level of research should not be grounds for rejection. At a neutral and fair encyclopedia like Wikipedia, a PhD is not necessarily more "important" than a "BA" level paper, nor does a subject's educational level have a bearing on if the subject is included or not in Wikipedia's encyclopedia.

4. Editor DRR claimed "One highlighted quote is a student recommendation, quoted from WeChat.The other other is a tribute to him from his younger sister, quoted from a blog." There are many issues with DDR's statement here. First, upon review, this is clearly not true. The quote in question is not from WeChat itself, but from Peking University Youth, a campus based magazine from a reputable international academic institution, which has its official digital channels through WeChat. All major news outlets, major publishers, and corporations in China have official WeChat accounts. They are not created randomly - it's a process much like Wikipedia, that requires identification and submission of materials, before being granted permission by the government. Secondly, the article states very clearly, in Chinese, that the comment is from the subject's supervising teacher, and not a "student recommendation" as mentioned by DDR. Lastly, upon further review, in not one of the sources does it mention the subject's "sister". In fact, further research shows that the subject clearly does not even have a sister. Where DDR got this information from is unclear.

5. It is very clear that the subject in question has significant notability in China. A quick search on Chinese search engine Baidu shows over 29,000 results of admittedly varying quality. There is also a Baidu Encyclopedia (China's equivalent of Wikipedia) article about the subject. A search on Google turns up much less results, but that is not surprising, nor should it affect the acceptance of the article - a subject's area of notability, and again, language and nationality, should not affect the editors decision to reject a submission regarding the subject. A fine example would be - Winston Churchill, for all his fame, is relatively unheard of in China. Does this disqualify him immediately from Wikipedia? Absolutely not. The same could be said of Greta Thunberg, a student. Just because she is unknown in China, and vice versa, does not disqualify her from being included in Wikipedia.

Lastly, Editor DDR stated in my "talk" page that "it is written in such a way as to indicate that you may very possiblyb e is paid press agent--for even were he notable , no objective person would write such content in such a manner." I can't see how any of my activity makes me a highly susceptible paid press agent, and I also don't see how an objectively written, cited and referenced article could be considered improper in "manner". Wikipedia should not be a place where editors of more senior experience can label another contributor like myself in such a way just because they want to, and with questionable evidence.

In summary, I believe editor DDR's grounds for outright rejection of the submission should be seriously reconsidered by the Wikipedia community. There's no such thing as a perfect article, but this, again, does not give the editor the right to outright reject it. Instead, if the editor has reason to believe the article need improvement, he / she should decline the submission instead, offering both myself and the Wikipedia community the chance to edit it again for resubmission. I conclude, using the evidence above, that the two main reasons for rejection of the article given by the editor, as stated on the draft page: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is clearly not true. The subject is obviously notable in China, and has a track record to show it. I agree that the article should be edited further, and that the "notable work", should be edited off.


Catalystico (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this should be rejected, absolutely no evidence that he even begins to pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just been blanked by the creator, but for what it's worth I concur that notability is not shown, amidst other issues Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:02, 1 November 2019 review of submission by Liber8er

Hi. I created this page in July. At that time the article was rejected, I expected that since it's my first. I'm trying to learn:). I made several changes to the draft since receiving my first set of feedback. I've added external, reliable sources, I've moved external links from the body of the article to a table at the bottom. Basically I've tried to follow the format for other wikipedia articles about national library programs.

My question is this: is the draft ever going to be reviewed again? I was making changes with the anticipation that I would receive some feedback, but I've not seen any. Should I try again? It's not a huge article, but I have spent some time writing and editing and learning the wiki markup.

Please help and thank you. Liber8er (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liber8er. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed since 23 July. The current backlog is roughly 4.5 months, so you can anticipate a review by some time in December. While you wait, perhaps you'd like to help fulfil requests at WP:RX. Or see Wikipedia:Community portal for other ways to improve the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

Request on 11:07:21, 2 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Isara22



Isara22 (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Respected Wiki editors,[reply]

Thank you for taking the time and evaluating my article. Still, I am not sure about the lack of notability status my article and I would like to ask for a re-evaluation, from the reasons below:

1. With a quick search, one can determine that there are pages depicting software companies in Romania and categories created specifically for such pages (such as "Information technology companies of Romania" or "Software companies of Romania").

I find it a little unfair and inconsistent than other similar pages can exist, listing companies where some of them are even smaller, but the page for Ambo Software, a company that exists since 1999, don't.

2. Maybe the references are not enough (4 independent online and offline newspapers)? Or maybe because the references are in Romanian and not in English? There are other references that are available, in German or English. Having them included in the draft can help to overcome the lack of notability?

Thank you in advance for your time and clarifications.-

Hi Isara22. Most businesses are not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative.
The rejection of the draft is not based on the size of the company, the age of the company, there being too few sources, or the language of the sources. It is based on the quality of the sources found. Horeca.ro and itonews.eu are trade publications, which do not help establish notability. Market Watch Magazine is an unattributed editorial. It appears to be written from the point of view of the company. Ziarul Financiar appears to be based primarily on a press release ("au precizat oficialii companiei") without independent analysis by the newspaper.
The content of the draft (very little company history, "Silver/Gold Application Development Parter of Microsoft", "ISO 9001" certified, extensive lists of products and services) is promotional and also strongly suggests that the company is not encyclopedia material. If you have a connection with the company, you need to declare it; it presents a conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines. If you wish to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:28, 2 November 2019 review of draft by Wagon Master Johnson

I need help with my draft article and other people could fix a lot of things wrong with it right now because I can’t seem to find out all the station wagons currently available for all other countries because since I live in America I figured out all of them, but even the UK I only have some of them. thanks

Wagon Master Johnson (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:51, 2 November 2019 review of submission by RazorGaming

I did significant changes :) RazorGaming (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=924222630"