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 465: Line 465:


Listvl255 16:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Listvl255 16:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

== 17:29:17, 24 November 2019 review of draft by 193.136.124.131 ==
{{Lafc|username=193.136.124.131|ts=17:29:17, 24 November 2019|draft=Draft:Luis_Nunes_Vicente}}


[[Special:Contributions/193.136.124.131|193.136.124.131]] ([[User talk:193.136.124.131|talk]]) 17:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:29, 24 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


November 18

10:15:04, 18 November 2019 review of submission by Mpastorleary


Mpastorleary (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mpastorleary, This draft lacks reliable sources which prove notability. The specific criteria seems to be WP:NCORP, which requires at least 3 reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. The existing sources don't show that. But to be honest, I suspect there may not be enough sources on this subject, and you may be better served by working on another page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:35, 18 November 2019 review of submission by 130.0.29.114

I'm the manager of Kiameti. I think now it deserve to review. Kiameti now it's famous on Shkodër AL. AND HIS RECOGNITIONS IS GROWING UP DAY BY DAY

130.0.29.114 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This person does not seem to have any media coverage, which means they aren't notable. Furthermore, if you this person's manager, you have a conflict of interest and must disclose that per WP:PAID. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:26:21, 18 November 2019 review of draft by TheoMax42651


If the article focuses more on the lawsuit vs Lt Col Sam Schism would that address the concern? Also, the information about his career were drawn from two different books that were published and his primary military records; therefore, guidance on how to reference those items would be helpful.

Thank you,

TheoMax42651 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheoMax42651, More content from the lawsuit could be good. More content in general, and more sources are needed. I also recommend you use an infobox in the article, as the current way of listing awards is not at all standard. Take a look at George S. Patton (a featured article), which has an example of an excellently done infobox, as well as being a perfect guide for the shape your article should take. Clearly, you article won't be anywhere near as long, but you get the general idea. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:30, 18 November 2019 review of draft by 106.78.169.77


What more can I add to improvise this draft?

@Wrizz: More sources, which give the subject significant coverage and not just passing mentions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:57, 18 November 2019 review of draft by Wearetriumphant


Hey not sure what you want me to do here. Provided plenty of references.

Wearetriumphant (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wearetriumphant, Wikipedia is not a reference. References must be reliable and independent sources, think news articles, books, that sort of thing. You'll need at least 3 good sources with significant coverage to ensure an article, maybe more. Also, the article needs more prose.
Additionally, your username implies a conflict of interest. If you are associated with the subject, you should declare that. If you have been paid or compensated by the subject in any way, you must declare that by following the guidelines at WP:PAID. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:32:10, 18 November 2019 review of submission by PapayaWiki105


I am requesting a re-review because similar production companies have Wikipedia pages which are similar to our draft, and yet we are getting rejected over and over again. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated as to what I can do to get this page approved. For your reference, I've included links to Wikipedia pages for similar production companies.

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

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

Can you please tell me what I can do?

Happy to discuss via this medium or even on the phone.

Thanks, Okey


PapayaWiki105 (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PapayaWiki105, You have not followed the advice of any of the several reviewers. The issues they raised remain. Read their feedback. Change the article accordingly. If you have a question about how to implement a specific piece of feedback, please ask here. We will not re-review it until substantial changes have been made.
As a final note, be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on WIkipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The production company articles you linked are very, very bad, and not a good comparison. Although to be honest, I couldn't find a good production company article. The closest good one I could find was Walt Disney Animation Studios, but understand that might not be super valuable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

04:20:26, 19 November 2019 review of submission by 45.64.11.91


45.64.11.91 (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are WP:NOT an advertising platform or place to promote your business. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:29:41, 19 November 2019 review of submission by Irovvaul

Hi All, first of all, I am sorry for trying to create the page again and again. I am new to wikipedia and don't know all the policies. When we first created the page, it was deleted and we realized that we can't have our page live without independent press coverage. Recently, we got covered in some of the top-notch publications and we thought to give it a try one more time. Our intention was not to spam wikipedia, please forgive us for our mistakes and please give us a fresh start and please review our draft afresh. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience caused to you all due to our ignorance. Irovvaul (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Irovaul: Thank you for your question. You are referring to yourself as "we", which would be a violation of WP:SOCK. Also, if you have a connection with the subject (which you imply) you must declare that on your userpage per WP:COI. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Irovvaul:

12:38:03, 19 November 2019 review of submission by Maheshchulet2011

What are the reasons to reject my article so that I can work on them Maheshchulet2011 (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshchulet2011, For one, its written like an ad. Wikipedia presents its subjects neutrally and without promotion or bias, using formal language at all times. Additionally, there are not enough sources to show that this is notable. At least 3 sources that are reliable and independent and have significant coverage of the subject is needed. Think news articles, coverage in magazines, that sort of thing. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:05:56, 19 November 2019 review of draft by 4mckeowns


I have added references and links that validate that the pageant is real and relevant to those living in County Cork (Ireland's largest County). The event takes place every year and involves hundreds of people so I don't know what more to do to make this article qualify as being of public interest Thanks 4mckeowns (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4mckeowns, You should read referencing for beginners to see how to properly format and use references, as the existing layout is insuffucient. The article also needs more prose. In terms of sources, you need to find sources that cover the contest itself, not just its contestants. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:09, 19 November 2019 review of draft by Mlajum


The article is a biography of Kenneth Kimuli. He is popularly known as Pablo. Is it okay if I change the subject of the article to Kenneth Kimuli(Pablo)? Secondly, if one had put up their pictures on social media before and would prefer the picture to be put up on Wikipedia, does deleting the picture from the social media, e.g facebook, and using it on Wikipedia violate any copyrights?

Thanks

Mlajum (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:18, 19 November 2019 review of submission by MMcC321


Hi there,

I was wondering if you could explain how the article may not be sufficient for a Wikipedia page of its own? I'm at a bit of a loss as to how I can amend it.

Thank you MMcC321 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MMcC321, The company fails WP:NCORP and seems to be a run of the WP:MILL business. There are millions of businesses, we can't cover them all, and thus have to have a minimum standard. That standard is notability. That means usually at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. The current sources do not do that. It is likely that this business is simply not notable, and no amount of improvement would make the article likely to pass. I suggest you find another area to edit on Wikipedia; I can suggest some WIkiProjects if you provide an area of interest! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:46, 19 November 2019 review of draft by Jwilson2032


Hello! I am attempting to make a Wikipedia page for Ankura. Despite almost 10 citations to relevant materials regarding the company's creation, investments, acquisitions, and work, the article has been rejected. Many similar companies (i.e. Analysis Group, Cornerstone Research, etc. ) have less or similar cited materials in their articles.

Thus I would like to request help with the following: 1) Which of the citations listed in the article do not meet relevant criteria for reliability? I have reviewed the sections of Wikipedia's help page for reliability standards, but there is still some gray area on what can qualify. For instance, I have included a Bloomberg profile (having seen those used on several other articles!), but if that is not reliable I would still like to use the other source provided (an interview of the individual in question). 2) Given the nature of the article, I have added a few sources to some of the cited sections. Should I keep citations to one for each factoid, or are additional citations that demonstrate reliability better. 3) How many additional sources meeting the above criteria should be included? I did not want to over inundate the article page at first but if even more information is needed for approval then so be it. 3b) In the same way, are there sources I have listed that are considered not reliable that should be redacted all together? If so I am happy to remove them.

I appreciate any and all feedback on this manner. I am driven to make this happen!

Jwilson2032 (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwilson2032: Per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG there must be several (generally at least 2-3) independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. You can use other sources that meet this criteria to verify statements in the article, but not for asserting notability. A general rule of thumb is that you need a reference to prove every fact/assertion/claim you make in the article. However, a concern I have with this draft is that it really sounds like an advertisement for the company, instead of an encyclopedia article. Before it is accepted it should be cleaned up to sound less promotional. I hope this helped. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:36, 19 November 2019 review of submission by Electra Roberts

Hello, I created this page for Yiannis Papadopoulos it was declined 7 months ago. Since then I renewed all the sources and i updated the page quite a few times. Can someone please help me with this? I believe the article is in great standing, it's been seven months, at least please give me feedback regarding the page and if there's anything I can do to make it even better. This guy definitely deserves a Wiki page, he's won so many awards/ competition, he's touring around the world, and he's recognised and respected in the guitar community. Thank you for your time. Your help is greatly appreciated. Electra Roberts (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three months, not seven, since you submitted your draft. Please be patient, drafts are reviewed in no particular order. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:25:01, 19 November 2019 review of draft

Greetings. At a request from Whpq, I would like some help determining if my edits to the draft above are on the tright track. The original creator of the draft is Degacrowe9, but I made a few improvements to it. So, am I doing okay so far? Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 19:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for any administrative action here, so I've closed the {{admin help}} template. Yunshui 雲水 08:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui, So... I'm on the right path then? Thanks, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 17:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:48, 19 November 2019 review of draft by TJRobertson


I created this draft for a master planned community here in Nevada, Skye Canyon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skye_Canyon,_Nevada

It seemed like the community warranted a Wikipedia article, since other master planned communities of similar size and significance also have articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Highlands,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin,_Nevada). In fact, Summerlin has 3 articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_South,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_City_Summerlin,_Nevada).

My draft has been declined many times, and is still not approved for the following reasons:

- This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

- 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. 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.

However, when reviewing the pages of the other master planned communities, their sources don't meet this criteria any better than those on my draft. Skye Canyon is a huge, prominent, albeit new community here in Nevada (6,500 homes). How else can I show that this is a legitimate, noteworthy entity?

Any help is much appreciated. Thank you!

TJRobertson (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TJRobertson, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on WIkipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I looked at the articles you posted, and I have marked three for deletion, and found the remaining one to be problematic. None would have passed the AfC process.
You user pages says you do SEO for Vegas companies. If you have been paid in any way for your edits on Skye Canyon, you must disclose that by following the guide at WP:PAID.
To the article: you must show that the subject passes the WP:GNG. That means at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. Currently, you have zero such sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:41:15, 19 November 2019 review of draft by Shibby182


To whom it may concern,

I created this Wikipedia page approximately 8 Week ago and was on a 8 Week waiting list which today has jumped to 4 months. I was wondering if there was an explanation for this or a priority system? An explanation for the jump from 8 Weeks to 4 Months is all I'm seeking unless you would like to review the Wikipedia Article itself.

Thanks, Brandon C.T. Lee


Shibby182 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shibby182, Howdy hello! When you submitted, the average review time was 8 weeks. But that time has been revised, as we are getting an influx of drafts and have rather few reviewers. Please be patient, and your draft should be taken care of soon. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


November 20

03:17:44, 20 November 2019 review of submission by TopBanana12


TopBanana12 (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TopBanana12, Subjects require notable coverage, that is multiple reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. This article lacks any such sources, and such sources do not seem to exist. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:26:22, 20 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Helloajnabi



Helloajnabi 08:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC) @Ubiquity: This page is belong to famous motivational writer and I can provide more references for the same. So I am requesting you to please do not delete this page.

08:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Sanjay Sharma08:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

09:38:19, 20 November 2019 review of submission by 194.243.213.83


Can someone help me for the publication of this page .... Vincenzo Ferdinandi was a famous designer in the 60s in Italy. There are also official news and photos attached, but this profile remains a draft. I hope for a welcome help. Thanks anyway.

194.243.213.83 (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some cleanup needs to happen before the page can be published. Reference links to just photos should be removed, as they are not sources. Since many of the sources are just photos, you need some more sources that are actually textual. They can be Italian language, but do need to be reliable and independent of the source. I will also help you resubmit it for re-review. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:25, 20 November 2019 review of submission by DylanFaraci98


DylanFaraci98 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DylanFaraci98, The article has been rejected as there do not seem to be enough sources in existence to justify an article. I reccomend you turn your efforts to existing articles, such as may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:53:20, 20 November 2019 review of submission by SM1844


Hello. I've taken your advice and made the suggested edits. How can I resubmit for review? I don't see the resubmission button. Thank you. SM1844 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SM1844, Your draft has been rejected as it is not notable. I do not see enough improvement, and note that much of the article remains unsourced. I rejected it outright as I do not believe enough sources exist to give this person an article. If you can find more sources and change my mind, do. But I recommend you turn your efforts to improving existing articles about other topics you are interested in. Creating articles from scratch is very difficult, and requires a good grasp of Wikipedia, which can be gained by editing in other areas. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:25:58, 20 November 2019 review of submission by Trannguyent


This draft was rejected recently. I am hoping for some help pinpointing exactly on which section/aspect I should focus my efforts to increase the chances of it being accepted. I recognize some of the formatting mistakes, and I would like to know how I can improve the content. Thank you for any help.

These are the comments left by the reviewer: 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.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Trannguyent (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trannguyent, Wikipedia is not a resume. The content should be presented from a neutral point of view, and like an encyclopedia article. Better sources are also needed. The subjects website, and any sources close to her, should not be used. I also suggest that you read the notability guidelines for academics, which will inform you what information you'll need to prove an article on her is warranted. As is, I do not see how she meets those guidelines. She may still be too early in her career to warrant a page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:46, 20 November 2019 review of draft by MVaughanK


The Widener University School of Law wikipedia page is incorrect and misleading. The Widener University School of Law no longer exists. It split apart in 2015 into Widener University Commonwealth Law School and Widener University Delaware Law School. Since the schools are separate and distinct they should each have their own wikipedia page just like Penn State Law and Penn State Dickinson Law School when they split in 2014. The current Widener University School of Law wikipedia page is confusing to the reader and presents incorrect information. How do I go about creating new wikipedia entries for the two separate law schools? When I submitted the one for Commonwealth Law School it was denied because it said it was a duplicate entry. I would also like to create a new wikipedia page for the Delaware Law School.

MVaughanK (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MVaughanK, I have created the article for you. Please work to clean up the existing Widener University School of Law article to reflect the fact that there is now a distinct article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

08:46:49, 21 November 2019 review of submission by John arneVN


I have added references for this league, as the league season has now finished. John arneVN (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:38:41, 21 November 2019 review of draft by Henrich1992 1992


barcelona_kid 09:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

i need help on this listed article in my sandbox @Henrich1992 1992: Howdy hello! I see that you have deleted the content in your sandbox, you may wish to restore it. I looked at an old version of it, and the issue is you need more sources to show that he is notable. If he has only been covered for being in a Forbes list and getting an award, that is usually not enough. You need to show more concretely why he meets some element of the notability guidelines for people. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:33:17, 21 November 2019 review of draft by 81.44.253.104


Hello,

I tried to publish an entry about a documentary we made about Veganism. It has been declined because they say it seems more like an advertisment than a wikipedia entry. Could you tell me where it appears that way? I would love to rewrite it to wikipedia terms but I'm not sure where it went wrong.

Thank you so much!

81.44.253.104 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starters, you appear to have a conflict of interest here. Please read that link, and disclose any conflicts. Additionally, if you have been paid in any way to write this article, you must disclose that per WP:PAID.
With all the formalities out of the way, heres the nitty-gritty. The narrative section is the ad part. We are an encyclopedia, where facts are presented neutrally. That section needs to be re-written or broken into parts, should not use promotional language, and read formally. You may wish to look at March of the Penguins for an example of how to properly write and format an article about a documentary.
Please also read referencing for beginners about how to properly use and format references. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:52, 21 November 2019 review of submission by Tony lee southside RingaT


Tony lee southside RingaT (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony lee southside RingaT, Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Furthermore, any article must be supported by reliable sources. 3 good sources is a minimum, think newspapers, books, magazines, media outlets, that sort of thing. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:00, 21 November 2019 review of submission by Storm1492

My article was declined because it isn't "sufficiently notable for inclusion". It's an article about a book, if admittedly not very detailed yet. How exactly is it not sufficiently notable? It has references and everything. Storm1492 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Storm1492, Howdy hello! We can't cover just anything on Wikipedia, and that's why we have a set of notability guidelines. For books, that generally means you need 3 reviews in reliable sources, or to have made a best seller list. If you can prove that this book meets those requirements, please do, and resubmit it. If not, alas we cannot cover it, but I invite you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, where you can contribute to other cool articles about books. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:47:01, 21 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Khecken


Our company Zomaron has recently rebranded to Paystone. I tried to update our Zomaron Wikipedia article to rename to Paystone or "move" to Paystone, however, I was not able to do this because I am not an autoconfirmed user so I do not have the "move" option when I edit. Instead, I submitted a new article for Paystone and it was not accepted. Instead, they said that it should be added to the Zomaron article and the Zomaron article should be renamed or moved. Could you please advise me on how to do this since I do not have the permissions? Can I provide proof of my title at the company or can I submit a ticket to have to moved to Paystone?

Khecken (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khecken, For starters, you need to read our conflict of interest and paid editing guidelines. In short: you are being paid, even if not directly, to make these edits. You must disclose that fact by following the steps at WP:PAID.
If the company has changed its name, we need news coverage of that. Otherwise, we can't report it because it isn't verifiable. If you can find such evidence, then leave a note on the Zomaron talk page asking for the change to be made. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:05, 21 November 2019 review of submission by Howenstein115

Article was rejected even after I added 3 neutral sources. By "neutral", that is not affiliated with the company. If this is not good enough, then I'd say the following articles should also have been rejected: Hammer Bowling, Track International, and Columbia Industries. I modeled the Storm Products article after these, and they have much fewer (or no) neutral citations than mine. Howenstein115 (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a passing by note that those three articles are very poorly sourced even with the recent additions, and I they wouldn't be likely to pass an AfC/AfD today with just those. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:07:40, 21 November 2019 review of submission by Bberk1201


I don't know what else to add. This page is for someone I know and they asked me to put it up, thats all the info we are going to post about him. Let me know if there is something I can do to get this published.

Bberk1201 (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

04:13:28, 22 November 2019 review of draft by 2604:2000:80C2:1000:534:A1E0:7C91:E07D


I'm unclear as to why my edits were declined. The sources that I cited for the Mei Messaging article were Wikipedia itself, which, to my understanding, is a verifiable source. Can someone kindly clarify?

2604:2000:80C2:1000:534:A1E0:7C91:E07D (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the reviewer meant is that wikis are not reliable sources, i.e. yourdictionary.com. They fall under user-generated content and thus are inherently unreliable. By the way, Wikipedia itself is similarly unusable, although for slightly different reason.
In any case, you need multiple in-depth sources, not just dictionary entries. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:38:23, 22 November 2019 review of submission by Melofors

Hey, there. This draft is undeniably notable with many notable sources from gaming sites and even from mainstream media such as The Independent and Newsweek, as well as a Pearson Education-published article. This by itself should be enough to convince someone that the topic is notable. On top of that, I believe that the draft is well-written and structured. As Hellknowz said, "At worst, the draft should have been declined with ample explanation of why multiple independent in-depth sources about the subject that are vetted at WP:VG/RS are not sufficient for GNG or how the topic at large is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose." Please consider my request, and thank you in advance. -Melofors (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the admin who protected the page in the mainspace so this can be sorted out. This was a horrific rejection of a draft that met WP:GNG (with a clear need of expansion but WP:NORUSH), maybe one of the worst ones I have seen. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:02, 22 November 2019 review of submission by LoveLearning55

Ok so I published my draft for the page Dyslexia Gold and it got declined on the basis of no independent sources. But I would have assumed that bdadyslexia.org.uk/shop/assured/dyslexia-gold is an independent source of Dyslexia Gold. What makes this non- independent? LoveLearning55 (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is just an advert for Dyslexia Gold on the The British Dyslexia Association website. Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's an advert. It's BDA Assured which according to the BDA means "Assured products we believe are effective at identifying or supporting dyslexia if used as intended, developed from generally accepted and well-established science, and make marketing claims that accurately reflect what a user can expect – based on the evidence provided to us." so the BDA must have looked at evidence from Dyslexia Gold and said all the claims they make are backed up. --82.36.137.106 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Dyslexia Gold’s unique online programs develop the skills needed for reading. Based on the latest research, our structured programs improve phonological awareness and eye tracking" is absolutely an advert it's written by Dyslexia Gold and cannot be construed as an in-depth independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


November 23

00:26:43, 23 November 2019 review of submission by PapayaWiki105


Hi -

As it relates to my previous question, by "We" I meant "QC Entertainment", the company. I work for Ray Mansfield, Sean McKittrick, and Ted Hamm.

Look forward to hearing what I can do to get the page approved.

PapayaWiki105 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PapayaWiki105, Howdy hello! Soo: you appear to have a conflict of interest here. You must disclose if you've been paid to make these edits in anyway, by following the steps at WP:PAID. Do that, and then we can talk further.Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:34:44, 23 November 2019 review of submission by Ashtronautz

I want to understand how to publish my wiki page, either getting to learn better citations, references, etc. Ashtronautz (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtronautz, Howdy hello! So here's the issue: this article is unlikely to be published at all, as the subject isn't notable. I.e., there is not suitable coverage of the subject. Usually, at least 3 reliable and independent sources are needed, such as articles in the media. But this seems to be about just an average person, like you or I. We don't write articles about anyone, just those folks who have had significant coverage in published sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:05:46, 23 November 2019 review of submission by Anne Delong


Bobby Watson (musician)

I drafted the above page some time ago, and, because it's about a person I know well, I submitted it to AfC for neutral review. It was recently accepted, but I noticed that a request for a photograph was added. Another long-time friend of the subject has taken many pictures of him over the years, and at my request he's now uploaded two of these to Commons; a closeup:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bobby_Watson_with_his_Stratocaster.jpg

and a picture of one of the bands he was in early in his career:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bacon_Fat_in_1973_at_Trent_University.jpg

However, we both have a conflict of interest and shouldn't add to the article now that it's in mainspace, so I am asking for a reviewer to look at the images and decide if they are appropriate.

—Anne Delong (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:22:46, 23 November 2019 review of submission by 108.247.107.100

This is part of a National DAR Service Project to write a Wikimedia article about our DAR Revolutionary War Patriot. I followed instructions provided by our National Board....I am extremely disappointed at the response that a man who served for the freedom of our Country was not deemed to be "notable". I would like this to be reviewed.

108.247.107.100 (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GrandmaOfTwo. Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the encyclopedia's requirements may not have been accurately transmitted from Wikipedia, through the Daughters of the American Revolution, to you. Few people who fought for freedom are notable (meet Wikipedia's criteria for a stand-alone article); probably fewer than one in a thousand. Primary sources, such as those available through Fold3, do not demonstrate notability. To show notability, one needs significant coverage in secondary sources, such as history books written by historians and published by academic presses.
Creating a new Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can attempt. Instead, try improving existing articles. Heman Swift and Return J. Meigs Sr., for example, have been assessed as lowest quality and "C" quality respectively, so there is much room for improvement. You also may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:43, 23 November 2019 review of draft by Brett125


Brett125 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you create a Bio-stub for "Wilmot Max Ramsay, Jamaican American politician and Civil Rights leader"? Thanks.

Hi Brett125. This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. To request that an article be written, consider asking at Wikipedia:Requested articles. You will need to show that the topic is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Articles must be about notable topics: those that have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. We have a fairly precise definition of what is considered a "reliable source", as well as detailed inclusion guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:45, 23 November 2019 review of submission by Claudette De Ville

Hello and thanks for your advice. I am going to adapt the page accordingly. As for the references, there are photographs of some of the articles on the site www.pol-fraiture.be. I spent many days at the National Library (Belgium)looking for other articles. Most of them are in French... only few in English. Pol died in 1981 and the Internet was not what it is today... newspapers were not on the net. May I ask you to help me find my draft? Thanks in advance. Claudette De Ville Claudette De Ville (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:35:39, 23 November 2019 review of draft by Ivor Speedwell


I have reworked the article I submitted, 'Reginald Paul', to include source references where possible and to make minor changes to the text. This revised version is in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivor_Speedwell/sandbox. Is there anything else I need to do to get this version of the article reviewed and / or published ?

Ivor Speedwell (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivor Speedwell. When a draft is declined (Draft:Reginald Paul), do not create a new version of it in a different location (User:Ivor Speedwell/sandbox). Simply edit the declined draft, below the decline notice and reviewer comments. Then, when you are ready, use the blue "Resubmit" button on the draft to request a review of the revised version. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:21, 23 November 2019 review of submission by Balusingh


Balusingh (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balusingh (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Balusingh: Do you have a specific question about this? The decline and reject reasons link to the pages that explain in detail what sources are needed. You resubmitted the draft for re-review without adding any new sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:13:03, 23 November 2019 review of submission by 71.145.217.237


The article on Weyl Semimetals is in urgent need of work with several popular science articles referencing them. The page meanders, is too complex for laypersons to comprehend and references too many technical terms that lack links out of context

I left my thoughts in their talk page but I thought they might get more visibility here.

A variation of the articles referencing it is here: https://www.livescience.com/axion-found-in-weyl-semimetal.html

71.145.217.237 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was accepted for publication five years ago, so it is long out of scope of Articles for Creation. Posting here is unlikely to have the effect you desire. Talk:Weyl semimetal is the correct place to discuss the article. See Help:Talk pages for conventions, especially regarding where to place threads, how to sign posts, and how to notify others. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

00:22:04, 24 November 2019 review of draft by E-Stylus


Thank you for reviewing the above draft. My paid contribution disclosure is noted on the talk page. I'm requesting a re-review as the draft content appears to meet WP:NPOV and is supported by independent, reliable, published sources per WP:NCORP guidelines. Any feedback would be appreciated. E-Stylus (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:09:53, 24 November 2019 review of submission by Splashcordarticles

This is mainly my first time making an Article, and I wanted to start off small with someone I did not really know but did my full research on.

I do think this person (InScane) is Notable in some way for his actions to the public like his amazing and wonderful support to the people, and his passion to helping and supporting kids/children around the world.

If you have any advice on how I can continue working on this article, and/or what to do and how I could get this article approved. Splash Articles 06:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


09:53:03, 24 November 2019 review of submission by Rishiviswakarma

can I link youtube videos of that person as a reference? Rishiviswakarma (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishiviswakarma: Normally, no. There are a few exceptions, but they aren't likely to apply here. However, if you mean whether such a source would count for the draft to be accepted (i.e. pass notability criteria), then definitely no. We need independent sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:01:58, 24 November 2019 review of submission by CraigMc1979

Updated intro to reflect that the Person in question was the First Nigerian to hold a PHD in computer science and the one who then created the subject formally in Nigeria's universities. This later lead to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenike_Osofisan Updated citation to validate awards as per that mentioned by the reviewer. Looking for any additional feedback on how to improve the article for submission.

CraigMc1979 (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CraigMc1979. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. Wikipedia, because it is user-generated, is not a reliable source. The only other source the draft cites is a press release from the Nigeria Computer Society (NCS). It supports very little of the content of the draft. It is a reliable source for the fact that Odeyemi was given an award in a ceremony organized by the NCS, but it doesn't demonstrate that the award is significant or that Odeyemi is notable. Searches of Google Books and Google News found no sources that would prove notability. Absent such sources, I agree with the reviewer, the topic is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:07, 24 November 2019 review of submission by Ankii luthra


Ankii luthra (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


16:04:35, 24 November 2019 review of submission by Bongshomoy


Listvl255 16:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

17:29:17, 24 November 2019 review of draft by 193.136.124.131


193.136.124.131 (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=927767306"