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
No edit summary
Line 656: Line 656:
I am requesting a re-review because I read your suggestions and changed the wording of many sentences in this article. I believe the language is now more neutral and less related to advocacy. Thank you!
I am requesting a re-review because I read your suggestions and changed the wording of many sentences in this article. I believe the language is now more neutral and less related to advocacy. Thank you!
[[User:Jane Freiman|Jane Freiman]] ([[User talk:Jane Freiman|talk]]) 16:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Jane Freiman|Jane Freiman]] ([[User talk:Jane Freiman|talk]]) 16:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


== 16:25:17, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Veraluciaobrigado ==
{{Lafc|username=Veraluciaobrigado|ts=16:25:17, 16 January 2020|declined=Draft:Sacred_Line_Genesis}}

Added 14 (!) more links, including the whole new section, more links about reception, a link to a documentary with an interview, a link to the official game thread which has 71k views and 268 posts just on Sega-16 alone. Reliable sources like JeuxVideo, Unseen64, Siliconera, MO5. I'd like to ask for a moderator who has a knowledge of retrogaming scene and who would actually read the whole thing. I don't understand why another Sega Genesis homebrew game [[Coffee Crisis]] was approved with barely any links and without any reliable sources at all, yet this one is being rejected and a second moderator openly says he quickly visited just some links, not checking everything.
[[User:Veraluciaobrigado|Veraluciaobrigado]] ([[User talk:Veraluciaobrigado|talk]]) 16:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:25, 16 January 2020

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

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


January 10

01:52:20, 10 January 2020 review of submission by Ghost finders

Because this micronation exists. Ghost finders (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghost finders: Wikipedia does not publish such content. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghost finders: Sourcing doesn't demonstrate notability. A made up place that only exists in Google places is not going to become an article. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:27:59, 10 January 2020 review of draft by Aashishlowanshi


For a think tank page, is it okay to take the content from their about us page? For the page that I am trying to create has a great detail on their about is page, rewriting it might not justify the context so have taken it from their website only. I am assuming this comes under fare use of the copyright, I request the reviewer to guide me with this. Aashishlowanshi (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aashishlowanshi: In short, no. See also WP:COPYPASTE. Fair use does not apply here because you can easily reword and paraphrase the important parts of the content without actually copying anything. Besides, you should minimize any content you take from primary sources (i.e. their own website). Content should come from secondary sources and only the most straight-forward uncontroversial facts can come from primary sources. Usually, almost everything companies say about themselves is not usable for sourcing, because they are biased about themselves and only present their side of the story, so to speak. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:03:05, 10 January 2020 review of draft by KhalsaSarabjitS


Hi, I have submitted an article today "Sewewala Sahib", this article would help a lot spiritual seekers across the world as there is no information available on internet regarding this shrine. Hence I request the editors to review this article and make it live at the earliest. KhalsaSarabjitS (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it. You need to have sources. Wikipedia does not publish articles without sourcing. There are many other places where you can publish your material otherwise. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:47:59, 10 January 2020 review of submission by Johandgiki

Hi there, Thank you for reviewing the page we submnitted. I am requesting a re review of our page because it was rejected for being contrary to the purposes of wikipedia. Our aim to to provide free, independent transparent information to consumers to help them live more sustainably and reduce their environmental impact. We have started with 280,000 of the most common UK supermarket products - we rate them (we don't sell them, or have any affiliate links, we are purely a free information provider.). We are funded through philanthropy and social impact investment. We have 3 staff, 2 of whom are not paid and work with multiple volunteers. Our purpose is to help solve the multitude of environmental crises facing our planet at the moment, bu enabling individuals and communities to understand and reduce their own environmental impact. We do not wish to use Wikipedia as a sales or self promotion platform, or vanity project, merely to enable people to find out more about Giki should they want to. Would it be possible to detail which of the five pillars we did not comply with and I try can address this. Thank you very much jo Johandgiki (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johandgiki. The draft violates pillars 1 and 2, and the conflict of interest behavioural guideline. Rejection is intended to convey that volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:40, 10 January 2020 review of draft by Sushi Roll


Hi, would like to know why my page got declined. We have entered 2020 decade and there should be a new list of Mediacorp Channel 8 dramas. Please do let me know if I missed out anything :)

Sushi Roll (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sushi Roll. The draft fails to show that the topic meets WP:LISTN. It also begs the question of whether the community should delete:
Whether the 2010s list should exist has been discussed once before, but the results were inconclusive. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce, I agree and have nommed them for deletion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:12, 10 January 2020 review of submission by Thebeans120

I am trying to write a page on my school. I keep getting declined, and it wont let me try anymore. I am very sad. I don know how to see if a source is verifiable. And that is what I kept getting declined for. I tried to fix the problems every time. Now, they wont let me try and edit it again. Thebeans120 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thebeans120, Howdy hello! I know it feels bad to have your work rejected. But the reason here is out of your control. I'm afraid that most middle schools just don't meet our notability guidelines. Very few middle schools are actually well known enough to qualify for an article. I'm afraid your school just doesn't cut it. No amount of editing can fix that problem. Writing an article from scratch is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. If you ever want to write another article from scratch, leave a note on my talkpage, or at the friendly Teahouse to first see if the subject is notable. You are also to ask any question you have at those places too. In the meantime, I hope you stick around and edit some already existing pages. By fixing pages that are already deemed notable, you'll get a good feel for how Wikipedia works. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:50:41, 10 January 2020 review of draft by XinaZonos


xinadt (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I addressed the issues of the first decline on this draft by rewriting it to make the article more neutral and added more secondary sources for this company. I didn't realize that having links to plugin listings on other websites would be inappropriate. If I were simply to take those specific references off, would that be enough to get this article approved? Thanks for your time. If not, what else should be fixed?

@XinaZonos: The main issue is lack of reliable independent in-depth sourcing. If you can't add such sources, then no amount of editing will get the article approved. The links to purchase websites are just the worst examples in this case. At the end of the day, there are millions of companies and hardly any are notable by having good sourcing. It doesn't seem likely that there are such sources in this case (or I presume you would have already added them). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XinaZonos: I did a quick search and could only find a podcast [[1]], a similarly bad source since it's primary. There doesn't seem to be enough media coverage of the company to show notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

06:37:50, 11 January 2020 review of submission by Magitroopa

NAC:Discussion of the policy issue can continue at the television notability guideline talk page. Discussion of the content issue can take place, as the reviewers have been noting, at Talk:The Masked Singer (American TV series). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm actually quite confused on why the draft is getting rejected so much now. Prior to today, the draft was being continuously submitted/rejected by a IPs and users who don't understand how Wikipedia works and just wanted the article to exist. In comparison to then, the draft has much more information added and the season premieres in less than a month. Robert McClenon has been declining the draft due to not enough information/sources, and now it is officially being ruled that the, "topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

Robert McClenon asked for a discussion to take place, since which, it has taken place. Considering the two examples I gave (Survivor: Winners at War and The Amazing Race 32), I'm not sure why there isn't allowed to be a separate season 3 article for The Masked Singer when the season premieres in less than a month and it is even a Super Bowl LIII lead-out program- also the fact I brought up that The Amazing Race article is for a season that does not even have any premiere date/year set at this current time. The season two article was even made back in May/June/July, when the season only premiered on September 25. Considering that more information on the season has come out within the past month and the draft has been updated with such information, I really don't see any reason why it isn't notable and the current redirect to The Masked Singer (American TV series) isn't allowed to be removed at this point. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magitroopa, User:Rider0101, User:Heartfox - The draft is being rejected so much now because the draft is being submitted so many times now without addressing the concerns of the reviewers. I and other reviewers said to discuss whether to create a separate article for season 3, which would split the series article]], at the series talk page. There has been no real discussion at the series talk page, only statements that the season is about to start and that there should be an article, but nothing resembling discussion or consensus. I assume that is why User:CatcherStorm Rejected the draft as Not Sufficiently Notable, after repeated requests to discuss notability were ignored with idle resubmissions instead. This does not mean that the topic will not be notable after the season starts. It means that the reviewer did not consider the topic to be notable at this time, and did not think that the draft was likely to be improved by quick editing and resubmission. When the season starts and the season becomes notable, the Rejected draft can be moved out of the way to allow development of a new draft. Until then, continued resubmission is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that some future TV shows and other unreleased "stuff" have articles. That doesn't mean that they should have articles, possibly only that no one has tagged them for AFD yet. The usual rule in Wikipedia is that unreleased "stuff" that is still in production (or not yet in production), such as future films and unpublished books, is not notable. If you can obtain a local consensus that the third season of The Masked Singer is notable before it is aired, then the local consensus is sufficient, but I haven't seen a local consensus, or even real discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that a particular upcoming season of a TV show is notable before it is aired, discuss on the series talk page. If you think that upcoming seasons of TV shows in general should have their own articles, discuss at the TV notability talk page. Otherwise, future TV shows can be described in series articles. Maybe User:AngusWOOF and User:JadenFolf, who have reviewed, may also comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but like how much of a discussion do you expect? 10, 20 people all coming to a consensus about whether an uncontroversial season of a TV show article is notable? Magitroopa and I have both discussed at the talk page like you said. Who is to say that "when the season starts and the season becomes notable" is the rule? Perhaps you're not that familiar with TV series/season articles on Wikipedia, but having an article before the season airs is completely normal, especially when it's less than one month away... this is the first time ever I have seen one be rejected. I find it a bit frustrating that all that's said in the submission rejections is that it doesn't meet notability standards. The draft has multiple independent reliable sources specifically covering the third season. How is that not notable? The first 3 submissions were done by IPs who haven't made any contributions since then. On January 8, after the article had improved and better sourcing was added and I submitted it myself, you rejected it saying it was "without any visible improvement." I'm sorry but that was just completely false. The differences between January 1 and January 8 were very clear. Then, after waiting a couple days, I submitted it again; this time the entire draft was rejected because "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The notion that the season is not notable until it airs is absolutely ridiculous. Notability is present now, just as I have explained earlier via the references in the draft! Heartfox (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft:The_Masked_Singer_(American_season_3), another editor Maproom said "I suggest you wait until a month or so after it has been broadcast; by then it may be easy to find reviews etc. which establish its notability. Wikipedia has no deadline." Really, we're going to wait a month after the Super Bowl lead-out program has aired to make an article about it? Do the multiple independent reliable references in the draft just not matter? There is clear coverage about this specific topic. This is crazy. Heartfox (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should discuss this in a single location, maybe here, or maybe at the Teahouse, but even better would be at the media notability talk page, which has a longer retention cycle and does not have bot archival. On re-reading the notability guidelines for television shows, I see that the principle is against a separate article, but that the guideline is silent on a key point, so that the guideline definitely needs to be improved. The notability guide for TV shows says that unaired shows are usually not notable. This is consistent with many other notability guidelines. It is silent about articles for planned seasons of existing series, but the principle is clear that it is not necessary to start stand-alone articles for seasons that have not aired. It also does appear that many seasons that have not started have articles, which does not make it right or wrong, but illustrates that the guideline has a gap. We can continue to argue here, and eventually this discussion will be bot-archived, or we can continue to argue at the Teahouse, and eventually that discussion will be bot-archived, or we can go to the guideline talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The part where it says unaired shows are usually not notable only refers to announcements about a pilot. I'd actually argue that it's very clear. It says "a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network or streaming provider (for instance, it has been announced at an entity's upfront presentation as being scheduled and advanced to series, a promotional trailer has been released, and/or it has a scheduled premiere date)." But that is followed in the draft. It has been formally confirmed... the premiere date is February 2, 2020—the Super Bowl lead-out. What difference does it make if it's "series" or "season"? At the top of the guideline page, it says the general rule is "there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'm not sure how that isn't true for the draft. There are 5 of those sources in it. I don't understand why the draft reviewers don't consider those sources as having established the notability required. Heartfox (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Heartfox, User:Magitroopa, User:Rider0101 - As I said, I would prefer to discuss this in a single location, preferably at the media notability talk page. It is a very general principle of Wikipedia notability guidelines that they discourage coverage of events, things, and programs that are too soon, including films and books. I agree that the guideline is silent on when seasons of TV series should have stand-alone articles. That is why some of us tried to encourage discussion at the series talk page, but instead there were simply repeated resubmissions, first by unregistered editors, then by registered editors, with no real attempt at discussion. It looked to some of the reviewers as if the objective was to continue resubmitting over and over until a reviewer decided that it was easier to give in. I will say again that the guideline has failed to address season notability, and that the guideline should be expanded, and I will also say that common sense should be used, which is that future "stuff" is usually not notable. I did not Reject the draft, but I think that User:CatcherStorm acted reasonably in Rejecting the draft. There had been no real discussion before the Rejection, because the tendentious resubmissions were taking the place of a real discussion, and the Rejection has at least started discussion, even if it is so far only whining. If the unproductive whining continues, I will box this discussion so that it can be centralized at the television notability talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please box it. I agree that the guideline should be clearer. All I am trying to get at is why the 5 independent reliable sources in the draft do not establish notability. Why don't they supersede whether or not it is "future stuff"? So on February 2, 2020, when it begins airing (less than a month away... not that far in the future), all of a sudden it becomes notable? There is coverage already. I believe you are misinterpreting WP:NTV as I stated earlier. Heartfox (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason The Masked Singer should be singled out when the following show seasons all had mainspace articles before they aired (there are countless examples but these are only the reality show seasons on network TV in the Unied States that have a premiere within recent months!):
  • Dancing with the Stars (season 28): Mainspace (redirect removed) on August 20, 2019. Premiered on September 19, 2019.
  • The Voice (season 17): Mainspace on May 31, 2019. Premiered on September 23, 2019.
  • The Bachelor (season 24): Mainspace (redirect removed) on November 19, 2019. Premiered on January 6, 2020.
  • Survivor: Winners at War: Mainspace on December 18, 2019. Premiered date is February 12, 2020.

And then you give a special barnstar to the editor who rejected it? Wow... some contribution going against the consensus given above. Heartfox (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Heartfox - There is a distinction in logic between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition, but this distinction seems to be very hard for some Wikipedia editors to grasp. It is commonly assumed that because a draft will be declined or rejected if it does not have reliable sources, all that it necessary to get it accepted is to find enough reliable sources. The reliable sources are a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Read Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As to the other shows that had season articles when they should not have, read Other Stuff Exists (but we don't care). One of the judges might have a contract dispute with the network. One of the contestants might become ill. It would have been helpful to discuss the third season on the series talk page when submitting the draft, just as the reviewers said. No, the draft was resubmitted tendentiously, in the hope of getting a different reviewer, and then when the draft was Rejected, there is whining, which at least is better than no discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? If a judge is fired or a contestant withdraws that would be noted in the article with a reliable source. Nothing in the draft is speculative or presumptive. I'm pretty sure Fox isn't changing the Super Bowl lead-out program—the event and its details are certain to occur, as is noted with the sources. Filming has already occurred. As I said earlier, I submitted it on January 8 for the first time after I added multiple reliable sources, with the belief the draft would be accepted because of them, not because I wanted a different reviewer than those who had reviewed it before. Who are you to assume why I edited a certain way? I continue to not understand what your definition of discussion on the talk page is. 5 people? 10 people? Nice words? Our opinions have been clearly stated and are in conjunction with common practices for years of it being acceptable for a TV season article to be in the mainspace when a premiere date has been announced and other info is available from reliable sources, just like a TV series article. Why do you get to decide that's no longer the case just because the guideline only refers to "series"? Is it not unreasonable to infer "season" applies as well, as it has for years? Heartfox (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a misinterpretation of WP:NTV. It says "a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network ... (for instance, ... it has a scheduled premiere date)." There is a scheduled premiere date confirmed by the network—it's sourced in the draft. It completely conforms with that guideline. Is that technicality really that big of a deal? Heartfox (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request on 07:37:02, 11 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Cjullien


Eligis was created in 1993 to develop, maintain and commercialize of two Lisp compilers:

Le_Lisp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Lisp - very famous in France Lisp) compiler initially written by INRIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Institute_for_Research_in_Computer_Science_and_Automation).

OpenLisp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLisp) which is the most quoted fully conforming [ISLISP] ISO Lisp implementation. It is also the only ISLISP compiler having a commercial support.

Eligis has participated on more than 10 years to the ISLISP normalization effort.

Now I don't know how to improve the page talking about the company behind those two commercial Lisp compilers.

Thank you for your help. Cjullien (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cjullien, While a company's products may be notable, that does not mean the company itself is. It appears that coverage of the company is scant, which means it might not be notable. You would need multiple reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. If such quality sources do not exist, the subject is not notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:42:05, 11 January 2020 review of submission by Devesh16041996


Please check one more time. MTV Roadies (Season 17) is the genuine article.

Devesh16041996 (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that it has been deleted because it is not notable. While it was...genuine? I guess? thats not a standard we use here. Since the subject lacked media coverage, we cannot cover it. Perhaps once it airs it may be notable, but at this point, some time prior to airing, its not fit for Wikipeida. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:37, 11 January 2020 review of submission by Aeacus10

Hi Wikipedians, firstly thank you for the swift feedback as I was a bit clutched went system said it could take up to four months for a review. This really shows how involved and efficient the wiki world is, I admire it. I'm seeking for help on this article i wrote for The BrandLaureate. It is a prestigious award and is recognized by many people around the world. Influential people like Prime Misters, Kings, Noble citizens, Athletes, Celebrities etc have been presented with this award. Can you please guide me on how we can make this go live and what else can I support in terms of references to justify all this information. Thank you and looking forward to a reply. Aeacus10 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Aeacus10 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeacus10. I concur with the reviewer, Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. I've also nominated The BrandLaureate Awards for deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce. I don't think you guys understand where this is coming from. You cant simply make a decision to say that is not worthy of being on Wikipedia and nominate it for deletion. It really just shows how shallow your reviewing system is. This corganization is legit and has been giving out prestigious awards for almost 14 years to contributors and influential souls from around the world. There has be to some sort of write-up or information on this organization and their notable works which they are doing to identify and award souls that are making this world a better place to live in. I agree that this article has been edited by one person which is me, but I rest assure you there are many more out there who can contribute to this organizations achievements. I have taken a long time to edit this please do not shut it down like that, I've re-wrote it 10 times, and now this is what you can simply say after understanding about this organization in less than what? 5 minutes? Please be a little professional and not keyboard warriors from your end, sit, think and consider before typing something like that above Worldbruce, fellow Wikipedian.

CC : :Hi DGG. and Dl2000, welcome on board the discussion mates. Let's take some time, I will update on further credible references/citations required. Have a pleasant Sunday. Aeacus10 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:43, 11 January 2020 review of submission by Halldor Ulfarsson


Hi I am a very inexperienced user (this is my first post) and I am unsure why this article was rejected.

This submitted first version was intentionally very short and I thought to expand it as I go. If the brevity is a reason for rejection it would help me to know...

I cited an academic paper puplished in a peer revieved proceedings of an academic conference (NIME) as a source. If the source is a reason for rejection it would help me to know...

The subject matter is a new hybrid musical instrument being used by a small number of composers and performers but gaining recognition in expierimental and new classical musical circles. If the topic does not have wide enough appeal and this is a reason for rejection it would also help me to know...

Thanks in advance! Halldór

Halldor Ulfarsson (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Halldor Ulfarsson. The words that leap out from your question are "new", "small number", and "gaining recognition". Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Something that is new or up and coming is rarely a suitable topic for the encyclopedia because not enough has been written about it in independent reliable sources to create a complete article.
Brevity is not necessarily a problem, so long as the draft shows that enough source material exists that it can be expanded beyond a few sentences (see WP:WHYN and WP:PERMASTUB). Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources, that contain significant coverage of their topic. Conference proceedings are acceptable sources, not as ideal as peer reviewed sources, but infinitely better than random web postings.
Writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks novice Wikipedians can undertake. It's more effective to start by improving existing articles. That gives one the opportunity to see mistakes that others have made and become familiar with our policies and guidelines. If you aren't sure where to start, seek out a project in your area of interest, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments, or visit Wikipedia:Community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:51:22, 11 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Crashingdown Man


Dave Taranto On 14th December I let the community know that I am writing an article on a producer, radio announcer and promoter David Taranto. It was rejected on the grounds that it wasn't relevant enough.

I believe I didn't provide enough information about the subject, or gave misleading info on my intentions, which might have made it appear that the article might be a bit amateurish. I hope I didn't mislead. I must stress that an article on David Taranto would provide crucial historical information on the Australian comedy industry.

I should explain. In the Melbourne comedy industry in the 1990s, David - Dave - Taranto showcased many Australian comedians who became international acts such as The Doug Anthony Allstars and Lano and Woodley, who received the Edinburgh Fringe's Perrier Award. The BBC subsequently produced a TV series starring Lano and Woodley. He promoted and broadcast many other successful comedy acts in the 1990s. Dave's untimely death in 1999 put an end to his short career. But a number of producers and myself feel that that specific era in Australian comedy is missing from the industry's history. I would like to create an article to provide the public with details of his career and activities. There are a number of other colleagues who will contribute information and edit facts.Crashingdown Man (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To help you get a clearer picture, I am a performer, comedy writer, dramatic actor and playwright. In constructing a Wikipedia article I am committed to providing a professional product.

I have provided information taken from Melbourne newspaper The Age' Bold text for your information. https:// www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/tv-and-radio-comedys-new-centre-stage-20021230-gduzxw.html

I hope this allays any concerns you have regarding the importance of the article. I will proceed very slowly in slowly gathering verifiable facts and consult with other professionals amongst the comedy contributors. If you want further information about me, I have an IMDb page. There are also a number of articles about me online.

Thank you for your feedback, Theroadislong. Much appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Frederick - Fred - Rowan.


Crashingdown Man (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crashingdown Man Your draft here User:Crashingdown Man/sandbox has no content apart from his name? Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:58:55, 11 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Hawthorne9520


I was missing a page for the 2020 Fangoria Chainsaw Awards [1] on here, so I figured I'd create it myself. However, after I submitted it, it got rejected for the following reason:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. 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."

Now I'm not really sure how to fix the issue. I only used a single reference (the official nomination form), because that's where all the information came from. Now I understand the importance of having multiple references, but there are no other sources listing the nominees. I based my page on the 2019 version of the awards [2] , which also only has references to the nominees and/or the winners.

So what do I do? Do I wait for additional references to come up? Do I add more references on Fangoria Magazine in general, and adding some content about that? I'm looking forward to a response, as I want to start contributing and want to do it as right as possible.

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2020_Fangoria_Chainsaw_Awards
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Fangoria_Chainsaw_Awards

Hawthorne9520 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawthorne9520. If there are no other independent, reliable sources, then Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article on the topic. Mimicking an existing article is chancy; just because an article exists, doesn't mean it should exist (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a fuller explanation). You could merge what you've written into Fangoria Chainsaw Awards or wait until after the 2020 awards, by which time more is likely to have been written about them in reliable sources independent of Fangoria Magazine. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:58:33, 11 January 2020 review of draft by Siegien123


Siegien123 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siegien123, The comment of the last reviewer stands. Your sourcing is inadequete, and does not show how the subject is notable. You need higher quality sources. If you have specific questions, please ask a new question, and write out what you are concerned about. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:08, 11 January 2020 review of draft by MortgageGuru23


Hi. I've had an article rejected twice now because it reads like an advertisement. I have followed the AfC guidance and included lots of third-party sources. I have tried to use a neutral tone throughout.

Please help me understand which phrasings/wordings need to be changed, so that it doesn't read like an advertisement.

thank you!

MortgageGuru23 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MortgageGuru23, Well a few things stand out. The manifesto section should go, thats blatantly promotional. Any blogs published by the company or the company's websites are not independent sources; they and the material they support should be removed.
If you have been compensated in any way for your edits, are an employee of the company, have a stake in the company, or any other financial relationship with the subject, you must disclose that per WP:PAID. Failing to do so is a violation of the Terms of Service. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2020
Hi CaptainEek. Thanks for your response.
Are no blogs/press releases/etc allowed at all? I don't think it's a problem in this case, as there are independent sources that cover the same things.
The manifesto seemed notable to me, as it had been discussed by UK parliament, and was part of a big movement in the UK (customer loyalty penalties). But I can remove that too, if you feel it is only promotional. MortgageGuru23 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MortgageGuru23, Press releases and blogs may be used in sparing circumstances. I don't think those circumstances apply here. Wikipedia says what reliable and independent sources say about our subjects, not what the subjects say. Otherwise we would be little more than a mouthpiece for companies. If there are independent sources that cover the same thing, then the press releases are unnecessary.
For the manifesto, if you talked about it, you'd need to overhaul the section. You probably shouldn't mention their manifesto unless a reliable secondary source has talked about it. The current wording is too promotional. Also, the only important part seems to be the discussion in parliament, but I note that claim is unsourced. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek, how about now? I've tightened things up... removed Manifesto section... moved more to the introduction. What do you think? MortgageGuru23 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MortgageGuru23, A few things. For one, a small nitpick: references go after punctuation, not before. Also the langauge is still too promotional. The lead is also too long and detailed. A lead should summarize the article and not have any original info. Most of the info needs to be put into a section such as overview or something.
Also, before we go any further, I would like you to state clearly whether or not you have a conflict of interest or have been paid for these edits. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek, Okay, I will make some more tweaks later today/tomorrow. No, I don't think I have a conflict of interest. I got a mortgage from Trussle about 2 years ago. But I have had mortgages arranged from other brokers too. I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible but will tone it down more. thanks! MortgageGuru23 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek - hey again. I've made some more tweaks... think it's ready to be re-reviewed?! Thanks for your help. MortgageGuru23 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MortgageGuru23, The entire paragraph starting with "The company states that its mission is to make mortgages fairer for everyone" still strikes me as quite promotional. The last sentence seems odd to be connected to the rest, and looks like a case of WP:SYNTH to me.
At this point, now that the promotional sources have been cleaned up, I see a lack of quality sources that give the subject significant coverage. Some more quality sources are needed. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

08:09:04, 12 January 2020 review of submission by Flixoye


Flixoye (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flixoye, The article starts out by discussing finger tutting, but then shifts to a biography, so hard to tell what the subject is. But the main issue is that neither subject seems notable. To show notability, you need significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Such sources do not seem to exist here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:35:17, 12 January 2020 review of submission by Aeacus10

Hi how can i add on more information to this ? I cant seem to edit it Aeacus10 (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aeacus10, You should be able to edit it? The page is not protected. But regardless, I recommend you don't try to edit it. Not only do we think it not notable, it also already exists in the mainspace as The BrandLaureate Awards. You should move on to editing other areas of Wikipedia that interest you. I can help you find some if you leave a note on my talk page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Eek From the start, a few editors told me that I should change "The BrandLaureate Awards" to "The BrandLaureate" as this is how the organization is referred to in their online presence. Captian Eek, this organization is well worthy and has done many good works for society. I have many links and 3rd party reliable media that has covered The BrandLaureate in their space. How can i share these links? There is also some downfalls that they have encountered that I would like to add into the article. Can you please guide me on how I can do this. Also you did mention that you may have some other articles i could help contribute to, do share more kindly Thank you. Aeacus10 (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:49, 12 January 2020 review of submission by YawThompson


YawThompson (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YawThompson, Autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Wikipedia is not for promotion of yourself, or anything for that matter. Furthermore, the subject seems to just be an average person like you or I. There are 8 billion living people, and many more dead, we can't cover them all. Thus we have to have some standard of who to cover. That means we don't just have articles about anyone. Only those who are notable, i.e. have significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, are eligible. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:57, 12 January 2020 review of submission by Timbot4x4


Why is this page not suitable for Wikipedia? Timbot4x4 (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timbot4x4. Middle schools are almost never notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). They're nearly all run-of-the-mill facilities important to the local population they serve, but for the rest of the world indistinguishable from hundreds of thousands of similar schools. Seminole is worth listing in Pinellas County Schools, but not worth a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


January 13

02:36:06, 13 January 2020 review of draft by Abhuwan


Why its taking so long to get any article reviewed its been 50 days i have submitted an article but hasn't been reviewed yet. Abhuwan (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhuwan: - it's taking a while because there are 3800 submitted drafts (plus dozens each day) and only a few active volunteer reviewers - Wikipedia is a volunteer site, so we can't just make it go quicker. There are, unfortunately, drafts significantly older than your own. Reviewers don't have to work oldest-down, though many do, so the odds of it being reviewed will climb over time

05:32:44, 13 January 2020 rejection of submission by Heartfox

Hello, I have a few questions regarding what happens after a draft submission is rejected that I couldn't find answers to in any article.

  • Can work on it continue?
  • Does it need to be deleted for a new Draft to be created?
  • Can a user request for it to be deleted?

When it becomes notable on February 2 when it begins airing, I'm just wondering what the process is for transferring a rejected draft into the mainspace. It seems like it could be confusing/complicated. Thanks! Hopefully someone can help so it's not caught up in the draft process as rejected forever. Heartfox (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heartfox. You are free to continue editing the draft, even though it has been rejected. You should continue editing the draft rather than start a fresh copy anywhere else, and should not delete it.
Do you have any kind of conflict of interest with regard to The Masked Singer? If not, and if you're not editing under some form of sanctions, Articles for Creation is an optional process for you. The expert advice you've received is that, more likely than not, Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3) would fail to survive in mainspace. Most likely it would be merged into The Masked Singer (American TV series). If you choose to ignore that advice, or if the notability of the season changes, then as an autoconfirmed user in good standing, you are free to move the draft to mainspace and let it sink or swim on its merits. The worst that could happen is that it could be deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will do so when the notability changes. Heartfox (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:27, 13 January 2020 review of draft by Arjunsingh5478


Hi, i want to change the name of the article, to Nikhil Kamath. As the name which i had mentioned is my user name. Kindly change that Arjunsingh5478 (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done JTP (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:22, 13 January 2020 review of submission by Arjunsingh5478

Need to change the name of the page, to Nikhil Kamath as it's mine User name which is been submitted. Kindly help. Arjunsingh5478 (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:31:33, 13 January 2020 review of submission by Noreen Ly

I would like to have this reviewed. I am writing for my company. I take wikipedia as a platform to define who are and what we are doing. I have no other intention except that our company will be published. What should I do? Please help me. Noreen Ly (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reviewer. You have not given any sources needed for notability. At this stage, this is simply advertising. In sort, Wikipedia is not a platform to write about your company, this is an encyclopedia, we use third party sourcing. There are many other websites where you can publish such content. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:34:57, 13 January 2020 review of draft by The Supermind


My draft has been rejected twice due to citing sources from downloading or advertising contents. Then I removed them and replaced with other one, although the language is Ukrainian. Does it affect the notability of the subject when foreign languages with are cited to the article?

Secondly, I requested the page to move "Kiev day and night". This is the proper name for the series. The Supermind (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it again. The concern remains the same -- the given sources are not in-depth. I left a further comment on the draft.
The language of the sources doesn't matter.
The titles on English Wikipedia generally follow English proper noun capitalization rules and use title case, as oppose to most Slavic language spelling. That said, the title is not correct anyway -- it should be at least "Kiev at Day and Night" unless there is an official English translation or there are reliable sources in English that have set a precedent for translation. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:35, 13 January 2020 review of submission by Abhishek.shukla.313


I am wondering which part of my article sounds like an advertisement. As far as I understand, the article is written from a completely neutral point of view, it is giving information about the product in detail. Please let me know so that I can improve. Looking forward to contributing more on Wikipedia. Thanks.

15:35:01, 13 January 2020 review of submission by Slross83

I have marked the draft as paid, to disclose my employer, client and affiliation. The reviewer has marked this draft as not being a notable topic or having enough external sources.

There are many more external media sources that I can include links to. Can I add these in and re-submit for review? Slross83 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slross83: Rejection is intended to be final. The subject that you have chosen is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that. If you had better sources, then those should have been included in the initial draft. But don't just add more low-quality sources, that just looks like citation overkill and will not help the article at all. shoy (reactions) 18:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:43:06, 13 January 2020 review of submission by MarkHBrandon


Hey, I'm not requesting a re-review. I just would like some advice on what I need to do in order to get this page published.

Thanks!

MarkHBrandon (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarkHBrandon, I'm afraid that it is very unlikely that this page will be published, as it is literally just an advertisement. Wikipedia does not exist to promote its subjects. If you actually want to get it published, it can't read like an ad, and needs reliable and independent sources. But I don't think such sources exist here. You would need news source or reliable website coverage of it. And most products do not meet that standard. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:02:36, 13 January 2020 review of draft by The Supermind


The review again declined due to insufficient sources that mention the subject. I added some sources for rating section. But it seems the reviewer forget my suggestion for two days.

The Supermind (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3800 pending drafts. On average, it takes many months for a single review, longer for non-English sourcing. I reviewed your draft 3 times, left detailed comments and answered the help desk questions. It still does not have proper sourcing. I will let someone else review. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:21, 13 January 2020 review of submission by 103.94.220.69


103.94.220.69 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for promotion or autobiographies. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:47:49, 13 January 2020 review of submission by Eldritcharchivist

Reviewer stated that it was rejected because it was "contrary to the purpose of wikipedia." That statement is in complete ignorance of the several wikipedia pages already in existence of Dungeons & Dragons products specifically lists of modules and campaign settings. this submission adds to the completeness of the Wikipedia subjects on this topic, addressing an obvious gap.

Eldritcharchivist (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eldritcharchivist, 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. If you provide examples of other such pages, I can give feedback about why they might still exist, or if they should no longer exist.
The reviewer declined your article because it looked like pure promotion, which is against the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not exist to promote its subjects. We only have articles about things that have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources (think newspapers, books, magazines, quality websites). You did show such coverage in your article, so it just looked like a list of products (which is advertisement, whether or not you intended as such). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the user copy-pasted the content into Ravenloft article regardless. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:43, 13 January 2020 review of submission by YawThompson

I will need this correct all errors in order not to repeat them again in my future articles YawThompson (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC) 19:43:43, 13 January 2020 review of draft by YawThompson[reply]



YawThompson (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YawThompson, Before writing an article in the future, please first ask here if it is notable. That will save you much headache.
For any article, the subject must first be notable, i.e. have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources (think newspapers, books, magazines, quality websites). Once you have found enough sources (at least five is a good starting point), then you can start to write the article. It needs to read neutrally and like an encyclopedia article. If you know the person, you should probably not write the article, as that is a conflict of interest. If you've been paid in any way to write an article, you must disclose that by following the steps at WP:PAID
A quick guide to writing new articles can be found here. A longer guide to general editing can be found here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:05:33, 13 January 2020 review of submission by MannyPC

I need advice on how can I make an acceptable personal sandbox, please. If someone can edit and make changes on my sandbox or can show me step by step, it would be great. MannyPC (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MannyPC, You have confused your user page User:MannyPC and your sandbox. What you've written in your sandbox should instead go on your user page. The sandbox is to be used to draft new articles from scratch, or otherwise act as a test space. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

08:14:26, 14 January 2020 review of submission by 117.211.132.208


117.211.132.208 (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not notable. Having a patent or a publication is not enough for an article. To have an article, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Please focus on editing something else, such as some existing articles, to understand how Wikipedia works. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:17:27, 14 January 2020 review of submission by AlineDerlagen


This is important to review as this is an up-and-coming comedian in Australia who has already had international tours. Not posting about him at all and having information on him is somewhat strange - especially considering other comedians and youtube celebrities are included on Wikipedia.

Kind regards AlineDerlagen (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlineDerlagen. Being up-and-coming is not a reason for Wikipedia to have an article about something, so much so that there's an essay about it, Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing. You may also find the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability informative. To get someone to take another look at the draft, you would need to make a convincing argument on the basis of guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people). The essay Three best sources outlines a good approach. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:43, 14 January 2020 review of draft by IOSHjourno


IOSHjourno (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Hope you're well?

I created an article on Andrew Sharman.

I was first told that you that a moderator was not allowing this, on the basis that I have an undisclosed financial stake in this, which is untrue. I don't know what this is based on? And I continue to refute this.

The article was then refused publication again some weeks later - this time, on the grounds that the references only have vague mentions of the subject. Despite the fact that two of the references are Scottish national newspapers - with articles specifically based on the subject.

Would it be possible for this to be reviewed again, please?

Thank you.

Edward

Hi IOSHjourno. You understood in this edit on 28 October 2019 that your choice of user name could give the impression that you have a close connection to IOSH, the organization Sharman heads, and therefore a conflict of interest (not necessarily financial) when writing about him. That impression is bolstered by the fact that in your eleven weeks here, instead of improving the encyclopedia broadly, all you've done is push for the creation of an article on this particular topic, despite repeatedly being told that he is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia).
Lack of notability is the reason that draft has been declined twice. You write that two of the references are Scottish national newspapers. Do you mean The Scotsman and Southern Reporter? Multiple articles about the same event that merely restate the same information do not count as multiple sources. There's also the problem that both are based largely on this press release from the organization.
Novice editors are commonly advised to cite three independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites, at best, one, and its degree of independence from the subject is weak. Unless you can radically improve the draft, removing nearly all of the sources currently cited and replacing them with several in depth, independent, reliable sources, there's no point in submitting it for another review. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:22, 14 January 2020 review of submission by JoseRossiUY


Hey there,

I'm doing research about the Uruguayan tech industry. This article is just a piece of content that makes notice of an Uruguayan software development company that achieved local and international recognition by releasing a team collaboration software. It is important in order to register the fact that such a small country like Uruguay has an interesting and growing tech industry, and how it developed with the pass of years. In my opinion, that's history, that's an encyclopedic content. There aren't any non-neutral expressions or comments that could sound spammy. I added every source I could find (such as local newspapers, community blogs, company libraries, etc.) yet still getting the article rejected.

Every knowledge and content regarding the technology industry will be very important for future generations. Our world is a tech-fueled one.

JoseRossiUY (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoseRossiUY. Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the subject is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that. On top of that is the problem that the draft, like all your other contributions here, appear to be the product of undeclared paid editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:11, 14 January 2020 review of submission by Cappyto


Bill Strickland is known widely across the United States and has authored questions for CollegeBoard & national exams. Many have Wikipedia profiles for less. Cappyto (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cappyto, 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.
For your article, this guy is just an average person like you or I. Being a high school teacher is laudable, but not notable. To show notability, you need coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. That means newspapers like the New York Times, not a personal blog. LinkedIn is also not a reliable source. I'm afraid this article just won't be published. I know thats hard to hear after working hard on something, but I hope you take this as an oppurtunity to ask for some help at the Teahouse about editing, and edit some existing pages to get a feel for Wikipedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:19:50, 14 January 2020 review of draft by Aureliojohn


Kindly review my draft and let me know if you have any question regarding the draft.

Aureliojohn (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aureliojohn. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 3-4 months, so you can anticipate a review by late April or early May. In light of Wikipedia's general sanctions on cryptocurrency-related articles, I suspect that there's very little chance that it will be accepted for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:45:38, 14 January 2020 review of submission by Ajnk1234


Good afternoon! Just want to follow up on the Wedding Spot submission and add another piece of info to make a case for inclusion: As of May 2019, Wedding Spot had helped nearly 20 million couples[1] find their wedding venue.

The article was rejected due to lack of notability, but it has received coverage from a significant amount of reliable sources over the years, and its competitor, WeddingWire, has a published Wikipedia page. Is there anything else I can add/change to get the Wedding Spot entry published?

Thanks in advance for your consideration!

References

  1. ^ "Cvent Acquires Wedding Spot to Provide Hotels and Venues Direct Wedding Business". wedding-spot.com. Wedding Spot.

Ajnk1234 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajnk1234, 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 WeddingWire article is quite poor, and I'm not sure if it should exist either.
You say in the article that it has been featured in dozens of publications. If so, then include those as sources in the article. Thats probably the only way to save the article. All the stuff about seed funding and acquisitions is just routine news, which does not contribute to notability. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


January 15

01:04:06, 15 January 2020 review of submission by Jancarcu

My article was declined for two main reasons: a lack of independent sources and NPOV issues. I understand the issue of the lack of independent sources, and I'm working on acquiring independent sources to help flesh out the article; this should also partially solve the NPOV issues, since having more independent sources could bring more balance. However, I think this article might benefit from a second pair of eyes to see if there are any fundamental issues with the organization and wording that could also be contributing to the NPOV problem.

Furthermore, much of the information I could find for the article comes from quasi-scholarly LDS-linked sources, including LDS-linked journal articles. There does exist a research paper in Chinese that could be helpful, but it's behind a paywall. This, to me, looks like it could be a WP:Notability issue as well. I think that Mormonism in China is a significant enough topic that, based on editorial judgment alone, it should, at least eventually, get an article. But if this is not notable, such an article would have to be published after the academic community has generated a sufficient quantity and quality of citations. I currently think that there is sufficient coverage in third party sources to justify an article in which due weight is set by third party sources, with LDS sources being used to fill in undisputed facts and figures if necessary. Jancarcu (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:19:59, 15 January 2020 review of submission by BrandonLorenzoHoward


BrandonLorenzoHoward (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:35:15, 15 January 2020 review of submission by PutriAmalia1991

  • Username missing!

my draft article for BTS Universe was being deleted, I wanna know the FULL details of the reason why my draft article was deleted the special girl is me (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected because it had no sources, which meant there was no way it could prove notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what should I wrote to making my article more appealing? the special girl is me (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do because Wikipedia requires sources. Read Wikipedia:Notability. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:03:35, 15 January 2020 review of submission by Duronto27

This is a Bangladeshi Game. Your lack of knowledge is preventing me creating an article. Also you blacklisted its title, which is pure racism. If you do not understand, let any Bangladeshi editor do the admin job. Duronto27 (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Duronto27 (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duronto27. The lack of independent, reliable sources, containing significant coverage of the game, prevents anyone writing an acceptable encyclopedia article about it. Contrast what has been written about it with the range and quality of sources available for Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:45:28, 15 January 2020 review of submission by Webster023


Not sure why this has been tagged for speedy deletion, as far as i can tell there is no content in it which could be deemed advertisement and it's an article for an officially licensed TIGA nominated F1 mobile game with many millions of players, not some mobile title no-one would have ever heard of. The game is also referenced in numerous well known gaming publications like MCV, Gamasutra, Pocket Gamer and plenty others.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/pressreleases/342430/BE_THE_BOSS_HUTCH_LAUNCH_F1_MANAGER.php https://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/70782/hutchs-first-formula-one-partnered-game-is-f1-manager/

I look at articles such as the below with significantly less content and valid sources and wonder why this is allowed to remain when the one i have submitted is under review and considered for possible deletion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_Manager

Regards,

Webster023 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Webster023. The request for speedy deletion is old news. It was a couple weeks ago, and deletion was declined because the draft was not promotional enough to be beyond all hope. Two subsequent reviews, however, found respectively that the draft failed to demonstrate notability, and that the topic is not notable. No amount of editing can fix that problem. Press releases, like the ones above, don't help establish notability. I agree with you that F1 Manager must be improved or deleted, and have tagged it accordingly. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to better understand the perils of mimicking random articles rather than following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:48:44, 15 January 2020 review of submission by Mariedegournay


Thanks for reviewing Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome. It was deemed to have "insufficient content" and the recommendation is to put it into the Finasteride entry.

As you may know, there are separate entries for Opioid use disorder and Alcoholism which are not incorporated into the articles for Opioids or Alcohol respectively. Moreover, from a commonsense point of view, a disorder resulting from a drug is not a property of the drug itself. It is a medical phenomenon that arises from taking the drug.

Another comment: the term "insufficient" is vague. This word means "not enough" which could mean any number of things, including simply "unsatisfactory." Can someone give objective criteria for "sufficiency"?

Adding a better example

See Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome. This is a very close analogy because Post-Finasteride Syndrome is linked to discontinuing Finasteride. So consider:

Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome is to Antidepressant

as

Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome is to Finasteride


Mariedegournay (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:23, 15 January 2020 review of draft by WPisarnik


Hi AfC, you cleared my wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UICR_Professional_Driver_World_Championship, thank you 1 Q - what copyright violation did I had?

was it the fags I had for each country?

Regards Walter Pisarnik

WPisarnik (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:04, 15 January 2020 review of submission by Ajnk1234


Good afternoon! Just want to flag that I updated the Wedding Spot entry with suggestions given to me by the help desk yesterday. I added more information and cited a handful of additional credible news sources.

Thanks in advance for your consideration!

Ajnk1234 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:14:47, 15 January 2020 review of submission by MelissaSmith23

I am not sure why there were not enough citations. Ms. Cross's credits were verified with iMDb and Colony Theater citations, Her credits were tied to the specific episode on which her name appears, and the television show credits are verified by the productions. Personal and family information was taken from Cross's website and from iMDb. What else do you need, please? Most of her work is on past television shows, so the producers are retired or have passed away. I can contact one of the directors and a former SVP retired from NBC to verify the information if you wish. She has been in the industry for decades and I have met her on productions. What else can I do to improve the article? Thank you for your help. MelissaSmith23 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:45, 15 January 2020 review of draft by Egekorkan


I have revisited the draft to increase the coverage of the references. I would like ask for feedback if it got indeed better to qualify for a Wikipedia article. I think that the main issue was that nearly all of the references were websites of the World Wide Web Consortium where the standard also belongs to. With the added references it should be clearer that there is a wider interest in the Thing Description. I think that Thing Description does need a Wikipedia article, similar to HTML where the standard is explained in a more encyclopedia style, rather than difficult to understand standard's document.

Egekorkan (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:43:49, 15 January 2020 review of submission by Dksmit11


Dksmit11 (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your autobiography has no sources whatsoever, so we have no way of knowing if you pass the notability guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:32:37, 15 January 2020 review of submission by 2603:300C:613:C000:1C6F:6088:4CA9:A998


I appeal the reason for denial.

contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia - Dr. Dana Carson is specialized church leader with 35 years of experience which must be listed, it builds to the credibility of him

not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia - Information must be verified and over 40 links were provided that were outside the organization to assist with the verification process.

As I researched other church leaders that have a wikipedia page, Dr. Dana Carson's page has more information that could be verified and has more credibility than some of the other church leaders listed.

2603:300C:613:C000:1C6F:6088:4CA9:A998 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is full of unsourced and poorly sourced puffery, seeking to praise Dana Carson, his own website is not a suitable source and Tripadvisor is not a reliable source for anything. Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:22:29, 15 January 2020 review of submission by COIweizhou


His company employs over 5,500 people and contracts with various governments. Can I use other media sources as citations? Is local media considered inadequate? COIweizhou (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COIweizhou, Local media is generally inadequete. While it can provide supporting info, it cannot usually show notability. Most moderately important people have been written up in their local papers at least once. But to have encyclopedic notability, you generally need to have been picked up by a national news outlet. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:25:38, 15 January 2020 review of submission by Silvinaf


I rewrote the article to be more neutral. The company is an important part of the Bulgarian IT sector and I think it should be included.

Silvinaf (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silvinaf, It is still enormously promotional. The very structure needs to be changed. But the real issue here is that it is not notable. No amount of editing can fix that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

07:47:44, 16 January 2020 review of draft by AJMUSICTZ

because discount centre is the one of trusted company in tanzania

AJMUSICTZ (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:13:07, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Brainwash480

This is my first attempt at making a wikipedia article, so I think I might be having trouble understanding what the requirements are. She's been published/interviewed in multiple 3rd party articles, as well as has a big presence as a trans/LGBTQ+ advocate. What type of references/evidence of credibility would suffice as this person being notable? I understand if the 3rd party sources aren't enough to merit a Wikipedia page, but I'd like to understand what would be enough to have this page published. Thank you. Brainwash480 (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brainwash480. Examples of independent sources that prove someone's notability are this profile of Charlotte Bunch in The New York Times and this chapter about Roberta Achtenberg in a book by a notable author from a mainstream publisher. Things Ripley wrote wouldn't demonstrate notability, but a review of something she wrote, by an academic or a professional book critic, would demonstrate notability. Interviews are primary sources. If they're mostly Ripley talking about Ripley, without significant independent analysis by the interviewer, then they don't show notability. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what other people say about a person, not so much in what they say about themselves.
Writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can attempt. It's better to start by improving existing articles. 98% are rated below "good" by the community, so there's much scope for improvement. If you're interested in writing about LGBTQ+ activists, browse Category:LGBT rights activists or Portal:LGBT for ideas, and consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:00, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Veraluciaobrigado


The article was significantly revamped, adding 8 more news sources for the news release (including not just English ones, but also sources like GamerFocus, Voxel and PSX Extreme), 6 more sources for the reviews (including two YouTube channels with 235k and 442k subscribers) and info about a recent fan translation. This is a huge amount of work since not all info was got from the official website.

Veraluciaobrigado (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Veraluciaobrigado: Sources have to be in-depth, not just passing mentions, short blurbs or part of lists. News releases are not generally significant coverage and usually they contain mostly primary-sourced content no better than a direct press release. YouTube channels or random websites are not normally reliable, because they are not peer reviewed or under editorial purview. Quickly looking through the sources, I don't see any that would pass significant coverage mark. The only ones are [2] and [3] but there is no indication these are reliable publications, such as WP:VG/RS. And info should almost never be from the official website. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:21, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Sallywu11

I am asking for a re-review, since I think the wiki topic I created needs attention and to be known. It's a free alternative to XMind and MindMeister. It would be helpful for those who are looking for free alternatives. Thanks！ Sallywu11 (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sallywu11: Wikipedia does not base article creation on any kind of popularity or necessity factors, such as needing to be known or being helpful to someone. Wikipedia required reliable in-depth sources for an article to pass the notability threshold. You have not added any additional sources after the last review, so there isn't anything to re-review at this time. It also seems very likely there just aren't such sources at all. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:41, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Tam.t2020


I was completing the article and this was just made and the comments were being completed. Please do not reject the story tam 12:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tam.t2020: The draft is declined at the current state, but not yet rejected permanently. You can keep editing as long as you need and resubmit afterwards. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:31, 16 January 2020 review of draft by Arjunsingh5478


Have resubmitted the draft, with the changes and the reliable source which were asked for. Did i do the right thing just wanted to confirm. Arjunsingh5478 (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:00, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Frakes928


Added 3 new articles about Tite by music blogs and industry media companies. See citation 2, 12, 15 for reference.

Frakes928 (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:33, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Jane Freiman

I am requesting a re-review because I read your suggestions and changed the wording of many sentences in this article. I believe the language is now more neutral and less related to advocacy. Thank you! Jane Freiman (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:25:17, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Veraluciaobrigado


Added 14 (!) more links, including the whole new section, more links about reception, a link to a documentary with an interview, a link to the official game thread which has 71k views and 268 posts just on Sega-16 alone. Reliable sources like JeuxVideo, Unseen64, Siliconera, MO5. I'd like to ask for a moderator who has a knowledge of retrogaming scene and who would actually read the whole thing. I don't understand why another Sega Genesis homebrew game Coffee Crisis was approved with barely any links and without any reliable sources at all, yet this one is being rejected and a second moderator openly says he quickly visited just some links, not checking everything. Veraluciaobrigado (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=936083712"