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 526: Line 526:


[[User:Jelenaelek|Jelenaelek]] ([[User talk:Jelenaelek|talk]]) 00:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Jelenaelek|Jelenaelek]] ([[User talk:Jelenaelek|talk]]) 00:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

== 02:28:31, 31 January 2020 review of submission by NickL1771 ==
{{Lafc|username=NickL1771|ts=02:28:31, 31 January 2020|page=
/Draft:Akasa_Group
}}
I have seen other Wikipedia pages in the same industry cite sources from the below media (Anandtech and YouTube). Are the below coverage considered reliable sources independent of the subject? If not, why not?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13943/akasa-turing-passively-cooled-chassis-for-intel-bean-canyon-nuc
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14259/he-asrock-a320tm-itx-motherboard-thin-itx-for-amd-apus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUUP8K3RqAo&t=18s
[[User:NickL1771|NickL1771]] ([[User talk:NickL1771|talk]]) 02:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:28, 31 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 24

02:47:10, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Rulercoaches

This draft was declined for person that I believe meets the requirements for Wikipedia. It was stated that it reads like an advertisement. He does not sell anything so I am not sure what it means. I removed a list of articles he has written as maybe that was the concern but there were no specific comments on what was needed. I also received a troubling message saying that I need to review PAID and COI. I read both and PAID definitely does not apply. For the COI link, that can be pretty subjective and likely determined that anyone can have a COI with creating a draft. The only connection I have is meeting him on a tour of the facility and taking a picture. Was impressed with his work so submitted an article on him. I am not sure if that amounts to the COI stated in the rules. Can you direct me to what is needed here? I need to know what else would be considered advertising and anything else needed for the draft.--Rulercoaches (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main issue would be the potential conflict of interest which you partially addressed above. Topic does seem notable per WP:NACADEMIC due to the named chair. For WP:PAID, keep in mind that it can also qualify you even if you were not paid directly. If you are being paid by an institution and they are requiring you to do this as part of your job, that would still be considered paid. Also, if he asked you or someone else asked you to create the page that would qualify under WP:COI. Whatever the case may be, disclosure is required if it applies. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:50:56, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Mazharul101


I was a new user of wikipedia and i did not know how to write wikipedia article at first. But I took time, I leaned about Wikipedia, how it works and how to write good articles. Here I am with my first article about a very popular Internet company of Bangladesh.

I am sorry because I provided a few information about this company when I first wrote this article, but now I know much information about this company and I think many people will be helpful with this information. I learning how to be a good wikipedia article writer, I am trying to contribute many other article where I believe I have some expertise. Mazharul101 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there still are insufficient references to review the draft. Please review WP:REFB for help on finding and adding sources. Since this is a company, there is a high threshold of notability that must be demonstrated through WP:ORGCRIT. Please follow both links and provide references showing how the topic is notable. Once you are done you can resubmit or ask someone here to do it for you. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:33, 24 January 2020 review of draft by Radarman444


I was asked by a leading authority on Cranch to update the Wiki article on John Cranch, English Painter. As (according to him - I have no knowledge myself) the current article contains several errors, there are several guesses masquerading as facts and much of the article has simply been abstracted from the Net, continuing the errors from those original sources, he thought it impossible to merely correct the article but felt that it needed a complete rewrite.

I have received various comments, most of them extremely unhelpful, irrelevant or wrong e.g.

@Radarman444: Hello. Please read WP:AUTOPROB for advice on how to deal with inaccuracies in an article about oneself. Any content you add to the existing article should be traceable back to a published source. Information your friend has about their relative based only on their personal experiences isn't suitable for adding to a Wikipedia article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

<My reply>"I must admit to being a bit puzzled here; maybe because I'm a newbie. (a) How is "advice about inaccuracies in an article about oneself" relevant when the painter in question died 200 years ago. (b) The information about Cranch is not based only on personal experience as, again, Cranch died 200 years ago. My friend has written a learned book on Cranch and so can be seen as an authority on the man. Radarman444 (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)" 

 The latest is from Theroadislong in response to my updating the original Cranch article -

"This content is not written in the formal tone that an encyclopedia article requires, it may contain original research and the sources are incorrectly formatted, it would be better if you made smaller incremental changes to the existing article rather than replacing it wholesale with inferior content."

Before making the edits to the article, I placed a rough preview of the article I wished to submit on the Talk page of the original article with a request for comments, objections etc as I realised that the original author might have had some concerns. Having had no feedback, I asked for guidance on what to do and, having no replies, I went ahead and published the article, properly formatted as far as I can tell. The rejection from Theroadislong seems to be referring to the rough draft rather than the final article. Either way, it contains no useful help that would enable me to correct our article if there are errors.

In my replies, I have admitted my newbie status, asked for helpful comments and tried to be polite. If I can't get any helpful comments, we will have to withdraw the new article and leave the original, erroneous, article in place. A great shame.

Radarman444 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Radarman444 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Radarman444: Editors are expected to edit on their own initiative, not at the behest of someone else. Editing for a friend creates a conflict of interest. It may not be as strong a conflict as if you were editing about yourself, your family, or your friend, but the same principles apply. Much has been written about how to edit Wikipedia, but there isn't a write-up about every possible situation. Busy volunteers will point you to canned responses and expect you to understand their deeper meaning and how they apply to you. If someone advised you to look both ways and hold your mother's hand when crossing the road, and you dismissed that in a huff as "extremely unhelpful, irrelevant or wrong" because you want to cross a railway line and you are an orphan, the person trying to help you might not be terribly upset if you got run over by a train.
You write that someone who is "a leading authority on" and "probably the closest living relative of John Cranch" asked you to update the article, but don't name them. Do you mean John W. Lamble, the author of John Cranch: Uncommon Genius : The Life and Achievements of a Self-taught Polymath, Artist and Wit from Devonshire (Wolborough Press, 2019)? If so, that raises other problems. As a relative of Cranch, he has a conflict of interest when writing a book about him. There's a third conflict of interest when he cites his own book (or pulls your puppet strings to have you do so). Lamble may be a leading authority on Cranch, and may have "written a learned book" about him, but there are reasons to be cautious. Lamble's credentials are unclear. He hasn't written anything else in the field. His book is the first one published by the publisher. Neither of them have a proven track record and reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The book is held by only two WorldCat libraries. That can indicate that librarians don't regard it as a scholarly work. And the book hasn't received any reviews in academic journals or in the popular press, which raises another red flag.
All that being said, Wikipedia values accuracy. If John Cranch (English painter) contains false statements and "guesses masquerading as facts", then Wikipedia is interested those errors being fixed and those opinions being attributed. This page, however, is for questions about creating articles on new topics, the Articles for creation process. It is not the right forum in which to discuss updating an existing article. That discussion should take place on Talk:John Cranch (English painter). As Theroadislong commented there, dumping your preferred text there is not a productive way to create consensus for the changes you want made. You would be better off requesting incremental changes one point at a time. The {{request edit}} template, if used correctly, is highly effective. For example, you could copy and paste the following text to the talk page:

==Proposed change to museum holdings==
{{request edit}}
*Change: <nowiki>There is a picture by him in the [[South Kensington Museum]].</nowiki>
*To: <nowiki>There is a picture by him in the [[Victoria and Albert Museum]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O133732/playing-with-baby-oil-painting-cranch-john/ |title=Playing with Baby |website=Victoria and Albert Museum |access-date=27 January 2020}}</ref></nowiki>
*Explanation of issue: The original source, Stephen (1888), is outdated. The name of the museum changed in 1899.
~~~~

If you are unable to identify the errors and guesses, and cite specific pages in specific sources for the new text you want, then you may not be the right person to spearhead the updating of the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Dear Worldbruce,

Thank you for your full comments and useful tips. I will assume that you are trying to follow the Wikipedia guidelines of "Be polite, and welcoming to new users. Assume good faith. Avoid personal attacks."

You are correct that John Lamble is the author of the proposed edits. No secret about this. Dr Lamble did not feel that he had the technical skills necessary to do the editing himself so asked me to help him. It never entered my head that there would be a CoI here as I have no knowledge or opinions on the subject of the article and am merely making the edits that Dr Lamble requests. I can understand that you feel that there is a CoI involved with him writing about a distant relative, though that relative did die hundreds of years ago, and will declare this if we resubmit.

I wasn't aware of the Request_edit template but will use it as you suggest.

We will take your points on board and resubmit in due course.

Radarman444 (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:55, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Rebeccamchung

I need point by point guidance on which use of sources create the impression that this artist lacks notability. She is a founding member of a significant artist's movement (Cass Corridor artists). She is cofounder of most of the most signficant literary small presses of the twentieth century. She is one of be best-known regional artists in Michigan. She collected by significant institutions and her entire archive has been purchased by a world-ranked university (University of Michigan Ann-Arbor). Most recently, her work was gifted to Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who has hung the piece on her wall.

I'm happy to rewrite to make these points more directly. I have sources. I need point by point guidance, please, on the areas of this submission that have caused concerns.

Many thanks,

Rebecca Rebeccamchung (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeccamchung, Howdy hello! So I took a look, and I have some notes. In terms of sourcing, you are actually good I would say. However, some other issues remain. The style and tone is not very encyclopedic, and it borders on promotional. Some suggestions:
  • The name dropping, such as at the end of the alt press section, is totally unnecessary.
  • Order: our articles are in chronological order, thus early life should go first, then alt press, then at the end you can discuss her style
  • The lead is far too dense. It should summarize the article, and be easy and pleasant to read. The list of exhibitions is not suited for a lead, and will just be glossed over. Perhaps note three or so of the most prominent, but no more.
  • Make sure there are no external links in the body. They can exist in an "External links" section at the end if you desire
  • Ensure, generally, that the article is neutral in tone, and reads like a formal encyclopedia article, not an essay or other form of casual prose
  • The list of exhibitions, collections, etc, is too long, and ought get cut down
  • The further reading should use the Template:cite book (or other appropriate citation template)
  • I don't see any mention of her death in the body? Do you have any obituaries, or sources that discuss her death date?
The subject is almost certainly notable, the article just needs some cleaning up. If you have questions or concerns, please ask on my talk page, as I will not see your reply here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:59, 24 January 2020 review of submission by Edugossip

There is no possible copyright violation as I hold the copyright. I am grateful for your review and hope the article will be placed into the knowledge-base. Thank you.

Edugossip (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edugossip: Wikipedia articles are different to academic essay writing. Such content usually needs to be rewritten almost completely to comply with our standards. The most important policies are no original research and no synthesis of sources. In short, you cannot draw conclusions or combine sources. For example, "Every human on the planet ought to care about providing [..]" is original research. Or "Taken together, these examples point to [..]" is synthesis. These are two things that are not only present, but encouraged in academic works, but which Wikipedia cannot accept. When citing a source, you have to include content only directly present. You also have to include all major viewpoints, which means you cannot only include sources to support a given narrative. Finally, the article has to be about a specific topic supported by multiple independent reliable in-depth sources and I am fairly certain that "Theory of self-transcendence and social change" is a title you came up with yourself. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:06, 24 January 2020 review of draft by Sarvmangal


I want to add source |translated from Rag parichay,|part 1,|page no.62,|written by Harishchander Shrivastva,|publisher sangeet sadan|Prayagraj Sarvmangal (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find more sources besides one that is offline? Are there some books, newspapers or magazines that explain the term? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please assist me make this article publishable. Is an emergent artist and I think the he deserves an article on the Wikipedia.

John Johnson Gallery (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please assist me to publish this page.

thank you

John Johnson Gallery (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]



how can improve please
I m new
I do not understand everything
is so hard to assist me ?

BG J. Johnson (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He would need to pass WP:NARTIST which of these criteria fits do you think.
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I'm not sure that he passes any of them? Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BG J. Johnson: (edit conflict) It has been two days and there are thousands of draft, please be patient as we are all volunteers. Don't create multiple help requests. Do not remove the red banner at the top of the draft, this only hinders future reviews. It also looks like you created a second account, which is not really allowed; you must normally use one account.
As for the draft, Wikipedia requires multiple independent reliable in-depth sources for an article to be accepted. The Roman newspaper is good, although the 2 article wouldn't really count as separate sources. The TV section is good, but very brief. It's not clear who the author of ICAC review is and it looks like self-publised source. Express Cultural is very brief and I am unsure about who exactly contributes to it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

00:09:07, 25 January 2020 review of draft by Sociable Song


The article I'm attempting to create already exists in many languages on Wikipedia. A similar English article can be created by splitting from the more general article Pipeline transport. But the edit activity on that article is quite low, even for a topic of that importance. Thus I have been waiting on the talk page for many months. I think my splitting is following the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and topic separation. In fact, that's why there are already articles for "Oil pipelines" in other languages. (Also I have no idea what this code is doing and what I'm supposed to copy-paste in the question/request help desk. Sorry.) Sociable Song (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sociable Song (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting oil pipeline from the general pipeline transport article requires a discussion on the pipeline transport talk page. If there is consensus to split, then the article can be boldly created and not require a draft. However, if there is no consensus to split then it should remain a redirect to its current section in that article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sociable Song: I've weighed in at Talk:Pipeline transport#Giving the oil and gas pipeline their own articles. If you're interested in improving the article, there are many more useful things to do than split it:
  • A natural question is, "What is the most common type of pipeline?" My guess is hydrocarbons pipelines, but our article is silent on the matter. See if you can find an estimate of the number of kilometres of pipeline by type, or maybe the volume transported by type.
  • The lede concludes with the sentence "Pipelines are one of the safest way of transporting materials as compared to road or rail and hence in war, pipelines are often the target of military attacks." That's ridiculous. They may be one of the safest ways of transporting materials, and in war time they may often be targeted, but they aren't targeted because they're safest. Sure enough, that isn't a summary of anything in the body. Instead, the body says "In war, pipelines are often the target of military attacks, as destruction of pipelines can seriously disrupt enemy logistics." That's more plausible, but it cites no source.
  • The "as targets" section reads, "Pipelines can be the target of vandalism, sabotage, or even [why even?] terrorist attacks. For example, ... In 2019, a fuel pipeline north of Mexico City exploded after fuel thieves tapped into the line. At least sixty-six people were reported to have been killed." The reader expects Mexico City to be a second example of "vandalism, sabotage, or terrorist attacks", but it's a fourth type, targeting by thieves. And why use that example? It isn't the first time it has happened in Mexico, and it happens with some regularity elsewhere in the world, such as in Nigeria and India. Rather than using a news source for a recent event, it would be better to cite a scholarly source about the risks of pipelines being targeted.
  • A Forbes blog is cited several times, but according to WP:RS/PS, such contributor blogs by non-experts are not reliable for facts.
--Worldbruce (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:23, 25 January 2020 review of submission by ClocksRule


ClocksRule (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ClocksRule, This person does not seem to be notable. We only cover folks who have multiple reliable and independent sources that give them significant coverage, which this individual seems to lack. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:24, 25 January 2020 review of draft by Grimefan1998


Hi,

I have created this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mr._Mitch

The first version was declined due to "Submission is improperly sourced"

I have attempted to improve the quality/reliability of the sources in further edits since that review.

However, is there any steer on what is needed to get the sources up to scratch? It says it might take 3 months for the next review. I feel I am flying blind a little right now and don't want to see 3 months pass only for another article rejection for similar reasons.

Thanks.

Grimefan1998 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grimefan1998. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is a list of sources Wikipedians have found useful for writing about albums and musicians. If your sources are from the reliable section of that list, that's a good start. Then concentrate on how independent they are. Are the sources based on journalism or press releases, or are they primary source interviews where the musician talks about themself without critical analysis by the interviewer? Finally, consider whether they contain significant coverage of the musician, at least several paragraphs instead of brief mentions.
I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that may make you feel less at sea. While you wait for the next review of the draft, edit existing articles. You'll learn more and more quickly that way than through reviews of the draft. If you aren't sure where to start, seek out a WikiProject in your area of interest, or see Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:22:15, 25 January 2020 review of draft by TK421bsod


I found a draft article about a pseudonym that a person used. The person that used the pseudonym doesn't have an article. How would I say that the article might need to be moved? TK421bsod (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TK421bsod. If you wish to communicate with the author(s) and/or potential future reviewers, use the draft's talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

06:50:03, 26 January 2020 review of submission by Md. Zahirul Islam 1987


Md. Zahirul Islam 1987 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Zahirul Islam 1987, The draft has been deleted so we cannot help you. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:13:26, 26 January 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:141F:5155:C0FB:E435:882F:2F8E


just added in more text Ill edit it after 2605:E000:141F:5155:C0FB:E435:882F:2F8E (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recommend you edit further. It does not seem to be notable. We do not write about everything on Wikipedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 11:38:19, 26 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by RomanceLove88


I noticed about the series I watched the Tooniverse channel Please you need to Learn Korean Language. And can you help me please. The Series is awesome for children!

The user korean created the page for the characters and the series. you guys need to create the page korean please click here to read korean and then create the page.

Main Article https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트

was created in 2014 the pilot name The Haunted House Number 444 click here.

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트_444호

Series:

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트:_고스트_볼의_비밀 Season 1 Episode 1-24

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트:_고스트볼_X의_탄생 The Season 2 name is The Birth of The Ghost Ball X Part 1 Episode 1-13 Part 2 1-10

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트_시즌_3 Season 3 2020

Movies:

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트:_금빛_도깨비와_비밀의_동굴 The Haunted House: The Secret of the Cave Movie 1

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/극장판_신비아파트:_하늘도깨비_대_요르문간드 Movie 2

Drama:

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트_외전:_기억,_하리 Season 1

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트_외전:_기억,_하리_2 Season 2

https://ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=신비아파트_외전:_연애공식_구하리&action=edit&redlink=1 Season 3

Games:

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/신비아파트_고스트헌터 Getcha Ghost

https://ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=신비아파트_고스트_시그널&action=edit&redlink=1 Ghost Signal

Channels:

https://www.youtube.com/user/cjenmtooniverse Official Channel

https://www.youtube.com/user/enmtooniverse Tooniverse Channel

https://www.netflix.com/title/81028939

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?preload=Template%3AArticle+wizard%2Fskeleton&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&title=Draft:Shinbi_Apartment&create=Create+draft#

RomanceLove88 (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RomanceLove88, Howdy hello! We're not just going to learn Korean. This is the English Wikipedia. If you do not feel proficient contributing in English, you would be more than welcome to help out at the Korean Wikipedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RomanceLove88 A few points. Yes, there are several articles about the series on the Korean Language Wikipedia. And there a place to request that articles in other languages be translated into english (Wikipedia:Translation). *But*. the Korean language articles have *zero* citations. Each Wikipedia has different rules and simply copying the information on the Korean Language Wikipedia would not create articles that would meet the standards of the English Language Wikipedia. References do not have to be in English, but they still need to meet the standards. (See WP:CITE). If cited correctly, notability is probably not a problem.Naraht (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:13, 26 January 2020 review of submission by John.sewaa


John.sewaa (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John.sewaa, I'm afraid the subject is not sufficiently notable. Not everyone can be written about on WIkipedia, only those who have recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, and this person seems to fail that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:42:15, 26 January 2020 review of draft by Brenchristo


Brenchristo (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brenchristo, The main issue here: is the subject notable? How do they meet some part of the author notability guidelines? If you can tell me how they meet some part of that guideline, I can then help you improve the article so that it can be published. But if she is not notable, then I'm afraid I can't be of assistance, as we only write about notable subjects. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need help to edit my draft submission My Draft - BRENDA MOHAMMED was declined on 21st December by Muriel Mary. This is what she said: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I have since edited the draft and added additional references and removed those that are not suitable.

Please advise what else I need to do.


January 27

01:35:06, 27 January 2020 review of draft by Kulotchii


Hi, I am seeing other articles that reference social media posts such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube. My subject is a vlogger which is why most of his updates are in social media. Up to what extent can social media media references be used?

Kulotchii (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kulotchii: Social media is a primary source and it can be used only for basic uncontroversial facts. Furthermore, biographies must not rely on primary sources at all. Occasionally, we quote what someone said, but it should be avoided. A single external link to their social profile is acceptable if it is used in the capacity of their official website/online pretense. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are not well-written and break these rules and should eventually be fixed, so you shouldn't use them for comparison. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:05:11, 27 January 2020 review of submission by Dhisodhulkaaga

Hello David the reason I'm submitting this article is that Suubbis is a famous and popular company in Somalia and they wanted to get noted in Wikipedia as one of the companies in Somalia that are recentely famous. so I need from you to help me to get this article in Wikipedia Thank you. Dhisodhulkaaga (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhisodhulkaaga: Wikipedia does not publish articles unless they have multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. This means publications like newspapers, books, etc. Most companies are not notable. Wikipedia doesn't use measures like "famous" or "popular", only reliable independent sourcing. Unless you have such sources, there's nothing we can do to get it published. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

help me to correct it

10:33:09, 27 January 2020 review of submission by Hello2India


 10:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} 

 10:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello2India (talk • contribs)

12:12:07, 27 January 2020 review of submission by Shadowsapotheosis


I am requesting a re-review because the subject was not "notable enough", I have added more sources where they have covered the subject. If you need me to add even more, I can. I just need to visit one of the libraries in my area.

Shadowsapotheosis (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is still not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:45:16, 27 January 2020 review of submission by Tapon Mahamud Jony


Engjony 16:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Hello. I have submitted the draft of article for review. The reviewers have explained reasons for its denial too. I have given an explanation to them and also made changes to the previous draft. Is it still denied or submitted for review again? Please guide me to publish my article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapon Mahamud Jony: If you are writing about yourself, don't. It is very hard, and unlikely, to get your own Wikipedia page. If you were actually notable, someone else would have written an article about you. Not having a Wikipedia article isn't a bad thing, I don't have one, and neither do most of the 8 billion living people. I have rejected your draft as not notable, and suggest you do not resubmit. It was not greatly improved since the last submission, and much work would needed to have been done. But no amount of work can overcome a lack of notability. We don't write about everyone on Wikipedia I'm afraid. I suggest you find something else to edit. If you would like some suggestions on other places or things to edit, leave a note on my talk page and I can try to help you out. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:51, 27 January 2020 review of draft by Lauriebreath


I found two spelling errors ("Monatgue" instead of "Montague" in the article I submitted, which has progressed from the Sandbox to "Draft". How do I correct these? Sorry, I'm sure this is probably easy but I can't figure it out.

Lauriebreath (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauriebreath, You may simply press the edit button atop the page (see Help:Editing for a complete guide). I also note that in order to get your draft published, you'll need to make more and significant edits to show that the subject is notable. Please ask here if you are confused about that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

06:31:43, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Pjanderson47

The subject of the page that I write, Joshua C. Dixon, appears newsworthy in that: 1) the subject (at eight years old) was attacked and brutally mauled by dogs 2) semi-recovery took ten years, yet doctors are unable to recover his loss of sight in one eye 3) the subject of the article suffered ridicule/loss of self-esteem/depression and continues a healing process through art therapy 4) the Chicago Tribune newspaper of 8/25/2017 experienced the highest readership of that year 5) Dixon continues on a path of healing through art while pursuing Bachelor's of Fine Arts at School of Art Institute of Chicago My original article was deleted due to ambiguous and promotional information. Consequently, I turned to the sandbox to rewrite in a more definitive manner. Yet, because my writing is based on referenced articles, it seemed fitting to utilize quotes in order to lessen ambiguity. Regarding promotional intent, the subject's artwork has earned legitimate honor. Finally, today's entry (in my sandbox) points to the subject, Dixon, as being "NOT SUFFICIENTLY NOTABLE" for inclusion. I understand this likely translates to notability limited over a short period of time. I appreciate your feedback; I continue to learn the site's guidelines, and I appreciate any assistance you might offer. Respectfully Pjanderson47 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Pamela Anderson Pjanderson47Pjanderson47 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:16:49, 28 January 2020 review of draft by Sharmila Basnet


I have no any conflict of interest on creating an article on Lyricist Ramesh Dahal. I personally do not know but known a lot about him from his musical work. I created this article only to bring such a popular lyricist out to the world. I am stocked to solve the issue of COI, although I do not have any. This is why kindly please help me to get rid of this problem. Thanks Sharmila Basnet 07:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I had tried to advise the user to no end, yet they resorted to deception here and then activated a sock. Consequently, they are now blocked, and all relevant articles and drafts have been deleted. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:51:49, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Totempole245


Not marketing any product, or conflict of interest. Quoted reliable sources. Please suggest if it's correct. Totempole245 (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being answered at WP:TH. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:32:44, 28 January 2020 review of draft by Amazingboyofrisingstar


Hello! Can you help me to edit this draft in order to publish it correctly, I mean with IT codes way? Cause all the information is correct and I just need some help with presentation of it. Sorry, websites didn't help me

Amazingboyofrisingstar (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires reliable independent in-depth sources. Without such sources, there is no amount of editing we can do to publish it. Being "true" is not sufficient to show that the person is notable to be included on Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:35, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Ashleylutaylor

Please help with the Draft Forester Life page being approved. Ashleylutaylor (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleylutaylor: You need to add multiple reliable independent in-depth sources that focus on the topic. The article has already been deleted before by consensus and the current sources were deemed insufficient. We can't help you get it approved unless you can provide sourcing. (Also most of the ones in the article give me 404 errors.) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:37, 28 January 2020 review of submission by 78.175.49.17

I am requesting a review because i spent 7 hours writing that, if you're going to have f’ing Selena Gomez's step sisters aunts kids moms friends daughter on wikipedia, then I want to be on it as well. Thank you for your help! 78.175.49.17 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not notable. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:11, 28 January 2020 Jimfbleak talk contribs deleted page User:Jfaoc

Can you please explain the reason why you deleted my page, I have tried numerous times to create a page with original material and the page keeps being deleted, can you please help me? as I cannot see the reason why... --Jfaoc (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you created your user page like a profile. This is against the purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to make a draft article about a person, then you have to make sure you have multiple reliable independent in-depth sources to support the material. No links to profiles, person's music or anything that they made themselves. See WP:NMUSICIAN. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:44, 28 January 2020 review of draft by Lauriebreath


My submission Joseph Montague (artist) was declined for the reason: WP:NARTIST. How long do I have to fix the issues cited, before it is deleted? There are a lot of references and images with permissions given that I can add but don't have time right now. It would greatly help me to have a timeline on this. Many thanks!

Lauriebreath (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lauriebreath: There is no deadline. If you don't edit the draft at all for 6 months, it will be automatically deleted. But you can always get it restore even then. Basically, if you or anyone else is editing it at least sometimes and as long as there's any potential for an article and it's not deemed to fail Wikipedia's purpose, we don't have any reason to delete it. Our draft review queue itself is several months long. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:38:42, 28 January 2020 review of draft by DriverSafety


Last year, I submitted my first article about the company where I work, with the appropriate declaration of conflict of interest. The first submission was declined because it was too commercial. With some help from a Wiki member, I revised and resubmitted the article. Recently, it was declined a second time, due to lack of notability. Since then, I have found one more reference to add that provides more evidence of notability. With the new addition and a careful rewrite, my next submission will cite four (4) references to in-depth feature articles in print that focus almost 100% on the company and its activities, with photos and interviews and some product descriptions. These features appeared in 2008, 2009, 2013, and 2018. The first was in a university newspaper serving 15,000 students. The second in an English language daily with 115,000 readers, and the last two in a French language daily serving 205,000 readers. I believe that all these feature articles meet the criteria of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. Three are in French and the English article is unfortunately behind a firewall.

I have four questions: 1. Is the fact the references are in French a barrier for reviewers? 2. Can every reviewer bypass the firewall? The second reviewer seemed to have not looked at the article mentioned above. 3. Are four (4) references that satisfy Wiki's notability criteria sufficient? 4. Are there any tricks to writing the article that will make it apparent that the references are in-depth coverage features? The two reviewers to date both held the opinion that the three feature articles I had cited were insufficient evidence of notability. However, I am not sure they read them.

Any and all advice will be greatly appreciated. Please reply to my talk page, if possible. Thanks.DriverSafety (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DriverSafety (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please list the four sources your are talking about here? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:12:30, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Gettinetteglutenfree


I edited the content of the page, and I want to ensure it meets Wikipedia guidelines because I would like for the Amy Myers, MD page to be reviewed again. I believe the information is valuable. Thank you. Gettinetteglutenfree (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gettinetteglutenfree. Whether information is "valuable" or not is not a factor that Wikipedia uses to determine whether an article should exist or not. Wikipedia may not be used for any kind of promotion or advocacy. Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the draft is fundamentally unacceptable. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to explore alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:21, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Brittvansloun


I have added a photo of Raúl Marroquín to the Wikipedia page and today I have received a response from the owner of the photo who gave permission for the use of it on Wikipedia. The owner is LiMA and they have also already send an email in which they give permission to Wikipedia. Now I am wondering which tag I have to use and where I can add this tag in order for you to see that this photo can be used? Is this the correct tag?

Thank you in advance.

Brittvansloun (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brittvansloun. Template {{GFDL-self}} would be acceptable. Other options are listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. File:Raúl Marroquín.jpg already bears a template {{PD-author}}, so no further tag is necessary. Now it's just a matter of waiting for OTRS to work through their backlog (sometimes several weeks) and adjust the status of the image. If the image gets deleted in the meantime, OTRS will automatically restore it when they get around to processing the permissions email (assuming everything is okay with the email). --Worldbruce (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:05:51, 28 January 2020 review of submission by Ylevental

My book article submission was declined because there was no "Reception" section. However, another admin said that a "Reception" section was not necessary for a book article to be accepted. Should I add this section before resubmitting?

Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ylevental#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Where_We_Go_from_Here:_Two_Years_in_the_Resistance_(January_28)

Ylevental (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this isn't really AfC criteria. I don't think the reviewer should have declined the draft on this basis.
As for the content. The problem is that the content isn't using sources to cite anything about the book, but rather just lists what is in the book. The purpose of sourcing about works is to discuss the work from all angles, not just summarize it. So stuff like a reception section is basically expected for any work. Sources generally should answer questions like: is it good/bad across a variety of criteria? did it elicit public opinion? did it get nominated or receive awards? was is a good seller? did it reach any rankings? etc. Basically, a large portion of MOS:NOVELS applies. Currently, you could remove all the sources from the article and it would not need any citations, because everything can just be verified to the book itself. That's a bad sign and means there is no actual content by the sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 00:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

09:52:55, 29 January 2020 review of submission by Bethany m m


I have removed all external lonks as instructed please publish article.

@Bethany m m: Sorry for the confusion. The reviewer meant that you should not put external links in text just as direct inline links and not full citations. Another user edited the draft and converted the links to how they should positioned, although they still need to be cited properly (title, date, author, publication, etc.). You did not have to remove the links after this. Sources are the most important part of the article. I restored these for you and added basic citation info. I removed primary sources. I have not looked through the rest. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Hellknowz: Thank you for clarifying and getting back to me, if you could please instruct next steps I would love to get this project moved along. I greatly appreciate your help.

10:20:11, 29 January 2020 review of draft by Illusiongroupsindia


Illusiongroupsindia (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Please help and review this, so I can submit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illusiongroupsindia (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illusiongroupsindia, the article has not been submitted for review. Please use the "Submit this draft for review!" button to submit it.
However, first, the article is likely to be rejected in it's current state:
  • Biographies of Living People have stricter citation requirements, and the article really should have in line citations - see User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners for how to do this with the correct templates.
  • Secondly, it seems to have far too much information, such as the list of countries they've worked in.
  • Thirdly, the style is incorrect for an encyclopedia. For example, He was always a very ambitious kid and dreamed early about becoming a top athlete and he is a great singer, actor, host, master of ceremony, he also called as a jack of all entertaining elements - we are an encyclopedia that stores what independent sources say about a topic, not a place to promote a topic. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:28:24, 29 January 2020 review of submission by ABRG72

Hello. I am wondering why this subject was deemed not worthy of a Wikipedia page. Dan Graziano is the only ESPN NFL analyst who is on multiple shows as both analyst and host and writes full-time for ESPN.com. No other ESPN NFL Insider writes for the website. Graziano has a large social media following (144K Twitter followers). Lastly, he is the only cast member of ESPN's NFL Live who does not have a Wikipedia page. Other ESPN personalities who are not regulars on any show have pages. Thank you for your consideration.

ABRG72 (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ABRG72: Please read our notability guideline for people. Being on a TV show, writing web articles or books, or having Twitter followers are not indications of notability in the Wikipedia sense. High quality, independent, reliable sources do. As far as other ESPN personalities having articles, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Wikipedia is a big place and many articles were created before the Articles for Creation process started. The subjects of those articles may have more independent coverage than Mr. Graziano, or maybe their articles should be deleted. shoy (reactions) 18:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:59:03, 29 January 2020 review of draft by Wortmead


Hello, having spent some time revising the first draft biography of a living person based on the reviewer's suggestions, I am almost ready to resubmit. But an alert message shows that an article already exists about this writer – this BLP (containing two factual errors) appeared while my draft biography was undergoing initial review. My concern is that the revised biography will not be accepted because of the pre-existing biography about this writer? Is this a valid concern? Thank you. Wortmead (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wortmead (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wortmead, You should merge the existing article and the draft. See WP:MERGETEXT for the instructions (ignore steps 3 to 7), but essentially you should copy the information that is in your draft but not the article, into the article itself - keep the best bits from each. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OxonAlex, Should I not resubmit the draft because it was initially refused? As a newcomer, I am unsure about getting straight into merging an existing article with a draft that was initially turned down... That seems a big ask. Thanks. Wortmead (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wortmead, you can resubmit declined drafts as many times as you want, as long as some changes have been made (although we can decline an article which only allows resubmission by a reviewer). However, it will be declined as an article already exists, and you will just be told to merge (the software wouldn't allow it to be accepted, as we can't have two articles with the same name).
I'd just follow WP:BOLD and merge it. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OxonAlex,Thank you for your advice; I will follow it and try for the best.Wortmead (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:15:36, 29 January 2020 review of submission by Mmizeasrm

I just want our new ASRM page published. I am the communications manager at ASRM. I am legit. Mmizeasrm (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Mmizeasrm#January 2020. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mmizearsm - There are at least two problems. First, you said, on my talk page, that you are not being paid directly or indirectly for the article. If you are receiving a salary from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, you are being paid and are required to make the declaration. The fact that your salary is not contingent on acceptance of the draft does not change your status as a paid editor. Second, we already have an article on the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. If you want changes made to it, you should discuss them at the article talk page, Talk:American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Articles for Creation is a procedure for the review of new articles, not for changes to or rewriting of existing articles. Please make the required declaration, and then discuss your requested changes at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:24:43, 29 January 2020 review of submission by John BG Johnson


John BG Johnson (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please assist me to finish this page. Thank you.

21:46:20, 29 January 2020 review of submission by Lil young06

why cant i just put this on there for gods sake theres a guy on here just talking about his day fishing ad i cant put a actual thing on here just please my my life and let me have this Lil young06 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lil young06, We only write about things that are notable and meet our policies. Your article seemed to be pure promotion, and was thus deleted. If you think it really should be included, leave a note on my talk page with at least 5 reliable sources that discuss the subject, and we can talk.
If there is an article about some guy fishing, show me where and I'll take care of it. But 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. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:41:32, 29 January 2020 review of draft by Cflannigan1


How do I change the name of a page? There is a spelling error on the page name. Thank you. Cflannigan1 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cflannigan1. On Wikipedia, one renames a page by moving it to a new name. To be able to move pages yourself, you must have made at least ten edits in article space. So far your only edits have been in the user space, draft space, and here at the help desk. If the page you want moved is a draft, don't worry about it. If a reviewer accepts the draft, they'll move it as part of the publication process. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


January 30

January 30

2020 Big 12 football season

Well The 2020 Big 12 Football season article should be an article by now because they are 2 references i created this article last week. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@68.103.78.155:, you created a draft and submitted to AfC, which will review it and it will either be accepted to become an article or declined. As the yellow box at the bottom indicates, there is a major backlog and it will take some time to review it. As the season doesn't start for another 7 months or so, there will be plenty of time.
The delay will also reduce concerns about "crystal ball" issues, where we limit articles about events occurring in the future, as unexpected events can change the status (a team going bankrupt, for example). For example we don't run articles on presidential elections too far into the future. However, the concerns will be significantly reduced when under 6 months. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:26, 30 January 2020 review of submission by Geographyinitiative

Draft:Extreme points of Tajikistan Issue:

@CASSIOPEIA: When I was a young child, there were books telling us the northernmost, westernmost, etc. points of countries, states of the USA etc. I am attempting to recreate that kind of "pure fact" kind of thing for Wikipedia concerning the Extreme points of Tajikistan and Extreme points of Afghanistan. However, there may be almost no one who directly broaches these subjects in the English language as far as I know (and I don't know very "far"!). I don't think Cassiopeia is wrong in delaying the draft of this article, but I do think that, using the maps I have linked on the page, we can see clearly where the extreme points of Tajikistan are at. If Google Maps concurs with that "eyeball analysis", I think that we can have a very solid foundation for saying where the extreme points of these countries are at. Plus, the articles List of countries by easternmost point, List of countries by westernmost point, List of countries by northernmost point, and List of countries by southernmost point already have most of this information and in a much less well-documented fashion than what I have created.

Request/Goal:

I would like to request help and potentially request special lenience for use of Google Maps, Bing Maps, etc in the creation of this special type of page. I am quite sure that the northernmost, westernmost etc points of a country are inherently noteworthy and are defined in a way similar to the answer to a mathematical equation: just as no "outside source" is needed for 2+2=4, northernmost is northernmost, and if northernmost can be shown on a map, then it is what it is. Also, I provided some sources that mention the northernmost point etc in passing, and I think regardless of whatever policies there may be about other articles, that's legitimate and worthwhile in the realm of finding the extreme points of a country, and bolsters instead of damages the case for inclusion of the Tajikistan page.

Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]


Geographyinitiative Good day. A factual info (the existence) such as subject is shown in maps is not the WP:GNG (GNG) criteria and we dont place external links in body texts. The subject needs to be notable (worthy to be noted) to pass GNG where we need draft article's content to be supported by significant coverage of independent, reliable source (at least 3-5) for verification. Sources can be in digital / print and can be in any languages. If you cant find them then I suggest the content be merged to Tajikistan. Other reviewers are welcome to comment. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: Ok, let me try another way of justification: as we know, every human settlement is noteworthy for the purpose of Wikipedia- there can be no deletion of a minor geography page (Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)). I think that this doctrine should apply to extreme points too. Tajikistan is a UN member state like all the others. Just because no one has written down the extreme points of that nation in English in a systematic way doesn't mean that they don't exist. They do, and they are inherently noteworthy, just like the Extreme points of China or List of extreme points of the United States. All these points can be shown on a map. They are already mentioned on Wikipedia on other pages (List of countries by easternmost point, List of countries by westernmost point, List of countries by northernmost point, and List of countries by southernmost point). I say that this is a category of artificial geographical feature which is inherently noteworthy. Do I need to request a Wikipedia policy change in this area? I think my request will be successful. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative Hi, Each article is note worthy of itself and is WP:NOTINHERIT because it exists or related to other notable subject. The two extreme points articles do have multiple sources which your draft article lacks (need few more sources). If you want to propose Wikipedia guidelines changes then you need to go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an extreme point that is mentioned directly in the sources and have therefore resubmitted the draft (after hiding the maps). Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative The point is your draft needs more sources to support the content claimed for verification. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: I agree more sources are needed. That is true. But which claim needs further proof to move this from draft to mainspace? I'm just trying to move the page out of the path of the "can be deleted in six months" issue. (According to what I read somewhere, draft pages can be deleted after six months.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have hidden the coordinates. The maps that show the extreme points are hidden. 'What evidence would you have beyond that of your own senses?' Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative Geographyinitiative, you need to ping me so I would receive a notification. Draft article will remain in the draft space for 6 month before it is nominated for deletion WP:G13 if it has not been edited during the time frame. If it has been deleted and you would like to retrieve it you can request it from the admin who deleted the draft - see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. My comment/decline of the draft is not based on my own senses but on Wikipedia guidelines. What we need is additional sources (total 3-5 independent, reliable sources) that the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth which support the content claimed for verification. Just find a few more sources and then resubmit the draft. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: To require something of this page that does not exist on the China, USA or other affiliated pages is to look down on small nations. The China and USA extreme points pages not have the level of citation you want. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative If you think the two pages do not pass the notability requirements, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion. The sources do not need to be in English, any languages are welcome, so if you would find source in Tajik, Persian, Russian or any languages then please add them in. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: I would like to ask a direct and specific question to which I would like a yes/no answer (if possible): Are you saying that List of countries by easternmost point, List of countries by westernmost point, List of countries by northernmost point, and List of countries by southernmost point should be deleted / put into draft stage? Thanks if you can help me with that question. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: It's a tough question for me to answer, but if your interpretation of the rules of Wikipedia is that these four pages I mention in my question should be put into draft and/or deleted, then I think I will have to change my mind and agree with you about the validity of the older versions of my Extreme points of Tajikistan page. (BTW: I have made an update on that page that cuts it down to the bare essentials: take a look if you like.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographyinitiative I just saw your draft page has been accepted by a reviewer. The way it works in English Wikipedia is that, an article that is not notable in regardless how long/how many years it has existed in Wikipedia could be nominated for deletion (AfD). The same article would be renominated or deletion even the previous AfD was voted a keep (That is no limit to AfD of an article) and only arrticles that are truly meet the notable requirements stay in Wikipedia mainspace for good. (sorry could not answer you yes or no on this one). We have 6 million articles in English Wikipedia with estimating of 1/6 to 1/5 are in bad quality. Many of the pages remains in mainspace is because no interested editors either improve the page where by the subject is notable or to AfD them as all of us are volunteers. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: I have marked those articles as original research. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any of these extreme point pages pass WP:GNG. This is all indiscriminate information. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

help

Request on 06:17:47, 30 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Hello2India



 06:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

09:35:05, 30 January 2020 review of submission by Bethany m m

Hi, please can some-one advise next steps? Thanks. Bethany m m (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:13, 30 January 2020 review of submission by Jonashgs


Hello

I am creating a page called John Poysti Classic Ping Pong Tournament It keeps saying it's a local school tournament and that's why it cant be published.

It is not a school tournament, it is a tournament for everyone

I just takes place at a school

Please publish the page

Thank you


Jonashgs (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonashgs, you have to demonstrate the event meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, by sourcing the article with significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic - wp:42. These standards exist so that all articles can be verified against good sources. If they didn't exist, there would be many articles for which we have no way of reliably knowing if the content is actually true. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:54, 30 January 2020 review of draft by Abbieatgrade


Abbieatgrade (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally created a draft page last week for my artist Shygirl, and then began a sandbox today so i could review for publish - my review was declined because of this draft page but now im not sure how to have the draft page reviewed to be published?

You refer to "my artist". Please read the conflict of interest policy. If you are representing a client or being paid by an artist, you must make a declaration, as described in more detail in the policy. If you want to have the current draft deleted so that the sandbox can be reviewed, you can request that it be deleted by tagging it with {{db-g7}}. However, you will also need to make any required declaration. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:42, 30 January 2020 review of draft by Grlucas


I had a student accidentally submit this draft for review a bit too early. Is there a way to cancel this request? Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grlucas (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grlucas - I have declined the draft in order to withdraw it from review as per your request. However, my first thought is that it looks like it should be accepted. It appears to be of reasonably good quality. Of course, if you and your students improve it further, it will probably be better. It can be resubmitted at any time, and I see no reason not to resubmit it. It can be improved both while it is waiting for review and after it has been accepted, or after it has been declined again. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Yes, I thought the same thing, but I want it to be in the best shape possible before submission. We have FA intentions. Thanks for your help. —Grlucas (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:13:36, 31 January 2020 review of submission by Jelenaelek


Hello. My article was denied because of 'not relevant enough' references. I edited the references since them, is that problem solved? The first two times my article got reviewed in 1 or 2 days, now it's taking months. Is something else an issue?

Jelenaelek (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:28:31, 31 January 2020 review of submission by NickL1771

I have seen other Wikipedia pages in the same industry cite sources from the below media (Anandtech and YouTube). Are the below coverage considered reliable sources independent of the subject? If not, why not? https://www.anandtech.com/show/13943/akasa-turing-passively-cooled-chassis-for-intel-bean-canyon-nuc https://www.anandtech.com/show/14259/he-asrock-a320tm-itx-motherboard-thin-itx-for-amd-apus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUUP8K3RqAo&t=18s NickL1771 (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=938421192"