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
Undid revision 993977221 by Hardik kachhawaha (talk) email me if questions
Carlden10 (talk | contribs)
49 edits
Line 711: Line 711:
:[[Draft:Radmila Lolly]] was deleted, not for lack of notability, but for being egregiously promotional, so much so that it would have to be blown up and fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia article. I can't see the deleted draft, and so cannot comment on it, but writing a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can tackle. There are millions of easier ways of contributing to the encyclopedia, see [[Wikipedia:Task Center]] for how to help.
:[[Draft:Radmila Lolly]] was deleted, not for lack of notability, but for being egregiously promotional, so much so that it would have to be blown up and fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia article. I can't see the deleted draft, and so cannot comment on it, but writing a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can tackle. There are millions of easier ways of contributing to the encyclopedia, see [[Wikipedia:Task Center]] for how to help.
:After you've gained more experience you could start over on Lolly from scratch, and should then find it easier. If you don't want to invest that much time and effort, you could take advantage of [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]] to ask that a more experienced Wikipedian create an article on the topic. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 20:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
:After you've gained more experience you could start over on Lolly from scratch, and should then find it easier. If you don't want to invest that much time and effort, you could take advantage of [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]] to ask that a more experienced Wikipedian create an article on the topic. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 20:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. With all due respect I'm not clear how my experience has anything to do with rejecting Radmila Lolly's article. I've been attempting this for over a year now and I don't see what else I can learn that will convince the community to accept her article. And I'm not unclear on it being "egregiously promotional". I'm begging for help as I'm getting unclear explanations from everyone and conflicting feedback every time I submit. Now I'm confused as to what is promotional about the article I submitted when it's just quotes from her online presence. Please help, thanks.


== 20:48:39, 12 December 2020 review of draft by Sallen1980 ==
== 20:48:39, 12 December 2020 review of draft by Sallen1980 ==

Revision as of 18:36, 13 December 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


December 7

01:58:43, 7 December 2020 review of submission by GMLogar

I add a reference and make a game play narration, ı don't qualify the advertisement. All wiki also have gameplay narration.! GMLogar (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:23:55, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Mapostolidis


Hello, I am trying to publish a wiki page for ClassicFlix which is a home video company that has released some important historic films and TV shows over the past years that other companies have avoided (link to my wiki page below).

It has been rejected despite me cleaning this up several times.

Several of articles I reference are in reputable publications and have significant reviews of the films they have released. However the articles are not about the company and therefore it appears to be getting rejected. Home video companies do not make news about themselves. They are publications because of the things they release. So I am, not sure what to do. I believe this company is worthy of a reference in wikipedia because of the great work that that do. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or questions. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ClassicFlix#cite_note-10


Mapostolidis (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:15, 7 December 2020 review of submission by 202.90.134.187


202.90.134.187 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for Promotion (or "spreading the word"). Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:34, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Ashutosh7039


Ashutosh7039 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashutosh7039: Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Instagram is not a reliable source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:42:42, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Stuartwilks


This page is being declined submission, but I believe I have met all the criteria and more. The references include extensive secondary sources, such as independent directories, government announcements (not press releases as alleged) and newspaper articles such as those from the Racing Post and the Sunderland Echo. The subject has been awarded honours by HM Queen and chairs a government body. The subject is of far more significance than many other individuals with pages on Wikipedia and yet repeated declinations are being entered. Please can you advise how to address this?

Stuartwilks (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:01, 7 December 2020 review of draft by MrEksh


MrEksh (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm asking about the Nader Sabry article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nader_Sabry

I don't understand why it was denied. I have many sources and references from neutral sites and books. Please update me on the matter

Toddles. MrEksh

Hi MrEksh. The only book cited is self-published and written by the subject, so neither reliable nor independent. Of the remaining 20 sources, only two are reliable, independent, and secondary: Time and Gulf News. Neither contains significant coverage of the subject. The draft fails to demonstrate that the subject is is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). On top of that, the draft is written to praise the subject, like a hagiography, which is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. There appears to be little hope of the draft every being accepted for publication, no matter how much you edit it. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:12:01, 7 December 2020 review of submission by DBruton5


DBruton5 (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBruton5 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy; in addition, it appears that you do not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable football player. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:26:32, 7 December 2020 review of submission by 37.203.94.144


37.203.94.144 (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:13:27, 7 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sehran hassan



Sehran hassan (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sehran hassan You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:33, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Transfest80

Have written the article in neutral view have removed unwanted references. Kindly review the article Transfest80 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transfest80 The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transfest is a sockpuppet of AjKa180 / Vijayclicker93. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:31, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Gvrpkumar


Phanindra Kumar.GVR (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gvrpkumar: Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other social media arent reliable source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:11:00, 7 December 2020 review of submission by 2409:4071:2413:8D63:B9D6:A294:C68:A3C3


2409:4071:2413:8D63:B9D6:A294:C68:A3C3 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:25, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Dodas19


Hello, My entry for Maestro Arts has been declined because it 'reads more like an advertisement'. I tried really hard for that not to happen so I would appreciate any help you can offer to take out those bits. Certainly, there are a few links to the company's website, so I can take out all of those. But nearly all the other links are to books and music periodicals and broadsheets. Once I've taken out all the links to the website, is there anything else I should edit? Are you able to give me this advice? Many thanks in advance, Ariane

Dodas19 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:03, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Reema Hasan

i need my article reviewed because i am willing to share it for personal outcomes and publishing it will help me in my life so i would appreciate your revision as well as submission .. please help me reach good submission and edit .. thank you in advance. Reema Hasan (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Hasan Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company, and has no interest in aiding your career. If it is your company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:26, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Marquis Newell

I believe that the person who has last reviewed was not thorough enough Marquis Newell (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis Newell You've had more than one review, and they all reached the same conclusion. Please heed the comments by the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:25, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Mmmm1362


Following your advice, I have removed unreliable sources now. Please help me to publish this article Mmmm1362 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmmm1362: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all draft articles are approved eventually. This is incorrect. If you fail to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability criteria, the article will not pass. From what I can see, it's unclear why we would consider him notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:37:03, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Tmreborn

Hello! Just wondering why exactly this the article i was trying to publish is not notable enough. This producer has produced/written music for some of this biggest names in the industry! Is there anything else i can do to help? thanks you!

Tmreborn (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tmreborn: Hi there, unfortunately, notability is not inherited from the people that a person works for or with. You would need to demonstrate that the subject meets one of our relevant notability guidelines, either WP:MUSICBIO or our General Notability Guideline which requires subjects to have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage = in-depth writing about the subject, not passing mentions, and not data found on content scraper websites or in databases like ASCAP. Reliable sources = mainstream news sites, mainstream magazines, books from mainstream publishers, etc. (see our reliable sourcing guidelines). Independent = does not involve the subject's participation. So interviews don't help, the subject's own website or self-published autobiography wouldn't count, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the article is way too promotional to be acceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 22:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "the tender age of 2" was a bit much... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:24:36, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Bcesoccerus


I tried to write an article about BCE Premium TV but I'm not very professional in making it completely please help it guys.

Bcesoccerus (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:01:24, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Hickeygamez


My submission has been declined twice. I feel like I made the requested changes, and it is still being declined. It says I need more sources, but it has many. Please advise! Hickeygamez (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hickeygamez (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hickeygamez: The declines say that you need to demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverages from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage = in depth coverage, not passing mentions. Reliable sources = mainstream sources known for editorial oversight (see WP:RS). Independent = without the subject's participation. So for instance, many of the references in the article are cited to the journal you are writing about. So those would do nothing to demonstrate notability, as they are not independent of the subject. You should also see Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), because it might be easier to demonstrate that the article has met one of the criteria there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your response. I know a lot of the references are from the journal itself. I hope that someone will eventually join me in this project to help simplify it. However, some of the other references are significant, reliable, independent coverage. For example, reference #17: https://cfms.org/what-we-do/education/cmej Hickeygamez (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hickeygamez: No, that isn't independent at all. Its published on the subject's website, and as far as I can tell it is not a scan/scapped version of some newspaper article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? CFMS (https://cfms.org/) is not the same as CMEJ (www.cmej.ca). Thank-you for the follow ups! I really appreciate your help!Hickeygamez (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC) I wanted to follow up to say CFMS just posted that as a feature about CMEJ. They are otherwise completely independent. My second question, is this a good source? [1] Hickeygamez (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hickeygamez: I call bullshit on that. https://cfms.org/what-we-do/education/cmej is not an independent feature authored by CFMS. It's an advertisement in the voice of CMEJ ("For access to our latest issue ... visit our website [with links to CMEJ's website]"). That it has been published on CFMS's website doesn't make it independent. If you can't tell the difference, you won't get very far creating content here. Furthermore, the first and third parts of the ad are an exact copy of Draft:Canadian Medical Education Journal.
--Worldbruce (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://med.uottawa.ca/department-innovation/news/canadian-medical-education-journal

No BS intended! I find it odd that it is written in first-person as well, but I have no control over how they published it. They are completely independent organizations, but I know that CFMS offered to do a feature of CMEJ and used the wikipedia write-up for their ad (not vice versa). If this doesn't work as a reliable source, I will keep looking and appreciate guidance as to how to find it. For example, what about these: https://med.uottawa.ca/department-innovation/news/canadian-medical-education-journal https://publons.com/journal/47072/canadian-medical-education-journal/ https://www.cpass.umontreal.ca/tag/canadian-medical-education-journal/ https://mededconference.ca/about/why-ccme-right-you https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2774/ What about when specific universities feature CMEJ papers on their website? https://emergencymed.queensu.ca/about/announcements/dr-damon-dagnone-publishes-article-cmej-reclaiming-physician-identity-its-time

When I look at a similar wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Medical_Association_Journal, they only have 3 references that aren't CMAJ references. That's very similar to what I am trying to do with CMEJ. Hickeygamez (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:09:14, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Angel200489


Hello, my draft was rejected for not having reliable sources. The article is for a season of The Great Kenyan Bake Off. There are pages for each season of all the versions of this show. However, for this particular season, there are no articles written about it. All the information I've gathered from the show's website or from watching the episodes. Even if there are no articles to substantiate the information, that doesn't mean that the information is not true, it just means that the information comes from videos or from social platforms that I cannot submit as reference.

What can I do in this instance?

Angel200489 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

07:32:43, 8 December 2020 review of submission by 115.85.94.2

i dont understand why my talk is rejected again. which part that my page is contrarary with Wikipedia

115.85.94.2 (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@115.85.94.2: First, please choose one of two options:
  1. translate the draft to english
  2. contribute the article to Wikipedia in the language the draft is written in
If you choose option 1), please start of by grabbing reliable sources that show this company meets WP:NCORP. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Justine Tung

Hello, I asked for this page to be deleted a few days ago, but my friend has said he would like to view the page again. I had copied and pasted the text into a Word document as a sort of archive, however I now realise I didn't push save. Now we both want to see the page but I can't access it now. I put it on this page as it is technically an article for creation. If I could either have a plain text version of the page (including hyperlinks), or access to the complete history of the page, I would be grateful. I do not think this discussion "represents the consensus" as the admin claims, as both people who made substantial edits to the page would like a plain text version of the page. 82.3.185.12 (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered, with very specific instructions on how to go about it, in this thread at WP:REFUND. Possibly (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: The notability of this subject still hasn't changed. Why is this here again? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:28:12, 8 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Daniellesmall247


Hi there,

I had submitted an Article for Creation and received the comment below from Bilorv:

'Close to WP:NBOOK but I believe the Financial Times source is not a full-length review (though I can't access it) and the Evening Standard source is not really a review. A full-length review in a respected publication with editorial oversight might take it over to notability.'

Therefore, I removed the Financial Times source (as it was behind a submission wall) and added a review from Forbes Agency Council and details of relating podcast which launched since the first submission. I wanted to check on the progress of the submission but have seen that the page has been deleted. The first time round the feedback was helpful and I'm not sure if I can make a 'Requests for undeletion' without knowing what the problem with the submission was. On looking for the page the note I found was as below:

'21:24, 2 December 2020 Athaenara talk contribs deleted page Draft:No Bullsh*t Leadership (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)'

Any advice on what I should do next would be gratefully received.

Many thanks,

Daniellesmall247 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniellesmall247 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniellesmall247: aparently you blanked the draft at some point, which the admins count as you having given up. If you want to continiue, simply ask at WP:REFUND. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:59, 8 December 2020 review of submission by Pontos92


Hi Wikipedia Community,

I have submitted a draft for a review and had it rejected due to what I understood was a concern with reliable sources.

I am enquiring as to what you might suggest my draft requires in order to be published?

I have referred to other pages that meet the same profile as my article and found my referencing outweighs those already published.

One source is a subsidiary to a credible news publisher in NewsCorp, while another a statement released by the official governing body of football in South Australia.

Thank you for your time, look forward to hearing from you.


Kind regards

Pontos92 (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:52, 8 December 2020 review of submission by 92.50.195.50


I am requesting a re-review cause I believe I have complied with the requirements made in regards to my previous draft. All content that might be regarded as promotional has been removed and the article now contains just facts, which are easily verifiable. It's my first time writing a Wikipedia article so please don't be too harsh on me, I'm just learning=) 92.50.195.50 (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company; an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your sources seem to mostly be routine coverage that does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:20, 8 December 2020 review of draft by Msmmsm1990


Please publish my prof page 💟

Msmmsm1990 (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Msmmsm1990 Please review the comments left by reviewers, as well as conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Msmmsm1990If you are writing about your professor, you have a conflict of interest as his student. Since you are submitting a draft, that is okay, but you do need to be familiar with the conflict of interest policy. If your professor is compensating you in any way for writing about him(not just money), you need to read about paid editing. Please read the comments left by reviewers of your draft, and also Your First Article. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a professor, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable academic figure. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what do you say. I just know prof Hassan Mohammadi Nevisi is a great professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmmsm1990 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Msmmsm1990 I am sorry that you don't understand, but I am unable to say anything else. I'm glad that you have a great professor, but that is not a good enough reason for a Wikipedia article. If you just want to tell the world about your professor, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Of course, he is also a global influential person. However, if possible, review, edit and publish this article yourself without conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmmsm1990 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:33, 8 December 2020 review of submission by 95.67.63.194


In this material, links are indicated exclusively to proven authoritative Ukrainian media resources 95.67.63.194 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected as a blatant advertisement, and as such it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell the world about a business. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:08, 8 December 2020 review of submission by Annalee7

My article has been denied twice on the basis of insufficient secondary reliable sources. I don’t understand why because the sources I used are trusted newspaper organizations in Nigeria that reported on the NGO. Is it because the sources are not American that they are not reliable? I just want to know how to fix the issue so the article can get published. Annalee7 (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Courtesy link: Draft:Aids for Women, Adolescent and Children International Organization[reply]

  • Annalee7 Your draft is sourced to press releases and other routine announcements. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Press releases and announcements of routine activities do not establish notability. Please review the links here for more information, as well as Your First Article.
If you are associated with this organization, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was given advice from the last editor who denied my article to go on google and search for sources. The sources that I used were what was available on the NGO. I simply used all the information that I could find on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalee7 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Annalee7 If the only sources that are available do not establish that this organization meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable organization, then there is nothing else that you can do at this time. Perhaps in the future independent sources will take note of this organization and choose to give it significant coverage; then it would merit an article. That coverage does not exist at this time, it seems. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:34, 8 December 2020 review of submission by Marija W Marinkovic

Dear Robert McClenon, thank you for your feedback and professional comments and help

As I am not that familiar with the rules and constraints that apply to Wikipedia, i put up the last text version based on the examples of texts telecommunications companies from other countries published. Since Telekom Serbia is the largest telecommunications company in the Balkan region, I suppose that information about this company is worth attention. Telecom Serbia is a state-owned company. Because of this fact, I considered it logical, to put links to state sources of information as references - such as The Serbian Business Registers Agency, Serbian Post, REGULATORY AGENCY FORELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND POSTAL SERVICES.

I would like to ask for your help with a specific example of how the text should look, even an example of at least one sentence, which would be written according to the rules of Wikipedia. Additionally, I would be very grateful if you sent me an example of an independent reference. If it is possible I would beg you to send me this example even in the form of a link? I am just beginning to work with Wikipedia. Therefore, to you, my questions may look naive - but still I ask for your help because, at the moment, you are the administrator who looked through all the information in the most detailed way. When it comes to your comment in November on the conflict of interest, I immediately replied in Teahouse that I am not writing this article for commercial purposes and do not expect to receive any benefits from writing this text. Due to the fact that I am an initial user of the Wikipedia toolkit, perhaps my answer was mistakenly sent to another discussion thread. For this I am sorry. I look forward to hearing from you! Thank you in advace for your answers and your help.

Marija W Marinkovic (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Marija W Marinkovic[reply]

16:15:38, 8 December 2020 review of submission by 50.234.216.194


50.234.216.194 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any questions? SMB99thx my edits! 10:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:34, 8 December 2020 review of submission by Lalisekhon

Hello: I have tried to make the page neutral and also factual and referenced. This is not a resume page or LinkedIn. If there are portions that need deletion/amendment please let me know. I have looked at colleagues pages on wikipedia for guidance. As a leading voice in Neurosurgery/Spine Surgery what edits does it need? Thank you so much for suggestions. Lali Sekhon Lalisekhon (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lalisekhon Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself and your accomplishments. Please review the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged for Wikipedia users to write about themselves. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and have difficulty writing exclusively based on the content of independent reliable sources and not their own knowledge of themselves. What you wrote reads as little more than a resume, even though you say it isn't one. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:44, 8 December 2020 review of submission by Shamit24

I thought this will helps for approval for Wikipedia page not for promotion What should I do now?

Shamit24 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shamit24 There is nothing that you can do, as no amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

02:39:53, 9 December 2020 review of draft by Nickjplatt


Hi there, hoping for some feedback on my draft page if anyone can spare some time and expertise? The page was rejected for not having significant coverage. I posted some external sources and had hoped that it was enough to show the subject had merit. I also viewed similar pages, including one of another US soccer team which seems to have less sources cited than the page I created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamsburg_International_F.C.

I can add more depth to the page if needed but i tried to keep simple at the start as the tool suggested. Thanks so much for your time, this is my first page and so I am learning still!

Best wishes, Nick

Nickjplatt (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:40:49, 9 December 2020 review of submission by MarthaBehan


MarthaBehan (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page with the company's official logo and included references for the awards and honours. The references for the Wikipedia are and we believe the following references qualify for a Wikipedia article: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/greg-mortimer-australian-new-zealand-passengers-go-into-quarantine-after-arriving-in-melbourne "The operator of the Greg Mortimer ship, Aurora Expeditions, organised the flight, which left the Uruguayan capital Montevideo on Saturday morning local time." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirius-uruguay-cruiseshi-idUSKCN21S21M "The operation began in the evening when the Greg Mortimer, an Antarctic cruise ship operated by Aurora Expeditions, docked in the port of Montevideo."

If those are the only places in those sources where it's discussed, then those sources are too thin on details to be usable here. We do not allow fair-use images in drafts and that logo would be fair-use under normal circumstances (and images don't help a draft anyhow - third-party sources do). Keep an eye on this space: Bastard Helper From Hell mode has been activated. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As to your sources:
—A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarthaBehan: I would also like to ask what your connexion to Aurora Expeditions is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:58, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Fabregado


I have successfully edited those things out, and I have included the required reliable sources, kindly revisit and make a new decision. Thank you Fabregado (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabregado The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further and it will only waste your time and that of others to pursue this further at this time. No amount of editing can confer notability on this person. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:37:46, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Dukerala


Dukerala (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please advice on what is the exact problem and how to resolve it.

Dukerala The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The text is a blatant advertisement for the university and has almost no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to indicate how the university meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Since the draft was rejected, it will only waste your time and that of others to pursue this further at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:23, 9 December 2020 review of submission by GeometryDashFan12

If this article is declined, then can people please not add a CSD tag? Oh, and can you review it please? a gd fan (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeometryDashFan12 Drafts are not deleted just because they are declined. If a draft is declined, that suggests there is at least a chance it can eventually meet standards. If a draft is "rejected", then the reviewer feels there is little to no chance for improvement. Even rejected drafts are not deleted just for being rejected. You have properly submitted your draft and it is pending. As noted on the draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,427 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thank you a gd fan (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:45, 9 December 2020 review of draft by UNITYwoody


UNITYwoody (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UNITYwoody You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:31, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Dukerala


Please suggest how to make this page live. The Kerala University of Digital Sciences , Innovation and Technology is a digital university approved by the Government of Kerala State and the gazette notification has been linked for reference.

Dukerala (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:00:04, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Jitesh1144


Jitesh1144 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jitesh1144 Wikipedia is not social media or other place for you to tell the world about yourself. This is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:52, 9 December 2020 review of submission by MotifPublisher


1. I've rewritten this several times - I've certainly looked up TNT and the other codes Sulphurboy used in his assessment, but I really don't understand what's not objective about this. I rewrote several sentences, and have taken out almost all adjectives and adverbs over the course of rewrites. Every fact is cited now, I believe, and has been for a few revisions. It seems very much "just the facts" to me, so there must be something I'm missing. Sulphurboy is not responding to me, so I can't get any more info. I'm down to rewrite it again (what TNT implies I should). But honestly I don't know what to change.

2. Mr. Weiss is a prominent local figure - many of his collaborators on books and articles and peers in this community have wikipedia pages. It certainly seems like he should qualify. I don't see anything press-release about this (I've written hundreds and received thousands of press releases over the years. It's certainly factual, but there's no element of promotion, nor any hook or any of the elements I'd expect in a release. Again, I don't understand what I'm missing.

3. Apparently a point of pain was that I listed as paid. He's an old acquaintance, and was going to throw me a few bucks for my time in helping with this (and I work for a radical transparency publication, so my instinct was to disclose that.) He's not going to pay me any more - we scrapped that, so I removed that element in the submission. Although I'm not getting paid, this is one of the celeb (by local standards) authors around here, and I definitely think a wiki is merited.

Advice is very very welcomed. Thanks!


MotifPublisher (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 18:43:55, 9 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Dewintate


I believe I have submitted two new articles to be reviewed (LPT(Band) and Sin Parar (Album)), but, as these are my first, I just wondered if I could verify that they were submitted correctly and are, in fact, waiting to be reviewed. Thank you so much!

DewinDewintate (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dewintate (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You correctly submitted LPT (band) and I accepted it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:51, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Tech306


Tech306 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 19:14:51, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Tech306[reply]

Hi there,

I submitted this article from a different log in/page before but it got declined due to these reasons:

"1. This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. 2. Blatant advertising and copy-pasting of mission statements including trademark symbols"


Please provide any specific feedback you can to improve this article so it hopefully doesn't get declined again. 1. If I don't have to include trademarks, I won't. I just thought I had to since their product is trademarked. 2. I also tried to change a lot of words so its not copy-paste but there are some words I just can't change because it will change the whole sentence and might also misinterpret what this company believes in.. 3. I provided all possible references that exist about this company to back up the information I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia. It is an amazing tech company who support lots of sectors in Canada so I think more people should know about their story.

Your help is appreciated.

Sincerely, Tech306

Tech306 Please link to the draft instead of copying the text here, thanks. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that "I think more people should know about their story" is the wrong reason to create a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:54:59, 9 December 2020 review of submission by JoseSerrano1

I tried creating this page, and wikipedia stated there was a copyright issue. I want to know what the issue was here. Did I submit the page incorrectly or did I not site my sources correctly? JoseSerrano1 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you copied content from http://newarkiff.com/the-biz-of-comedy-a-conversation-with-bob-sumner all content on Wikipedia needs to be in your own words, I have left a welcome message on your talk page which has further advice. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @JoseSerrano1: You didn't specify a page title, but it appears you're talking about Draft:Bob Sumner. This was deleted for being an unambiguous copyright violation, since you used content lifted from this source verbatim. I guess you didn't get the memo, but copying is bad, almost always. You can't copy the answers off the kid next to you, you can't copy CDs without permission and distribute them, you can't take someone's drawing without permission and use it as your company's logo, etc. All creative works (even mundane things like advertising copy) are considered copyrighted by default as soon as they are published, and this is a standard that is agreed upon by many nations. See Berne Convention. So even if there weren't an obvious copyright notice at the bottom of that Newark Internatinoal Film Festival page, the content would not be free for you to use. On top of that, it was laden with WP:PUFFERY and wouldn't be suitable even if you hadn't "appropriated" it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:26:25, 9 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Adamreinman


I started an article that we declined. I want to do a good job on the article. What do you think I should change? Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Penumbra_(company)

Adamreinman (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamreinman: Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that all significant viewpoints on the topic that have been published by reliable sources be represented fairly and proportionately. There are usually a wide variety of views on public companies, but the draft presents only favorable ones. Recent examples of negative opinions include [1] and [2]. Search archives of the mainstream and business press (The Wall Street Journal, Barrons, Value Line, Oakland Tribune, etc.) for more.
Another problem is that the draft relies far too heavily on company sources, primary sources, trade journals, directory listings, and patent listings. Patents likely aren't even worth mentioning in the article. Although some of these sources may be used sparingly, anything that belongs in an encyclopedia article can doubtless be supported by better sources. This newspaper article, for example, could replace the company website for the company being headquartered in Alameda. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:32:20, 9 December 2020 review of draft by 176.158.181.139


Hello and thanks for checking my page ;) I'm sorry, but I think I don't understand what are "the inline citations"... I've cited 30 international and wellknown references in the footnote area. Could you help me to make it right? Thanks for all,

Vidya


176.158.181.139 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

01:37:24, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Yosoemon

Hello, I recently translated the page on Ujihiro Iga from Japanese into English (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BC%8A%E8%B3%80%E6%B0%8F%E5%BA%83). The submission was rejected (understandably so, in hindsight) for lacking enough reliable sources. As of now, the only source listed on the Japanese page is the same one I used, which is a history provided by the city of Sukumo, where the subject is buried. My question is, are additional non-English sources acceptable? Or, will this page need to have references that are available in English? Also, is there a general number of additional sources I should seek out? Thank you for your assistance! Yosoemon (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yosoemon (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosoemon: Editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of their topic. English sources are preferred when they are available, but non-English sources are acceptable. Try to consult: Mikesh, Robert C.; Abe, Shorzoe (1990). Japanese aircraft 1910-1941. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-563-7. If it contains at least a few paragraphs about Iga, it could serve as your second source. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thank you very much for your helpful response! This sounds like a good plan. Yosoemon (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:03:18, 10 December 2020 review of submission by PES-Master1


I am unware of how to create pages for footballers, could you allow myself to know how to create those ?

PES-Master1 (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PES-Master1: First, you want to gather sources. Verifyability is one of the core principles on Wikipedia. More speficially, you want to look for reliable sources writing about your footballer in some detail. If you cant find at least three ones, you are wasting your time. Note that Transfermarkt is not regarded reliable. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:53, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Dukerala


I'm extremely sorry that I was unable to understand specifically what the error was as I'm very new in creating articles in Wiki. I've removed the content that has been copied from an external site. I request you to kindly help me in resolving the issues and making the article live. Dukerala (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dukerala  Done. SMB99thx my edits! 08:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:40:44, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Shukanto94


This is an NGO based out of India, which has done credible work in the sector of emergency medical services and occupational health in India. The article clearly specifies what all activities the foundation has done and has referenced to media articles and Government of India websites wherever applicable; all properly referenced. Please review the article or explain how it can be developed further before rejection. Shukanto94 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shukanto94 I'm glad this organization does good work, but Wikipedia is not a place to tell about the good work an organization does. The draft is largely sourced to primary sources or press release type articles, not in depth coverage by independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:35:55, 10 December 2020 review of submission by PortySasmo


I have had an article declined for publication about a 'free school' my father attended (Sherwood School above). However I was modelling it on a similar page for another sister establishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilquhanity_School I do not understand why the Kilquanity page has been published when mine is refused. If you can help that would be great- thanks

PortySasmo (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PortySasmo. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality ones. Anyone can publish here, without even being aware of the community's policies and guidelines, so the existence of an article does not mean it meets those rules or has been "accepted". It may only mean that no one has gotten around to improving or deleting the article yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you want to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best.
The problem with the draft is its sources. All sources must be reliable, and the bulk of any article should come from independent, secondary sources. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three such sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. Epsom & Ewell History Explorer is user-generated content, and Sisyphus is a self-published blog, so they do not meet the encyclopedia's definition of reliable sources. Neither may be used. The only other source is published by the school, so is not independent. A local library or historical society may be able to help you find acceptable sources. But for many places of local interest, such sources simply don't exist, so they will never be suitable topics for Wikipedia. You may wish to explore alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, if you're determined to memorialize the school somewhere. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:00, 10 December 2020 review of draft by Stuartwilks


Hi,

This article keeps on being rejected on the basis there are not enough secondary references, but other than some of the direct references to cases which the subject was involved with, I've kept the content within guidelines, using independent secondary references, such as directories and newspaper articles. It is hard to see how the piece could be made any more accurate. The subject is one of the most senior characters in UK public life and the judiciary of England and Wales, as indicated by all the references. Is someone with an understanding of the UK legal and political system perhaps able to opine, as editors so far seem to have come from the USA, which I suspect means they have limited understanding of the concepts being conveyed?

§

Stuartwilks (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuartwilks An understanding of the UK legal system is not required to know that the sources you have offered do not establish that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. The sources you have offered merely cite what the person has done, they do not have in depth coverage of the subject itself. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:28, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Sridharsantoshkumar


Sridharsantoshkumar (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sridharsantoshkumar You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. We are only interested in what others say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:31, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Template:Harpaalsingh


Kindly review the changes made and suggest if anything is pending to approve the Anand Internation College of Engineering Wikipedia page.

Harpaalsingh (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Harpaalsingh[reply]

14:24:20, 10 December 2020 review of submission by TBR-qed

SK2242 declined my sandbox proposal to revise existing Problem of induction article. I responded with a table to provide evidence to revert his decision, but bad formatting destroyed table so SK2242 could not read it. I have tried to reformat so a new reviewer can judge my case.

The following table shows scholars covered in present article, in my primary source Sloman and Lagnado (S&L), and in my proposal. It is evidence for my charge that existing article is biased and obsolete. I then reconstruct how I got to point of 3 reviewers misclassifying my proposed revision. I conclude with classifications I find justify accepting my revision.

COVERAGE: Scholars discussed in present article, in Sloman and Lagnado article, and in my proposal: 

                       Present article		S&L		my proposal
    Philosophers    	Hume			Hume		Hume
                       Popper					Popper
                       Goodman			Goodman		Goodman
                       Pyrrhonists		Logical empiric	Pyrrhonists
                       Carvaka			Hempel		Carvaka
                       Quine			Quine		Dewey
                       Stove & Williams.       Miller & Lipton
                       Campbell & Costa	Carnap
                       al-Ghazali & Ockham	Hacking
                       Scotus			Nagel
                       Salmon			Kuhn

    Hard scientists	0			0		Duhem

    Social scientists	0			Rosch		Rosch
                                               Tversky
                                               Kahneman	Kahneman
                                               Shepard		
                                               Rips
                                               Carey
                                               Sloman
                                               Osherson
                                               Lopez
                                               Hampton
                                               Gelman & Coley
                                               Mandler & McDonough
                                               Nisbett
                                               Gopnik & Meltzoff
                                               and more.

Allow me to reconstruct my situation.

I read S&L “Problem of induction” after reading WP “Problem of induction.” I quickly recognized the bias and obsolescence of the WP article because it ignored the range of information in S&L. Column 2 shows scholars ignored in column 1. Noting the absent information and classifying it as violating WP NPOV rule is at once a descriptive and evaluative operation.

I thought the bias could not be eliminated by adding S&L info to present article--standard procedure to correct missing info--because S&L content and definitions framed problem differently. I was delighted to learn that SANDBOX provided means for me to attempt revision, maintaining limited present article content while showing relevance of column 2 info. Column 3 shows my effort to achieve that balance.

Editors Dominic Meyers & Biogeographist, unaware of my evidence of bias and assuming present article to conform to WP protocols, logically classified my sandbox revision as violating NPOV & NOR rules and reading like an essay—unencyclopedic. SK2242, equally unaware of evidence in table, accepts their negative classifications of my revision.

These editors' classifications of my revision are mistaken.

My proposed revision does not violate NPOV because it adds relevant info to present WP article, partially correcting its bias and obsolescence.

My proposed revision does not violate NOR because it reports existing scholarship in S&L.

Permitting publication of my proposal, despite its flaws, will improve WP by pointing out unrecognised bias and obsolescence and opening subject of induction to continuous correction and improvement.

TBR-qed (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't. We're an encyclopaedia, and thus should not be engaging in original research. You may not think it's original research, but I see a fair amount of synthesis in Wikipedia's voice and excessive quotes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 00:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:24, 10 December 2020 review of submission by Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka


Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka: Wikipedia is not for promotion. This draft is full of puffery words. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:36:07, 10 December 2020 review of submission by JoshKaine

Im requesting a re-review because i feel like the person that reviewed the wikipedia didn't give the artist a fair chance because i see people with public wikipedia's that only have 2 or 3 reference's he has a little bit of news even tho its not a whole lot. He's also still notable because he has pictures on his google overview which not many artist have JoshKaine (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JoshKaine: What you're effectively arguing is that because you've seen undersourced articles about potentially non-notable people, we should allow this undersourced article about a potentially non-notable person to exist in live space. Does that sound rational when I phrase it that way? No. When he has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of him, then you can resubmit. Significant coverage = in-depth writing about him and his work. Reliable sources = mainstream news sites, mainstream, established music magazines, not blogs or content harvesters. And independent means that he can't have participated in the write-up. So, interviews don't help establish notability, things he says on his own blog or that his music label says about him on their website, etc. Hope that helps. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:02:20, 10 December 2020 review of draft by UmberEarth


Hello!

I was wondering if I could get some additional feedback on my draft for the article on Haresh Sapra. I have currently made the following changes: 1. Added additional sourcing to show that he is currently a senior editor of an academic journal (Journal of Accounting Research) 2. Added a link to his official faculty page

Would you prefer some more articles from newspapers? I'm not really sure how relevant those types of articles are for academics. Specifically which would you prefer?: 1. Haresh's opinion pieces on Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, etc. 2. He has also been covered in newspapers but they don't really say too much other than he's a faculty member at Booth or that he has published some paper.

Alternatively - I can link more articles from the Chicago Booth Review, but I am concerned about perceptions of bias for an institution writing about their own faculty.

Thanks for the help!

UmberEarth (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:52, 10 December 2020 review of draft by TherealMDB


TherealMDB (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AFC Help Desk,

I am new to Wikipedia, and my draft for ZetrOZ Systems, a biomedical device company in Trumbull, CT, was declined because there was no proof of notability. After looking through Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, I am wondering if you could show me why the sources I selected are not reliable and secondary.

My draft includes 36 sources, and although some of them may not meet the guidelines for notability, I am confused why none of them do. I tried to diversify my sources between independent articles, official company reports, academic journal publications, grant applications, and patents. Most of the independent articles are from established newspapers, such as the Ithaca Times, Trumbull Times, and Connecticut Post, and the journal publications are not from predatory journals.

I understand the reasoning behind declining the draft, but I also want to understand which of my sources do and do not establish notability in case I ever decide to write another Wikipedia article. Any help will be greatly appreciated, and I hope to contribute more in the future!

Happy holidays!

TherealMDB (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is your relationship to this company? Disclosure of conflict of interest, especially paid editing, is not optional but rather mandatory.
2. ™ and ® symbols have no place here, and leave us suspecting the very worst.
3. Patents, grant applications and "official company reports" are all self-generated and totally fail our standards for reliable sources.
4. Receipt of obscure industry-specific prizes is not evidence of notability. Basically, any award which is not notable enough to have an article about it here, should be omitted. Nobel Prizes? Hugo Award? Grammy? BAFTA? MacArthur Foundation "Genius Grant"? Those belong in articles. "The coveted Silver Sow Award"? Not so much. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


December 11

00:00:51, 11 December 2020 review of draft by ALLBN


ALLBN (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

I am trying to tag the draft: Conservation CATalyst with "woman scientist" "conservation" etc. to help expedite the approval process (it is waiting to be reviewed) but it will not allow me to? Any advice or assistance is greatly appreciated. One of my goals for 2020 was to build my first WIki page and I am hoping to accomplish it.  Thank you very much!

ALLBN (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)ALLBN[reply]

@ALLBN: I've added some relevant WikiProjects for you. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:56:43, 11 December 2020 review of submission by Photos of rdr2

What should i do to make it an article? What wrong with it? Photos of rdr2 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Photos of rdr2. What is wrong with the draft is that O'Brien is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem. Write about something else; we have millions of topics to choose from. Visit the Wikipedia:Task Center if you're not sure how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:25:59, 11 December 2020 review of draft by MarioHernandez1976

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Good morning, I have a problem. You see, I translated a Wikipedia article in Spanish. For this I simply translated words and entered the sources well, this is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Louis_Chanc%C3%A9_P%C3%A9rez

And well, I was rejected for being something "advertising". I understand that they are different wikis, but they all have many rules in common.

I'll give you the article in Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chanc%C3%A9

Please if you can help me, Thank you. MarioHernandez1976 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC) MarioHernandez1976 (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarioHernandez1976 They don't have as many rules in common as you might think. The English version is the oldest and as such has developed stricter inclusion standards over time, the decline notice on your draft describes them. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:01:08, 11 December 2020 review of submission by Edwardkao


The Aogrand Group is a very famous company in China, I just want to creat a wiki about it, But always failed, Would you please tell me how to do this?

Edwardkao (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardkao One does not "create a wiki", as a wiki is a type of entire website of which Wikipedia as a whole is one. One creates a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Your draft is sourced to nothing but two press releases, which are not independent sources and do not establish notability. This is why the draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:45:38, 11 December 2020 review of submission by Chandra Mohan Reddy K


Chandra Mohan Reddy K (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Mohan Reddy K Wikipedia is not social media or other place to tell the world about yourself or post your resume. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:58:15, 11 December 2020 review of submission by נועם ימיני

Hi, so I thought if creating an article about Free TON, a decentralized blockchain network, then I discovered there's an already Draft:Free TON, however this draft has brleen declined. I'd like to understand what are the current problems with this draft and should be done to fix it. By the way, I think it is a translation of the Russian version of this article.


נועם ימיני (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi נועם ימיני. Be aware that the topic falls under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The odds of being able to "fix" Draft:Free TON lie somewhere between slim and none. The draft's sources, Coindesk and Cointelegraph (and all other crytpocurrency-specialized press), are not reliable sources, so may not be cited. Instead you would need mainstream press, such as The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Barron's, etc. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:36:13, 11 December 2020 review of submission by Visregz


Visregz (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visregz: this draft is unferifyable. As such, it also fails WP:NCORP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:36:24, 11 December 2020 review of submission by Visregz

I would like to learn and voluntarily contribute wikipedia users. Please guide me how to make this notable Visregz (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:14:12, 11 December 2020 review of submission by Flyingchimp13


Flyingchimp13 (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to publish an English translation of this page: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Polish_Journal_of_Aesthetics

Flyingchimp13 That an article exists on another language version of Wikipedia does not automatically mean it can exist on another. Each language version is its own project, with its own editors, policies, and guidelines. As the English version has been around the longest, it is the most developed in that regard. In order fo ran article about this journal to exist here, you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the journal, showing how it meets our definition of a notable academic journal. If no such sources exist, or the journal does not meet the notability definition, it would not merit an article here at this time, even if it does on the Polish Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:29:58, 11 December 2020 review of submission by Talkanimalwordsmith


Talkanimalwordsmith (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am wondering why this page is not being accepted. There are other pages listing traffic deaths for other geographies. This one has sources for all of the entries, as well as news coverage and government sources showing that the topic is important and relevant.

Talkanimalwordsmith Wikipedia is not a directory or database of lists of information. This is an encyclopedia. Please see other stuff exists; other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. Article standards have also changed over time so that what was once acceptable is no longer. If you'd care to point out some of these other similar articles, we can address them, we could use the help. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:54:29, 11 December 2020 review of draft by IceWalrus236


IceWalrus236 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime earlier this year, it was decided that the list of films by each of the main studios were to be split up by decade; however, while things went according to plan with the Paramount, Universal, and Warner Bros. pages, only 5 articles for lists of Columbia's movies are currently up. To add further insult to injury, I tried to submit one of the drafts, but it got rejected. Is there a way that the process can be sped up? IceWalrus236 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IceWalrus236. You absolutely can speed up the process. Lists are subject to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, as further explained in the stand-alone list guideline. Add however many sources are needed to back up the statements made about each film in the list, and it should sail quickly through AfC. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

05:34:08, 12 December 2020 review of submission by TechNerd22

My post was removed because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". I`m wondering if this means there was not enough sources, or if it means the sources on the page are not reliable.

Thanks! TechNerd22 (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TechNerd22: there is not enough citations and reliable sources within the draft (YouTube, Facebook?). SMB99thx my edits! 07:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TechNerd22: to expand on that, youtube is rarely an acceptable source, Facebook isn't either. The second link is dead. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:05:46, 12 December 2020 review of submission by Rajaneesh.R.Nayak


Rajaneesh.R.Nayak (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? You didn't ask a question... SMB99thx my edits! 07:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:56:00, 12 December 2020 review of submission by Fabregado

So what do i do next? should i make a fresh post with corrections, or maybe you could help me restore it? Fabregado (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabregado The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. There is no point in further editing it at this time. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:38, 12 December 2020 review of submission by Visregz

I have updated the profile . please review it Visregz (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't host "profiles", your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further, you have added IMDb and Wikipedia as sources neither are reliable, so notability has not been shown. Theroadislong (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:23:34, 12 December 2020 review of draft by Anonymoussnowman1973


I am trying to upload credible information And make a new Wikipedia page. Lisa Lopane is an American Model and Rapper with credible sources. Can someone Help me with these edits?

Anonymoussnowman1973 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:27, 12 December 2020 review of submission by 70.114.31.252


70.114.31.252 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:10:03, 12 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Carlden10


Hello, I replied to the last comment about my deletion of my article submission ("Radmila Lolly") and I don't see it live anywhere. I responded to specific questions of why the subject is in fact notable (in the music and fashion industries), mainly that the subject has two songs that are live on Billboard charts (both within the top 40) and was featured in an issue of Elle magazine. Please advise on how to rectify this submission situation, thank you. Carlden10 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


Carlden10 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlden10. The "last comment" you refer to above presumably means this 2 December thread. If you wish to address a particular editor, use some form of notification as described at Help:Talk pages#Notifications.
I concur that Radmila Lolly has had two songs on an applicable US chart,[3] and so satisfies WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2.
Draft:Radmila Lolly was deleted, not for lack of notability, but for being egregiously promotional, so much so that it would have to be blown up and fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia article. I can't see the deleted draft, and so cannot comment on it, but writing a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can tackle. There are millions of easier ways of contributing to the encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Task Center for how to help.
After you've gained more experience you could start over on Lolly from scratch, and should then find it easier. If you don't want to invest that much time and effort, you could take advantage of Wikipedia:Requested articles to ask that a more experienced Wikipedian create an article on the topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. With all due respect I'm not clear how my experience has anything to do with rejecting Radmila Lolly's article. I've been attempting this for over a year now and I don't see what else I can learn that will convince the community to accept her article. And I'm not unclear on it being "egregiously promotional". I'm begging for help as I'm getting unclear explanations from everyone and conflicting feedback every time I submit. Now I'm confused as to what is promotional about the article I submitted when it's just quotes from her online presence. Please help, thanks.

20:48:39, 12 December 2020 review of draft by Sallen1980


Hi, I want to improve an article I submitted, I have received the comment: adv,bio Can you tell me what that means, and how to correct it? Thank you! Sallen1980 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sallen1980: thanks for reporting this, I have fixed the decline mmessage at Draft:Jeanne_Martinet_(author) to be more meaningfull. All the blue texts in the decline message are links, meaning you can click on them to get more information. Victor Schmidt (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:31:25, 12 December 2020 review of submission by TechNerd22

My page was once again declined due to "zero reliable sources". Alright, so I can understand source 1 being unreliable, but source 2, 3 and 4 are all from Steve Cash's own YouTube channel, How is the person's official YouTube channel, unreliable? And source 5 is People, which according to this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia, is a reliable source. All but 1 source is unreliable. So why was my post removed for "Zero reliable sources"? TechNerd22 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TechNerd22: You are quoting the phrase "zero reliable sources", but I don't know where that phrase comes from. I certainly don't see it at the article in question. What I do see is that a reviewer pointed out that you need to demonstrate the subject has received significant coverage (not passing mentions) from "reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Now, the subject's own YouTube channel would be a primary source, since the subject would ostensibly be speaking about himself. And objectively, you would likely agree that any source source where the subject speaks about himself or is otherwise involved, (like with an interview), that would not qualify as independent of the subject. Did you have any other questions? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

01:58:26, 13 December 2020 review of draft by XY04


Looking to get this draft reviewed for publishing. Made additional contributions since the original July submission and would like it to be reviewed again. Is there a way to improve the article?

XY04 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first suggestion would be to establish which of our notability criteria she meets. WP:GNG, which is not yet demonstrated, or WP:NACTOR, which is not yet demonstrated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:41:12, 13 December 2020 review of submission by 70.114.31.252


70.114.31.252 (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


03:56:13, 13 December 2020 review of draft by Nohajack


Nohajack (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the problems on citations for you. You had relied exclusively on the Constitution of Kuwait, which is a primary source. I have formatted it correctly, and added two reliable secondary sources. I also added some content. I left one sentence of yours, which has claims I cannot verify. Please see and address them. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:30:15, 13 December 2020 review of draft by Solvz


I am not sure about inline citations, i read the article on what it is but still didn't understand. My draft got rejected because of not having citations, can anyone help me?

Solvz (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solvz, I've left an example for you at the end of your first line. That said, I think the more serious hurdle for you is establishing that Aathira Rajeev is notable (see WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR). I don't think she meets the requirements of either. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=994017030"