Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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


October 7

05:26:30, 7 October 2014 review of submission by Helen7274

Thanks for the advice, Fiddle Faddle, but I think I shall do more work on my citations/references before resubmitting. You have mentioned that it's likely that my resubmission will be rejected (actually, I prefer the words 'not yet accepted'), but would like to have done as much as I can to get it at least close to being accepted.

I do have another question: in one of my most oft-used (ahem, I do believe in'...beautifully punctuated text' but I also think it can be done without being a 'Wikipedian Hyphen Luddite.'!)citations, I have provided the wikilink (hope I've got this right...internal link?) every time: is this unnecessary? In other words, once I have provided an internal link, is it necessary to do it again? Instinct tells me it isn't, but I would like to confirm this. It's the same newspaper, but a different date each time.

thanks and regards helen Helen7274 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen7274 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Helen7274: By "Likely to be declined again" I meant that the process is iterative and, while one should strive for acceptance one might reasonably expect a decline. However, each good piece of work you do tips the scales in favour of acceptance. I simply wanted to insulate you against disappointment. Asreviewers our job is to accept drafts once they have a better than 60% probability of being deletion proof. We sometimes are too cautious, sometimes not cautious enough. My view is that time spent in draft is never wasted while the author is improving the draft, but, once the author runs out of steam it should go forward as an article if it stands a chance of success. The community can also work wonders when an author runs out of steam.
Wikilinks should be to the first reasonable deployment of the word/phrase linked from/to, and not used on the same item thereafter. WP:MOS covers everything, but it is a dull read!
Did you know you can simply add questions to prior sections here? It isn;t mandatory, but tends to be done. Fiddle Faddle 08:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello fiddle faddle - apropos your last sentence re adding questions to prior sections, I am testing this out in the hopes that I have got it right. helen Helen7274 (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Helen, that is right. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fiddle Faddle/Timtrent/Arthur goes shopping,

I have resubmitted my draft on T Plowright but have a couple of comments: (1) I don't know if i have been over-zealous with the wikilinks; (2) Although I have provided many more citations with secondary sources, I may not have completely addressed the issue of giving too many of his works listed. However, each of these has what I believe to be reliable and verifiable sources; (c) There is one particular source that is used more regularly than any other, but each time it is used, it is a different date. The reason for its regular use is that it is a community-based paper, and thus reports on issues and events relating to the particular community that Plowright is a part of.

I look forward to your responses. thanks for the support, helen Helen7274 (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:33:02, 7 October 2014 review of submission by EtisalatUAE

I need to know the reason behind the decline of my article.

EtisalatUAE (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then go to the draft and read it, please. Fiddle Faddle 08:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:59, 7 October 2014 review of draft by Melshaner


Why isn't this able to be submitted?

Melshaner (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I hate to answer a question with a question, why do you perceive that it is not able to be submitted? Fiddle Faddle 18:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:10, 7 October 2014 request for review by Piandme

Hi Guys, I'm really only writing so I can get an idea of when my article might be looked at. I realise there are a lot of articles waiting for review, but it would be nice to know when exactly mine might be looked at. If i needed to make any changes to the article I would then be able to do so, in order for the article to be accepted. I hope this doesn't seem like I'm impatient, I'm just genuinely interested to know if you know how long it ight be. Thanks.Piandme (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With his only appearance thus far being a minor role in one movie, he does not meet Wikipedia:NACTOR. Further, the sources given in the draft as currently written do not suffice to meet Wikipedia:General notability guideline. So I have declined this submission for now. Wikipedia:VRS may be useful in seeing what sort of sources need to be supplied. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would consider his upcoming leading role in Game of Thrones role aas good enough. Having said that though I am looking for some better reference, and a little more inforation Piandme (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:04, 7 October 2014 review of submission by Asher Raboy

My submission was turned down. Why? Would like to fix it and make it right! Asher Raboy (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a recommendation on your draft. I wonder if you have read it? Fiddle Faddle 22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

00:58:32, 8 October 2014 review of submission by Allabel


FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} I need to know how to submit the two photos accompanying the draft I submitted. Allabel (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who took the photos? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04:38:52, 8 October 2014 review of submission by Anomalure pb

I need to get my draft page reviewed/uploaded reasonably quickly as a part of a University project. Is there any way to speed up the process in this case? Anomalure pb (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just approved this draft so it is now at Bristle-faced free-tailed bat. You may wish to trim out some of the space characters before and between references... there are too many of them! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

05:13:17, 8 October 2014 review of submission by 75.25.121.188


I'm just not sure why this article was rejected, there weren't clear pointers saying what was wrong with the article. Could you please look over it and tell me exactly what is wrong, so that I can try to find better sources or fix it? Thanks!

75.25.121.188 (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Fiddle Faddle 07:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:56:51, 8 October 2014 review of submission by Trishtha


Trishtha (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to upload the data , what is process

15:43:00, 8 October 2014 review of submission by Thedesk16

Thedesk16 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thedesk16: no Declined You have to provide independent and reliable sources to make a claim to notability. This draft also reads in promotional tone and is filled with external links reminiscent of a promotional effort. Wikipedia is not advertising. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

00:08:40, 9 October 2014 review of submission by 178.51.199.107

Hello, I have received an e-mail that my article about Anna Frants has been declined. It is the second article that I submit, and I was already critiqued for the first one. Please let me know what to change so I would be able to make corrections and resubmit it. I look forward to hearing from you and thank you in advance, Monica 178.51.199.107 (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Monica springer: Read the comments on the draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

06:45:18, 9 October 2014 review of draft by 182.73.196.242


182.73.196.242 (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a review you need to submit the draft first. Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:32:22, 9 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Iblong2iyush


I am the owner of the website and page http://www.iysert.org/about.html This is a renowned organization of International Status and I even sent wikipedia a mail as requested by the Owner of that page authorizing use of the material from my website to be used in this Article.

Iblong2iyush (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, assuming you sent it to our OTRS volunteers, please await their response. I suggest you contact the admin who deleted the page and explain this matter there. Fiddle Faddle 08:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:58:54, 9 October 2014 review of submission by 1.38.21.11


1.38.21.11 (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:26, 9 October 2014 review of submission by ShalimarTroy


I am sure you are asked this often but how can I know what to fix if the reviewer does not leave any direct comments as to why the article was refused? Am I missing something within the Draft? I do not want to add references to places where it is not needed, and since I am not versed in knowing which substantive fact need citation, I think I could be wasting time both mine and the next reviewer? For example, do I need to prove Troy Christensen was born in Grand Rapids Michigan?

Secondly, much of the creative work was performed long before the existence of the internet, so how does one get citation of the creative work when magazines of the time are no longer available on the web or even in physical form?

ShalimarTroy (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ShalimarTroy: But there are direct comments on the draft. Citations do not need to be to online material. Fiddle Faddle 12:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:40, 9 October 2014 review of submission by Msheering21


I need help in regards to disambiguation. I don't believe there is another Gallery Arcturus, but will there need to be an Arcturus disambiguation page or an addition of this link to an existing disambiguation page? Also if we get to the end of the suggested 30 days for the draft to be reviewed and posted and the article has not been posted, what are the consequences of me posting the article directly as a 'new article'? I believe I have met almost all of Wikipedia's rules for a new article so just curious. Kind regards Msheering21. Msheering21 (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no current article Gallery Arcturus so there would be no need for disambiguation.
There is no specific 30 day suggestion or requirement. The main problem with creating a new article directly is that such creations are far more likely to be tagged for speedy deletion. Although that seems relatively unlikely in this case. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:03, 9 October 2014 review of draft by Susan Benton


I've been submitting an article on Joe Kaufman (Republican candidate in one of the most important political races in the USA - against Debbie Wasserman Schultz) and it doesn't seem to get through. I use to submit things all the time, but you have added SO many instructions in the last few years and I'm having a hard time following them.

In the article I didn't want to say anything about the race as I thought it would be best to say that AFTER the election. But I cannot seem to get what I have written posted - HELP, you can call me, Susan Benton at 516-279-0765.


Susan Benton (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been submitted yet. The requirements have been tightened, enforced, but hardly changed. Kaufman needs to pass WP:BIO. Fiddle Faddle 16:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:14:28, 9 October 2014 review of submission by HHaffield


Please can someone advise what I need to change in order for my article to be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHaffield (talk • contribs)

The editor who declined it has placed a helpful comment on the draft. PLease have a look at it. I see your draft as overly promotional and ill referenced, as do they. Fiddle Faddle 19:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:06, 9 October 2014 review of submission by Onenessall

I was told that the sources are only self-published ones but there are 2 independent PR's which have travelled all over the web. Also there is an Interview listed which I was informed, was made by an independent media person from the States. The Lineage table is not self-published, nor listings of Ramakant Maharaj on Wiki pages related to the lineage Masters. I have found 4 third-party sources which I would like to know if they will be sufficient. Ramakant Maharaj is part of a Lineage of Masters. He appears on the Wiki Inchegiri Navnath Sampradaya Table which is itself referenced all over the web. So does this not count as verification?

my 4 3rd party sources are 1. http://www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/navnath_sampradaya.htm which is a table of the lineage that lists Ramakant Maharaj. 2. http://www.siddharameshwar.org/ a site that documents Nisargadatta Maharaj's relationship with his Master Nisargadatta Maharaj etc 3. http://www.nisargadatta.co.uk/ a site that describes the Inchegiri Navnath lineage and Ramakant Maharaj etc. 4. www.indiadivine.org which names 3 people who give initiation into the Navnath lineage - one of them being Ramakant Maharaj.

I also notice on wiki there is an Advaita Vedanta series of articles on teachers - Ramakant Maharaj is an Advaitan Master, too. Onenessall (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general it is more likely to be successful working with our volunteer reviewers than arguing that you are correct. There is a strong probability that they know what makes an article acceptable because they do this a lot. Pretty much every alleged reference is to the man's own site! This will never fly. Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I wasn't trying to argue that I am correct. I am just trying to find a way forward. This is my first time on wiki and I need all the help I can get. So can I get any help from the volunteer reviewers, please? Onenessall (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I just noticed your other comment "For a living person we have a high standard of referencing..." I just wanted to say that all the bio and info about Ramakant Maharaj is factual. I conducted a series of interviews with him in person, in India, and these were recorded, and then transcribed.There is no reason for the facts to be challenged. Also, I am a writer with a speciality in "Indian Religion and Philosophy". Onenessall (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your personal status in this is a problem for Wikipedia. It would not be a problem for Time Magazine, but it is for us. Please understand that I am not in any manner demeaning you or your work by this statement. OUr problem is that, however excellent a person you are and however professional you are, and however correct your work is, you are a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY, and you will see that there are very restricted circumstances in which that can be used. We must have sources that are classified as WP:RS. The thing is, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and it cannot record what is not RS, and which is, by your own statement, either or both of WP:OR or WP:COI.
I'd like other experienced editors to have a look at this challenge and to offer you their advice on this matter. Fiddle Faddle 19:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim. I appreciate all that you are saying, and I take it in the right spirit. It is a complex business... By all means I welcome any advice. I did not realize how many boxes had to be ticked. Just to let you know, what inspired me to do this article for Wiki, was this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooji You will see that under his pic it states "Part of a series on Advaita Vedanta". I mentioned this relationship earlier. And as Ramakant Maharaj is a Teacher of Advaita Vedanta, I suppose I thought he might be listed there easily.I based my 'article' on this entry, having observed that the sources to Mooji's entry in Wiki are minimal: there are only 6 references and Nos. 2 & 6 are from his own site, No.3. is a reference to his paintings which is irrelevant to Advaita Vedanta. That leaves No.5, an interview published in a spiritual mag, and 1.the bbc carribean... And No.4 is a dead link which I have not been able to locate. I recently read on Wiki that more than 3 third-party sources are required. So...that's where I was coming from. I await your advice and will then take it from there. many thanks Onenessall (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:27, 9 October 2014 review of submission by Nissan300zx

I create biography page , I am new to Wikipedia, and I have a multiple unsolved issues regarding my page. I would greatly appreciate it if you kindly give me some feedback how to fix this issues. Nissan300zx (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nissan300zx: Please see Wikipedia:Help desk. This help desk is only for draft articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:55, 9 October 2014 review of submission by Ninjabeard


Hello, I am not sure I'm requesting a re-review (?), merely that maybe someone could look at my revisions and comments on this piece that I did upload for publication and have put some work in to. I would welcome some feedback from a more experienced editor.


Ninjabeard (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with a comment left on the draft article. Other reviewers should also have a look, please. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:34, 9 October 2014 review of submission by 91.156.198.83


Hey, I noticed that this draft was recently reviewed and declined. I don't know how familiar the reviewer is with WP:WikiProject Video Games and their source guidelines, but in my understanding, the draft is notably and reliably sourced according to those guidelines. Plenty of primary sources were also included for additional verifiability, that could also have thrown the notability verdict off?

Strangely enough, if this article had been introduced directly to the main namespace instead of AfC, it would definitely have survived if comparison to the quality of referencing in many existing articles of similar scope tells anything. Possible disparity problem between actually acceptable content and AfC requirements?

But in any case I understand that notability was contested. Any specific suggestions to improve it? Would you say it's WP:Too soon? Are there any time limits for drafts? - 91.156.198.83 (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

04:19:02, 10 October 2014 review of submission by OJCASK

I would like create a University page for the above mentioned institute. In order to do so, I would like both the page name and content reviewed before submission to ensure all of the relevant guidelines have been met. OJCASK (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you suggest that can possibly happen? You actually have to write something for folk to review it. Fiddle Faddle 08:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:57, 10 October 2014 review of submission by Edendiss

still the same problem: message said article removed due to copyright violation. Please check the resource link, free licence note has been put in that page in order to let this article be created. What else exactly do we write there to provide the creation of this article? thanks Edendiss (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)edendiss Edendiss (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked http://www.lehoproject.eu/en/glossary/4-home-education which is the site the material was taken from and see that it carries "a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license except where otherwise noted" I am not an expert in copyright, but suggest you ask RHaworth who deleted Draft:Learning at Home and in the Hospital - Leho to examine this with a view to discussing restoring it. It appears to me that it may be licenced correctly. Message him on his talk page, please, explaining the licence and how it applies to the material you used.
A word of caution, though. External web sites are by no means always suitable to be reproduced verbatim. It is infinitely better to use your own words on Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 08:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Edendiss: I see that the material I have struck through (above) has been overtaken by events and that Learning at Home and in the Hospital - LeHo exists. I have removed the copyvio notification based upon the licencing of the source page, but the article is not a Wikipedia article. Creating it as an article was not a wise move and it is likely that it will be deleted as unsuitable unless you work on it hard and quickly. The WP:AFC process is intended to insulate you from the need to work against a potential deletion discussion. Since you have chosen to bypass that you have created your own need to work fast in an environment with which you are not familiar.
I recommend that you move the very imperfect article to the Draft: namespace as a matter of priority and request reviewer help on it. Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:51:39, 10 October 2014 review of submission by Silverray123


Silverray123 (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Helpdesk,

I made an article a month ago and put it for submission, yet up today I haven't received any response... Here it is: Stormy Atmosphere Please inform me about the status of my request.

Thank you in advance,

I have now reviewed this but unfortunately have had to decline it. Sorry for the very long wait for this bad news. Please see the comments on the draft itself for what you can do to improve it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:51, 10 October 2014 review of submission by ASC 6700


ASC 6700 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your review. My understanding is that our topic requires more second party source references before it will be approved, correct? I have provided some updates and am working on more. In the meantime, are there any other issues we can address? Thank you so much for your help.[reply]

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. The PR web one is a press release and must go. Fiddle Faddle 15:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:15:26, 10 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Vampressition


I would like to know why my submission was declined? The book did have a press release, and it's being sold on amazon and ebay and Barnes and Noble right now. I've even seen it sold for $200+ on ebay. Just wondering. Thank you!


Vampressition (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have ever looked at a WIkipedia article and considered the references section. Your single sentence "Another fictional novel written in 2012, "FOREVER THE BEGINNING" by Carolyn Garbison Harkleroad, depicts the differences amid different types of vampires, being the forever, but then joining their own kind of clan that they fall into." has no references, nor does it even make particular sense. Even of it's notable you have not shown that it is. Fiddle Faddle 17:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:59, 10 October 2014 review of submission by Vampressition

Sorry, but I'm not very literate when it comes to computers, and I never know if I'm answering or writing in the appropriate places or not. I was wondering if you could help with revising my submission? Vampressition (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vampressition: Certainly not. The book isn't notable. The author isn't notable. You've written one poorly-written unsourced sentence and you expect us to write an article for your advertising effort? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21:56:16, 10 October 2014 review of submission by Rgann


After receiving comments from a reviewer, changes were made. Reviewer opted leave final decision to another certified articles of creation user. Please advise on how to move forward. This article is meant to be a companion to an existing article is believed to offer valuable insight to those interested in architecture and design. The bones of the article have been reviewed for clarity and it is hoped that others will contribute over time to offer a robust perspective on the work of Ross Barney Architects.

Rgann (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left you a message on the draft. For me it needs editing hard for promotional tone. Fiddle Faddle 04:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

10:31:30, 11 October 2014 review of submission by The Carnaby


I have been told this has been rejected, but I cannot see any reasons for the rejecction. I have not used these methods before so am very green. Also I cannot see my page anymore.

The Carnaby (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is located, along with the reason for declining it, at Draft:The Carnaby. You have no references.Put simply, no references = no notability = no article. Fiddle Faddle 12:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:23, 11 October 2014 review of submission by Smichok


Smichok (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Can you help me find the special character for writing French ordinal numbers please? It is a small e which is raised in comparison to the surrounding text. I cannot find it anywhere and need it for my article so would be grateful for your assistance.

Best wishes,

Stephen

To editor Smichok: I believe there are already a few instances of it on the article Jean Prosper Guivier. Here it is again if you wish to copy it: ᵉ
You should also consider using superscripts, as in 1<sup>e</sup>, which gives: 1e
Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

00:06:30, 12 October 2014 request for review by Johnnyhightower8

I'm trying to make an article for Tricia Aguirre and I need to know what needs to be added or omitted for the article to be accepted by Wikipedia. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyhightower8 (talk • contribs)

@Johnnyhightower8: no Declined Your draft fails our criteria for musicians. You must provide sufficient independent and reliable sources, like newspaper and magazine articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:26:59, 12 October 2014 review of submission by Realatheism


I feel the reason given for rejecting my Atheist Science page was formulaic, kneejerk that is. Please respond to my thoughts on this question :

I have not attempted to discover what Wikipedia policies are directly, I have just jumped in with both feet. But earlier this year I saw the founder of Wikipedia telling a journalist that Wikipedia was about democratising knowledge, when responding to a question about government departments editing Wikipedia articles.

Information in an encyclopedia comes in a multitude of forms, and each form must treated according to its nature, surely. My page gave notice of a strand of a major philosophical topic that was not identified in the topic’s main page, which is protected from editing. It was rejected because it had not registered any public influence, it had only been posted on a site hosting original material.

So not only is it not for Wikipedia to publish original material, but more restrictively, Wikipedia is not to facilitate access to material that has not caught the attention of public commentators. So Wikipedia is not to fall into the role of taking notice of original work, implying that Wikipedia seeks to support establishment structures such as academia and the media, as arbiters of what is of public interest, whilst taking care not to circumvent their authority. So not only does Wikipedia not publish original material, it also will not serve as an information resource for locating original material, prior to that material being acknowledged by . . . by whom, by academics, by journalists ? In other words, by the usual agents of political authority that decide what can be known by people at large.

This kneejerk rejection of existing material without a prior public presence, makes Wikipedia into an elaboration of the machinery of knowledge control, only purporting to serve freedom, as a device for extending control into a new medium of information that looks ripe to serve freedom, and hence must be taken possession of by the machinery of knowledge control, as per the usual stratagem of our ruling political authority.

Is this how Wikipedia is meant to work, or is it the decision to reject my page that is invalid here ?


Realatheism (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission needs references. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. All else is subordinate to that, for that proves that it passes WP:N. It has no such references, thus it has no place here. That is the sum total of the answer required, however philosophical you may wish to wax. Fiddle Faddle 12:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:48:24, 12 October 2014 review of submission by Rosekelleher


I have a few questions. First, I know there's a huge backlog of articles awaiting review, so while I'm waiting I've been making a lot of small edits to the article. I wonder, though, if that's delaying the review. Do reviewers look at the history and say, "Hmm, I see she's still working on it, I'll come back later"? If so, this could go on forever, because I'll keep compulsively tweaking it until it's approved.

Also, I put some "notes about the notes" on the Talk page.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Rosekelleher (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosekelleher (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep polishing. We love it when folk realise that they can continue to improve a draft after submission! Fiddle Faddle 19:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:16, 12 October 2014 review of submission by Scpj


I am compiling an article about 'Ely Ensign' and ask if it is in order to use among my sources information printed in this publication itself. Scpj (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

Scpj (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be circular, and inappropriate. Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Scpj: Fiddle Faddle/Timtrent means that using Wikipedia as a source would be circular. If, however, you wish to use the Ensign as a source, it is appropriate in some cases, such as for presenting purely factual information that is not too self-serving. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Anon126. I do not mean that. You must say what you mean, not what I mean. I mean that using the Ensign to reference itself in an article on it is circular. While there are rare circumstances detailed in WP:PRIMARY when primary sources may be used, this is very unlikely in this case. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: I apologize for the incorrect assumption Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fiddle Faddle 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

06:48:52, 13 October 2014 review of submission by Mayankcs


Mayankcs (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC) I am curious about why my article submission was declined[reply]

Hello Mayankcs, please check the comments and links on the draft itself Draft:Roopesh Jain to see the decline reason the reviewer left for you. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:58:46, 13 October 2014 request for review by Bdchill



07:49:01, 13 October 2014 review of submission by Bdchill



Hi peoples,

Thanks for this service. I have been trying for a while to upload a wiki on IAN COHEN - I have had issues as I used his full name in my first edit and he was not linked in that way, now I have made it IAN COHEN (MEDIA)...so I hope that works, as there is already a politician who has his name..(but is it possible to do the disambiguation thing?? I can't work out how) Also some people unfairly want it deleted because I could not link, and now hopefully I have linked correctly. I really need some help in an editor having a look at the site and then helping me post it correctly. Any assistance appreciated BDChill(Bdchill (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Bdchill (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saving the article at this stage will be an battle. I have left a comment on the deletion discussion that it might be moved to the Draft: namespace. At present there are huge problems with it. You have inline links, the references are poor, and the bloke is Australian, thus a minority in the English speaking world. What you need is the chance to make the article work, and your inexperience here has hamstrung you, rather.
Your references need to be about Cohen, not a list of things he has done. WP:42 will clue you in. Use Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL to try to find more about him. Adjust the search until you do. Fiddle Faddle 08:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:35:17, 13 October 2014 review of submission by Dnipcare

I want to know why my article on DNipCare has been rejected Dnipcare (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably go and look at the comment on it, then. If you need more information please return here, to this section and ask further questions. Fiddle Faddle 08:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:42, 13 October 2014 review of submission by Edendiss


The message about Home and hospital education - HHE said: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Learning at Home and in the Hospital - LeHo instead." - But LeHo page does not exist yet, it has been dropped back many times so far, every time with a new reason that has not been there before. I submitted it again some minutes ago after some corrections. If this HHE article can be created, I could then further improve the LeHo page (I would have the necessary other wiki page with a relevant link to the LeHo one, etc...) Or shall I first delete the complete LeHo page in order to let the HHE accepted, and then try to put the LeHo one back? I need at least one of them accepted finally. Is this duplication thing the only reason why HHE was not accepted? thanks Edendiss (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)edendiss Edendiss (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:45:48, 13 October 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by KAndrea16


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qadabra_Self-Serve

Hi, I'm requesting some assistance with my draft that has been declined.

My question is...my page is based on a web product which has yet to be featured in many newspapers, journals, scholarly writings. When dealing with web content, what would you consider as "notable" or "verifiable" sources -- what kind of blog posts or articles, if any?

Is Crunchbase considered notable for example?

KAndrea16 (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=629432134"