Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Naganata (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 4 January 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


December 29

02:46:32, 29 December 2014 review of submission by Jettte


Hi, my submission on Arria NLG was declined because the "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". I'm not sure if that's just the boilerplate text that comes with a rejection for low notability or whether I really need more independent sources. The reviewer notes "Existing isn't enough, we also need a reason as to why it is notable, and the article needs to make this clear (preferably in the lead)", which makes me wonder whether I'm simply meant to make it explicit in the lead what Arria is notable for. I've done that now, but it's hard to do without making it sound like advertising. The only other thing I could imagine is that my sources aren't "important" enough, because I've got at least one reference on pretty much every sentence already. I've had a look at existing Wikipedia articles about the other few companies in the same area and they all seem very similar to mine (Narrative Science, Yseop, Automated Insights).

I'd be very grateful for any additional feedback on how I could improve my article and get it accepted.

Jettte (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jettte. This is a tricky one, but I will try to give you some ideas that may help. One problem is that the Forbes piece that you are using to support the statement "the only one whose technology is based on scientific research into Natural Language Generation (NLG)", does not appear to support that statement. In fact, I would argue the Forbes piece only contains a passing mention of Arria NLG (one item in a list of four companies involved in the field), and is therefore of no use in proving the notability of the organisation. When considering the extent to which sources help to prove the notability of a topic, we don't look at how "important" the sources are; we look at whether they are reliable, whether they are independent, and whether they have significant coverage of the topic.
The Interactive Investor piece falls down on either independence or reliability ... probably the former ... it appears to be nothing more than a recycled press release. The various references to other Wikipedia articles ("Computational Linguistics (journal)" and the like) fall down on reliability ... you should never cite a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article, because anyone can edit it. So these should be removed ... it is not a problem if that results in some sentences not having inline citations supporting them, as only statements that are likely to be challenged must have inline citations.
The first Herald Scotland piece is an example of a source that is both reliable, and independent, and in my view has significant coverage of the organisation. I think there are a few other sources like this already in your draft, so if you trim out the non-reliable and passing mention sources and resubmit it, I think it ought to be accepted. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, it's possible that the reviewer's request for a statement in the lead as to why the company is notable, is to ensure that the resulting article does not fall under speedy deletion criterion Wikipedia:A7, "An article about a real ... organization ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". This is a relatively low standard to meet, and in this instance it could in my opinion be met by mentioning, with an inline citation, the expected £100m valuation of the company. Such a valuation does not suffice to prove notability ... which is a higher standard ... but does suffice as a claim that the company is significant. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:51:50, 29 December 2014 review of submission by Jagannaath


Jagannaath (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jagannaath: no Declined We're not interested in your test edits. This is an encyclopedia, not a webhost. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

00:02:44, 30 December 2014 review of submission by Maru1977says


I need my article approved as soon as possible. I am willing to pay someone to review and approve it. How can i get it reviewed faster?

Maru1977says (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Maru1977says: no Declined Pay up. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10:10:45, 30 December 2014 review of draft by 122.169.18.15

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I want to create a page for an upcoming Gujarati Movie and I need assistance for the same.

122.169.18.15 (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:33, 30 December 2014 review of submission by Chandan sharensearch


Chandan sharensearch (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


why the page is declined.

Draft:ShareNSearch has been declined for the reasons given on that page. Please go to that page and look at the reasons given there. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:46:42, 30 December 2014 review of draft by (don't talk secrets)


How can I get rid of the annoying CAPTCHA that appears everytime I try to edit my draft Draft:P. M. de Respour? Thanks, (don't talk secrets) (talk)

(don't talk secrets) (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but I think the CAPTCHA will stop appearing in about four days from now, since your account will then automatically become autoconfirmed. Someone who knows more about the detail may be able to confirm or contradict this guess of mine. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much per above. On top of having a 4 day old account you'll need 10 edits. But if you use Tor, it will take longer to become autoconfirmed. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 11:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for help! I think I'll wait as 4 days is not that much. I have difficulties for finding any sources for my draft anyway. I guess I'll try writing about some easier subject first. I'd be very interested in using Tor, but is that really possible? Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption says "In highly exceptional circumstances, an editor may be permitted to edit anonymously, via Tor or another anonymizing proxy." What might these exceptional circumstances be? Is there a help desk for asking Tor questions if they are off topic for this one? (don't talk secrets) (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Request on 12:05:31, 31 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Justuscq


This is for the first time I am are trying to add Chordiels Music page in Wikipedia. Since my draft is rejected due to not proper drafting and referencing, We would like to submit this for assistance in revising it and making it in proper, required format by Wikipedia. Kindly help me publish Chordiels Music page in Wikipedia with your expertise. Thank You. Justus

Justuscq (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is some advice at Draft:Chordiels Music on how to improve the draft so that it might be acceptable. Do you need any other help? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:41:24, 31 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Jayesh aghade



Jayesh aghade (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be an essay about earthworms. Could you explain why you feel it is appropriate for such material to be an article in an encyclopedia? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:04, 31 December 2014 review of submission by Aeroansh


Aeroansh (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:41, 31 December 2014 review of submission by Hozae1983


Hozae1983 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for directing me here. I recently submitted an article that was declined. I'm having a little trouble find large media coverage on the topic. Would it be wise to eliminate content and in the future add more as I find more media coverage info? I made sure to write the article like an encyclopedia but not sure if certain words are used incorrectly, or is it the sources where I got the information. I research other similar articles and made sure it was aligned with the writing format. Any help would strongly be apprieceiated. This would help me when writing future articles. My sandbox link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hozae1983/sandbox. Hozae1983 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hozae1983. Wikipedia only has articles about subjects that have been written about substantially by journalists or other authors in publications not connected to the subject. You'll need to reference a number of these sources to show that there should be an article at all about this credit union. References to its own publications and web material don't count, and neither do press releases or directory listings. Otherwise, the article will not be accepted.
It's not necessary to have a reference for every non-controversial fact (such as where the credit union is located, or how long it's been in operation) in order for the article to be accepted, so don't delete factual information that likely can be referenced later. However, anything included which is there to make the organization seem more important, or which is unusual, needs a citation or it should be removed. Here's an example: You have written "In 2014 the credit union was ranked the third healthiest credit union in the country by DepositAccounts.com" and linked to that website. That link will need to be removed (external links aren't allowed in the body of an article), and instead you should find a business section news report, magazine article, or something like that, where the information is reported, and cite that. If no one has written about it, then that sentence should be removed. Also, since every Wikipedia article starts out explaining what the topic is, you should remove your first section heading "What is...", and try to put the name of the organization as close to the beginning of the sentence as is practical.
I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


January 1

02:49:46, 1 January 2015 review of submission by FixtTeeth

FixtTeeth is a patented dental process. I don't see how I can explain it and NOT sound like an advertisement. FixtTeeth (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC) FixtTeeth (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FixtTeeth. It's often difficult for people closely connected to a subject to see it from an encyclopedic rather than a marketing point of view - that's why editors are not encouraged to write about subjects in which they have a conflict of interest. However, if you want to try:

  • First of all, Wikipedia only has articles about subjects that have been written about extensively by authors who are not connected with the subject - in this case, perhaps dental experts writing in academic journals or magazines aimed at dentists, who are reviewing the product or process from a neutral point of view. If these published sources (not press releases or articles written by the company or the developers), can't be found, Wikipedia won't accept an article about the subject.
  • If you do find some write-ups, read and see what the authors thought people would like to know. This includes any negative comments, such as perhaps situations in which the process should not be used, or side effects, etc. Then, add citations to show which source provided which piece of information. Rather than focusing on a sales pitch, write about the development of the product (who, why, when, where, etc.)
  • One more thing - Wikipedia has a policy that usernames must represent individual people, not organizations, products or companies, so it's likely that your username will be blocked shortly as inappropriate. You may wish to either change your username or, when it's blocked, just make a new one that's more personal. Here's a link to the policy: Wikipedia:Username policy.


—Anne Delong (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:00:59, 1 January 2015 review of submission by Luayac


Luayac (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Luayac, what is your question? I can tell you right now, you haven't followed the guidelines WP:Notability (academics, so you must read and follow that guideline to get any article about an academic published. Also, are you writing about yourself? If so, see WP:Autobiography for why this is a very bad idea. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:34, 1 January 2015 review of submission by Ejaz92

I have submitted the article with satisfying all the requirement needed but it was declined.Garden Reach is the neighbourhood where I live but it is not on wikipedia so want the article to be created.Please review it and publise it on wikipedia. Ejaz92 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ejaz92. Wikipedia accepts articles about cities, towns and villages, but because neighbourhoods are not "official" places, but part of another place, Wikipedia only has articles about neighbourhoods if they have been written about extensively in newspapers, magazines, books, or government documents. For example, HERE is a link about ship building, HERE is one about agriculture, and HERE is a historical one about a cotton mill, and ANOTHER historical one about the founding of a college. I used Google Books and I only looked for five minutes, so I'm sure you'll be able to find more. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:16:36, 1 January 2015 review of submission by Nemeclnemecl


proposing a new manual for Wikipedia - potentially a huge thing. A response from an actual person, no matter how brief, is needed. Nemeclnemecl (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemeclnemecl: no Declined Sorry to tell you this, but Wikipedia – The Missing Manual already exists. We already have a host of tutorials. Further, if you want to write an essay, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays. Finally, in what world does it make sense for a newcomer to write a manual? Perhaps you would like to see a manual and you should ask where you can find one, not proposing to us to help you write one. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:28, 1 January 2015 review of submission by Nemeclnemecl


Nemeclnemecl (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


OK, the Wikipedia policy is, apparently, NO COMPREHENSIVE MANUALS. Obviously, it works, the results speak for themselves. GIVING UP ON WORKING ON A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT FOR A MANUAL. I will never mention it again.

Will try to continue to edit a few pages that, in my opinion, need editing. The year 2015 just started.

I have no idea whether any actual person communicated with me but that's OK. As long as SOME of my edits are accepted, I will be happy.

I have one specific question, though.

Someone using the name Jan Arkesteijn deleted my sister's and my name from my edit of my brother's Jan Nemec article as his siblings. While my sister living in Prague insists in her email on having her name in the Wikipedia article, I personally cannot care less.

There may be a written policy about this minor issue somewhere on Wikipedia. WHERE?

This will have to be answered, I guess, by a real person and I CAN WAIT. Nemeclnemecl (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Hello Nemeclnemecl, this page is only for questions about drafts, so I suggest you take the question about siblings to our catch-all discussion place for mentorship, WP:Teahouse. Lots of friendly folks there that like to answer very broad questions. I can try to answer in brief though.
If you click the "History" tab you can see all changes made to the Nemec article, and the explanation. The editor who removed your names explained non notable people. Now, that's not meant as any insult, it's just noting that a reader has no particular need to be aware of Nemec's siblings, since as far as we understand at the moment, they are not individually famous people in their own right. To draw a more contrasting example, if Nemec was mentored in highschool by someone who later became the head of the Ministry of Art, we'd probably mention that Nemec had that teacher in highschool since that's a connection to another person our readers may want to read about. But we wouldn't list out other teachers he had who were not famous, because there's nothing really more to say about them other than just they exist and have a name. Does that make sense? Some of this is covered in our guideline WP:Notability is not inherited. Hope this helps. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:41:16, 1 January 2015 review of submission by Chazhardy


What the hell is SAFESUBST and PAGENAME and REVISIONUSER? Do you know English?

How dare you question the notability of Walter Russell? Have you any idea what he accomplished? Doesn't my article show his notability? Do you really want to reject this entry? As to reliable sources, I have included as many as I can. He is not an "establishment" figure. He is not an academic, and I know wikipedia is prejudiced against persons who are not pointy-headed intellectuals. Very little has been written about Walter Russell by the sources you fawn over. Go ahead, reject Walter Russell, and Wikipedia will be shown as the fraud I suspect it is. Charles HardyChazhardy (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)  Done[reply]

Hello Chaz:
  • You're getting upset because you don't understand the difference between "this person is not notable (important)" which is not what we're saying, and "your article fails to meet the sourcing requirements of our WP:Notability policy and you need to make the subject's qualifications per that policy more explicit and intelligible, which we are saying.
  • Setting that aside, Wikipedia has had an article about Walter Bowman Russell for over 9 years. You can find it at: Walter Russell. So we aren't "questioning" anything. Please try to assume good faith rather than think folks are attacking you. Yes, some of the technical terms used in editing can be kind of dry, but "can someone explain what I need to do with my draft to conform to the Notability policy?" is going to get a much better response from us than a "how dare you". Basically, you're throwing quite a fit over an article that we've already had for nearly a decade while throwing asscusations of ignorance, fraud, etc. Can you see how that might make people disinclined to collaborate with you? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:53:48, 1 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Highwoodpublishingny


The article has been declined due to copyright violation. We checked it following the link to "LinkedIn" profile of the profiled person, author Uri Norwich. It seems that we have used the same wording as used in the LinkedIn: "Realistic fiction novel writer. Specialty: modern historical novels, based on true events and geographies." Is this the copyright violation? If it is, we are only happy to re-word it and correct. Please let us know. Also, where we can find the Draft submitted for your review, so we can edit it and resubmit? many thanks for your help and time.Highwoodpublishingny (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Highwoodpublishingny (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Highwoodpublishingny, there is no "we" allowed on Wikipedia. Accounts absolutely must belong to only one person, not belong to a PR team, or to a specific employment role that changes over time. I'm leaving info on your Talk page about how to modify your username. Please take care of that first, then come back here and we can proceed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:01:44, 1 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Camilia-Highwoodpublishingny


Firstly, I just have taken care of my "user name" issue, by changing it to the compliant one. I am an individual, as required. my name is Camilia, and the new user name is "Camilia-Highwoodpublishingny." Thank you for your guidance. Now, to my bigger problem. The article has been declined due to "copyright violation." I checked it, following the link you kindly provided to "LinkedIn" profile of the profiled person, author Uri Norwich. It seems that I have used the same wording as used in the LinkedIn: "Realistic fiction novel writer. Specialty: modern historical novels, based on true events and geographies." Is this the copyright violation? 1. If it is, I am only be happy to re-word it and correct. Please let me know. 2. Also, where I can find the Draft submitted for your review, so I can edit it and resubmit? Many thanks for your help and time. Respectfully, CamiliaCamilia-Highwoodpublishingny (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camilia-Highwoodpublishingny (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Camilia-Highwoodpublishingny, thanks for taking the time to change your username, as we have a very strong "one account, one person" policy. Moving on to your next question, I can't see your draft now, but from what you describe, yes, copying a few sentences verbatim can trip the copyright sensor.
In order to get back a copy of your draft so you can fix the copyvio issue and resubmit, please post your request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and an admin can email you your draft. Just make sure you remove any copy-pasted/verbatim material before putting it back on Wikipedia. It can be a hassle, but it's just because we're very, very serious about respecting copyright here, so we tend to err on the very conservative side in tagging possible copying.
Also, since you're writing about a person, I strongly advise you read WP:Notability (people), as that is the absolute first guideline a reviewer measures your draft against, so you want to be very sure your topic and sourcing meet the checks-in-the-box. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

07:45:36, 2 January 2015 review of submission by Alekshendra


Alekshendra (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alekshendra, what is your question? Your draft was deleted because it was Unambiguous advertising or promotion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:27, 2 January 2015 review of submission by Mercury uranta


I wrote an article on Robbers raids Nigel Onipede's house. I searched for it on google and wikipedia but it is not appearing. Mercury uranta (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, are you saying you can't find your draft? It's right at User:Mercury uranta/Robbers+raids+Nigel+Onipede's+house, just like you link. If it's not appearing in Search results, that's because it's a draft, not a published article, so it's not ready for the world to see. That said, it will not be published, because we do not publish news articles; see WP:Not news. We cover historical events, which might get a lot of news coverage, but we don't cover routine everyday news. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:18, 2 January 2015 review of submission by Lk130


Lk130 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lk130: no Declined You're not even trying. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vince193

Hello! I recently had an article denied for submission, it is on a soccer player named Maxime Crepeau. I understand the reason, but I just want to know if there is a limit of how low a level a player can play before being posted on Wikipedia. He will most likely play for Montreal's reserve team next year in USL PRO, which is a professional league, albeit in the third division (NASL, and MLS are above them). Most USL players have wiki pages so I want to know when he makes his debut for that team can I publish this article?Vince193 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The acceptable leagues for the US and Canada are: Major League Soccer, North American Soccer League and USL Professional Division – see WP:FPL. You can resubmit if/when he plays in the USL Pro (or higher). Thanks, C679 23:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

08:20:02, 3 January 2015 review of submission by Dr Deborah Swallow


Context: In the last 20 years, diplomats have had to face a whole raft of experiences they have never been trained to deal with. Terrorism, huge migrations of people fleeing conflict, world recession, etc. A different style of education and training is required. This article is supposed to help people understand that there is a new DOCTORATE qualification beginning. Currently only one university is validated to run it, (the one that devised it and has worked hard over a couple of years to get it recognised and validated...). Soon many other universities will be offering it - a university in Australia is in the planning stages to offer this at the mid-end of 2015, and others around the world thereafter. IT IS IMPORTANT that governments of emerging nations with little understanding of training diplomats see this qualification as valid.

Please can you explain why this page was refused? I tried to find the right tone and style and used two pages already up. How does the one I wrote differ? How is the tone wrong compared with these two pages? How can I make it right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Business_Administration

Thanks, your help is appreciated Dr Deborah Swallow 08:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Debby

Dr Deborah Swallow 08:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Deborah Swallow (talk • contribs)


Dr Deborah Swallow 13:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dr Deborah Swallow: I presume that you need help with User:Dr Deborah Swallow/Professional Doctor of Diplomacy, which was recently declined. The text of your submission is indeed too essay-like, including arguments and discussion as to why students should sign up for this course. However, there is a more serious problem with this submission. Google reports only two hits on the title "Professional Doctor of Diplomacy" - both items created by you. Wikipedia only has articles about topics that have been written about extensively in published sources by journalists and other authors. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:53, 3 January 2015 review of submission by Belize Independent Green Party


I have no idea why the page for Belize Independent Green Party has been declined. Please help! Belize Independent Green Party (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Belize Independent Green Party: MatthewVanitas left a long comment on Draft:Luis Blas Mendez Sr. why they declined it. You should read that. Wikipedia is not your own private website. We are an online encyclopedia with content standards. Further, you never submitted Draft:Belize Green Independent Party for review, which is why I haven't declined it yet. That draft is promotional, too. I've already requested your account to be blocked since your username and your editing indicates you're here to advertise. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting myself here just for context:
You are not quite getting the idea of Wikipedia. It is not like FaceBook or LinkedIn where you can just write whatever. We accept only documented facts, presented in a neutral manner.
To be totally frank, this draft is so fawning it is literally embarassing to read it. So you absolutely need to cut off the constant syrupy praising of Mendez, stop calling him "Mr. Mendez" (just "Mendez" please), and stick to serious facts.
We don't want just a re-hashing of Mendez's CV, Wikipedia is not for resumes. What we want is facts documented by neutral parties. What have national and regional newspapers said about him? Here's a hint, if there's a fact about him that no newspaper has bothered to record, Wikipedia probably doesn't care about that fact. We only care about things that meet our policy WP:Notability.
If Mendez has achieved a body of news media and academic note, than please include those sources, and cite the facts to those sources when possible, or remove said facts.
If you can do that, and also remove the praising tone and stick to bare facts, such as that Mendez's best friend and worst enemy would equally agree the article is neutral, then that will be an article we can publish. Please make said fixes and hit Resubmit once you have, for your next review. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

02:40:39, 4 January 2015 review of draft by TurntheHeart


TurntheHeart (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your instructions as to how to submit an article are about as clear as mud. Also the date thing for when I accessed the website that I am citing. I seem to be missing something.

@TurntheHeart: Did you see the green button on the draft that says "Submit your draft when you are ready.."? You press that. Don't bother, though, because Wikipedia doesn't need your meandering story about how you "searched both Wikipedia and Dictionary.com for definitions, I found none. I did a Google search on the phrase and actually found a rotary rasp wheel for sale on the grainger.com website". This is an encyclopedia. What you might do is try improving the article about rasps. You can't add links to businesses selling rasps; you have to use reliable sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You have done a great job of making me feel like an idiot. By the way, I did press that green button, but there was nothing to clearly let me know that I had done so. I thought the purpose of this help desk was to help people improve their articles, but it seems that the primary thing you have done is to belittle me because as I have said previously, the instructions are not clear. That nice green button did not say "Click here to Submit". That would have been clear. As to your definition of a reliable source, I fail to see how a site that actually has a picture of a rotary rasp wheel is not a reliable source. I certainly have no interest in that company or the company that makes them, but it does certainly prove the existence of such a device. Yes, I wrote in a personable style, but that does not negate the fact that a reader of my article would have come away with some understanding of what a wheel rasp is. However, you seem only concerned with your opinion that nobody would appreciate my article. Well, though you do have a point about my style, I can tell you that I for one would have appreciated the information that I uncovered. Your comment that I should perhaps improve the rasp page really doesn't seem likely either seeing that the only source of proof that I have that such a device exist is a commercial one and therefore not reliable. I guess until I find a non-commercial site for information, I will have to keep the information that I have discovered to myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurntheHeart (talk • contribs) 05:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:50:50, 4 January 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Naganata


Hi,

After very useful input from Jimfbleak, I think my draft article on Ewan McLennan can go for assessment and (hopefully) release into the wild. How do I put it forward for that?

Thanks, Dave

Naganata (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naganata (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=640944153"