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 Anon124 (talk | contribs) at 19:30, 17 March 2015 (→12:50:11, 17 March 2015 review of submission by Lauren: fix draft link). 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


March 9

00:51:11, 9 March 2015 review of submission by 24.34.11.217


24.34.11.217 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about Draft:Metaverse(verse)? If so, please understand that Wikipedia does not accept original research. Original research is anything that hasn't been published somewhere else before. If you want to talk about a new idea, you should try to get it published in an academic journal, or just write about it on a blog. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:55:56, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Leighann.chow


My Wikipedia article was declined as it said it sounds like an advertisement and I would like to follow up to find out what specifically sounds like an advertisement and what I can change. Saigon Asset Management is an investment fund that has received coverage from numerous third party sources. Links were included to archived third party news source articles from the Saigon Asset Management website because some of these links are no longer active on the third party site.

Also, I followed the format of other investment funds listed on Wikipedia. This Wikipedia entry is no different to other investment fund entries such as these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Asset_Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekong_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Frontier_Capital_Ltd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_Capital

Why are these funds able to have a Wikipedia page?

Leighann.chow (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. It is often better to compare with existing recognised Wikipedia Good Articles. You can find a list of Good Articles about companies at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations. A Draft wouldn't need to be as long or detailed as these to be accepted, but they can still be good examples of how to structure and reference it.
To me, the tone of your Draft does not look very problematic. Concern may have been raised by five of your six references being hosted by Saigon Asset Management itself, even though they originate elsewhere. Also, often, interviews are not considered to be the most useful type of sources in proving notability, because they essentially consist of what the company says about itself, not what the independent reliable sources say about them.
Pinging @Onel5969: in case this is of interest. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leighann.chow, and thanks for the ping Arthur goes shopping. I already posted a response to your question on my talk page, but I'll put it here as well, in case you missed it there. Articles need to tell us about the subject, not attempt to sell it to us. Individual fund information, talking about what the company is seeking to do, and using terms like "expertise", make the article seem promotional. Granted, I've seen more egregious examples of promotion, but to me this still sounded promotional. Arthur hits the nail on the head regarding using other articles in comparison (and I'm going to steal his explanation from now on when asked that question in the future). I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for your feedback. I will rewrite the article to sound less promotional and use different references that are not connected to the site. I only did this because the links are no longer active online, is there something else I can do in this situation? I've see many other fund managers list their funds to describe what they do however I do note that you are saying that just because an article exists doesn't make it a good example. Before I heard back from either of you I had received some help from the online chat and was told that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekong_Capital is a good example of the other wiki listings that I referenced, particularly because it uses the references as citations. Thank you.

talk — Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, material does not need to be available online in order to cite it as a source. For example:
  • David Carey, John E. Morris (2010). King of Capital: The Remarkable Rise, Fall, and Rise Again of Steve Schwarzman and Blackstone. ISBN 978-0307886026. Page 46.
or
  • Taub, Stephen (June 28, 2011). Euromoney Institutional Investor, Bridgewater’s Alpha is up 11 Percent This Year. Page 4
Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:45:28, 9 March 2015 review of submission by LouMycroft


Thank you for the opportunity to do this. I went to a workshop yesterday to learn how to use Wikipedia and I am very new to it all.

I have started to build this entry with notability in mind and on the advice of the workshop facilitators I've sought out books which reference the process. Two of them are by the process creator, but the others are not. It is a process, rather than a product you buy and I think I'm not getting that across. I am also wondering if I should be critiquing it a bit more? Or should I be telling the story of its creation? What I want from the page is that people who come across it can understand what it is and learn how to do it for themselves.

I appreciate why it's been knocked back, but I'm feeling a bit stuck. Can you help?

Thank you.

LouMycroft (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that the history of the concept would be a good thing to include in the Draft article. Your objective for the article is perhaps problematic... as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should describe things, not teach people how to do things. Thus "whether you are..." is problematic wording and sounds promotional, because encyclopedia articles use the third person not the second. Finally, the Linda Aspey source is a problem because it is inherently promotional... its purpose is to sell courses and events based on this process or concept. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:32:43, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Larsa.Max


Hello editors

can you please tell me what made my article look like advertisement? it has independent sources that i couldn't control.

Thanks in advance


Larsa.Max (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing the ordinary partners is probably unnecessary, although that is not a big problem. "a team of investment professionals organized into specific investment areas and sectorial disciplines" sounds promotional and does not really convey any factual information. "works closely with owners-managers of portfolio companies to enhance operations and accelerate growth" sounds rather promotional given that it's not cited to an independent source. "developed a proficiency in accelerating growth and enhancing the value of their investee companies" likewise. Finally, large parts of the "History" section are apparently sourced entirely to press releases. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:54:43, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Aruppillai

Which part of the article lack reference? Aruppillai (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:23, 9 March 2015 review of submission by LegalResourcesFoundation

Hi there, thanks very much Dodger67 for reading my text although it got declined. I am not quite sure why this is the case but I must apologize in advance as this is my first wikipedia article and I struggled a bit with the code to put in the only one reference. I am afraid there are no more sources to add in order to make the article more reliable as I already put in websites from our organization partners and an academical text which is accessable via internet and to be found in the reference section. Thanks a lot - LRF LegalResourcesFoundation (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about books and news or magazine articles? I have moved the draft to Draft:Legal Resources Foundation so that as soon as your username problem is solved you can continue working on it there. I have found quite a few news articles through Google. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:37:28, 9 March 2015 review of submission by EduardJanChlebek


How do I attach a photograph to my submission? EduardJanChlebek (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor EduardJanChlebek: Don't worry about adding a picture yet. Your page has been deleted because it was considered advertising. This suggests you are connected to or affiliated with what you were writing about. If that is the case, please read my guide for contributors with close connections before rewriting it. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:50, 9 March 2015 review of submission by Jakebob1963

I understand this page was rejected and I should ask why here??

Thanks! Jake Jakebob1963 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Jakebob1963: Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. The most common way an article comes off as advertising is when it uses "evaluative phrases" without citing them to an outside source.
Some of these in your page are "uniquely-crafted", "robust", and "humble". These have to be cited to an outside source, and attributed (for example: XYZ Magazine called its sandwiches "uniquely-crafted".). A good way to find evaluative phrases is to ask yourself Would a person who hates the restaurant and someone who loves it agree on this? If not, then it's evaluative.
Also, Wikipedia pages shouldn't include comprehensive lists of products (in this case, menu items). You should talk about the ones that have received the most press coverage.
Those are my comments about advertising. After you've addressed them, you may want to go through the editing tutorial to learn about formatting. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:31:28, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Hamptodm


The article for "Billy's Cult" was not accepted due to copyright information. I am seeking specifics so that I may correct these errors and re-submit the article.


Hamptodm (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Hamptodm: According to the Copyvio Detector, the plot is copied directly from Rotten Tomatoes. We can't accept material copied from outside sources (except for short quotations), because we don't have permission to use it. You can use Rotten Tomatoes or another site as a source of information, but you should summarize the plot in your own words. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:06:51, 9 March 2015 review of submission by ProfTimMau


ProfTimMau (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi - Why was my article declined? I want to know the detailed reason why, I know that I have cited multiple sources.

Hello ProfTimMau. Your draft article includes three sources, but they are not really about Mr. Wigdor, but about the cases for which he is being hired. Please note that words spoken by the subject himself aren't considered independent references, and outside of his own words there are only a couple of sentences about him in the references. The references need to be about him, not about the people he represents. For a lawyer to be the subject of a Wikipedia page, there needs to be either extensive coverage about him in published sources, such as Louis Bloomfield and/or he needs to have received some kind of distinction above that of an average lawyer, such as Marlys Edwardh. Perhaps there are news reports about the actual trials, where Mr. Wignor's actions, rather than future intentions, were reported by journalists.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snehahurrain (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


March 10

Confusion

Snehahurrain (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the last few days I am working on a Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farman_Nawaz It was declined twice. The fact is that I have prepared this page keeping in few another Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_Abbasi. You will not believe but it is a fact that the references of Ansar Abasi page are irrelevant. It is requested that kindly check the comments of admins on my page and then apply the same rules on Ansar abbasi page. you will find that my page is more authentic than Ansar Abassi page. It is not a challenge but a request for comparison. I hope that my request will be taken as positive. I have brought major changes in my page and again it is resubmitted.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snehahurrain (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Snehahurrain: We're not concerned with whether a page is "authentic", we're concerned with whether the subject meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. You need so show that there is significant coverage of Farman Nawaz himself, not just coverage of his blog posts and op-eds, and you need to back up all biographical data with citations to reliable sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:55:42, 10 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Takingnotes21


for school I am a college student.


Takingnotes21 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Takingnotes21: What is your question exactly? You submitted an article that just said "I go to school so I need drop box" and it was rejected for inclusion in Wikipedia because it was clearly not an encyclopedia article. If you want a draft space to work in, you can use User:Takingnotes21/sandbox, but don't click the blue "submit for review" button unless you have an actual article that you want to submit. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:17:37, 10 March 2015 review of submission by MarkfromPoole


This is my first contribution to Wikipedia. My article has been rejected several times for reliability reasons. In conversation with one reviewer, Graeme Bartlett, he said that the sources were ok from a verification perspective but not a notability one. I have added links to other Wikipedia pages that refer to Poole People to establish justification for listing. I do not really know where to go now. MarkfromPoole (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC) MarkfromPoole (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkfromPoole: I only see one independent source in that article. You typically need several examples of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article to show notability (and Wikipedia articles aren't considered "reliable sources" since anyone can edit them). If there are good sources in the other Wikipedia pages you could add those to your article, but if not and no other good sources exist, it may simply be too soon for a Poole People article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:02:45, 10 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MJeznach


Hi, I wanted to create a page on Wikipedia about Oxford Biodynamics. It is not meant to be advertising, but a source of information about the Company type of page. I'm not sure where I went wrong as it is my first ever attempt of creating a Wiki page. I would really appreciate your help.

MJeznach (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MJeznach: Your article was directly copied and pasted from the Oxford Biodynamics website. For copyright reasons, Wikipedia requires that you write articles using your own words. Do not copy and paste (or closely paraphrase) any other website.
I can't see your article since it was deleted, but if you rewrite it keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a business directory. If there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article that you can cite, then it may be too soon for a Wikipedia article about Oxford Biodynamics. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:12:57, 10 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by ZRay22


Hi there :)

My submission Conscience: Taxes for Peace not War was rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Conscience:_Taxes_for_Peace_not_War

Previous users Tokyogirl79 and Kikichugirl had similar concerns and I thought I dealt with her concerns (the Recent Activity section).

Could you please point out exactly, which parts of the article need to be changed to be accepted? :)

Your help would be much appreciated :)

Thank you

ZRay22 (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZRay22 (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state the Draft doesn't look very problematic to me. A few points though. "managed to successfully gain" just means "gained". The second mention of the award from Gordon Brown needs removing, as it makes little sense in the context, is repetitive, and isn't supported by the citation that follows it.
The section "Conflict Stability and Security Fund" is far too long, given that it's not directly related to the organisation and does not mention it.
The section "Peace Tax Bill" seems mostly to repeat things already discussed earlier. Expressing the aims and beliefs of the group in excessive detail and in a rather repetitive way, gives an appearance of being non-neutral. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:34:54, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Bihngo


Bihngo (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why my Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kundan_Srivastava has been declined many times. I written about Kundan Srivastava an Indian Author and Activist. I am feeling very sad to know wikipedia behavior against article of Kundan Srivastava. Kundan is youngest Social Activist and notable Author from India. Please go through his official facebook page and details: https://www.facebook.com/founderkundansrivastava

To see why the Draft has been declined, read the reasons given in the pink boxes on the Draft page itself. Click on the links in the decline reasons to read further information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:02, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Philoschelle


I would like to request assistance in creating my page in a way that is considered neutral to the editors of Wikipedia. I have edited it many times, submitting twice. Both times it has been rejected for being advertising. As this is my first submission, I need help! Are there reviewers or editors out there that could help me get this article published? Thanks.Philoschelle (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Philoschelle (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead alone, the phrases "a wide range of" and "enable business document exchange via" are unnecessary and promotional. You then have an extensive list of "solutions". That word is unduly promotional in itself, because it doesn't mean anything. A products and services list gives the appearance of being promotional because it's just listing out what the company sells. Which you've already done in the lead anyway. Plus that list is sourced entirely to the company's own website and to a Yahoo profile that the company itself will have contributed to.
The list of board members is unnecessary in an encyclopedia article. Most of the management team don't need mentioning either.
There are a very large number of press releases used as references. This should be avoided where possible.
Take a look at a few existing recognised Wikipedia Good Articles about businesses from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations. A Draft wouldn't need to be as long or detailed as these to be accepted, but they can still be good examples of how to structure and reference it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:40, 10 March 2015 review of submission by DmitryPopovRU


Hello! I really need someones help with this article. It was recently declined due to lack of notability. I do not believe this is true, have a look at the reliable sources. I need someones help with this! I also have a G4 issue I have to deal with too.

Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DmitryPopovRU. I took a look at your draft and I removed a few references that were to unreliable sources such as Youtube and IMDb. The first thing to do is to remove some of the references to libraries that hold the book. According to Worldcat, the book is in ten libraries, plus the two archival copies in the National library. One reference, such as THIS ONE, tells all of this, and separate references for each copy of the book just makes it seem as though there are no real useful references available. Published book reviews are what's needed to show that he's a notable author. Announcements of upcoming events don't confer notability - instead, news reports after the event are needed. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for your help and response. A clear source can be found here which talks about his book - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11310534 I will work on developing the article and see when it can be submitted again. Like I have said before, I think it is worded incorrectly. I'm not sure.

--DmitryPopovRU (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:02:58, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Takingnotes21


Takingnotes21 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the message I've left on your draft. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:00, 10 March 2015 review of submission by MadameAnglaise

Hi - this is a general question. A page has been declined and I can now see why as I had pasted copy (and cited it and thought that would be okay) from a webpage. I'm very happy to re-edit this to ensure it's acceptable... but where will my draft have been moved to? I do have a copy of it saved, but is there an area where I will find it to make the edit? Sorry - quite a simple question and hopefully a simple answer! Thanks, Clare

MadameAnglaise (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor MadameAnglaise: Your draft is at User:MadameAnglaise/sandbox. You can find a list of pages you've edited by clicking the "Contributions" link in the upper-right corner. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:16:10, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Reefswaggie


Reefswaggie (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:16:10, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Reefswaggie

Draft:R.T. Skip Wallen


I hope I have done this correctly... anyway, I have hacked and cut and reduced the article in order to make it less encyclopedic ... I think I am heading in the right direction but I need some feedback please because it is my first article. I think the first paragraph is ok the way it is. I added two new headings, and simplified a lot of the material. I haven't fixed up the references yet. I want to get the text right first.

Thanks for your help. Reefswaggie (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text seems to be headed in the right direction. I assume you mean more encyclopedic, not less? Ideally, you still need to add the titles, and preferably author names, for the newspaper articles. Also, material like "www.AlaskaWhaleProject.org" is not any use as a reference on its own. Such website links might be more appropriate in an External Links section if they're actually necessary. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

10:30:20, 11 March 2015 review of submission by Neeraj Mehta123


Neeraj Mehta123 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Neeraj Mehta123: It appears that you are writing an article about yourself. This is difficult because you have written what you would like your potential customers to know about you, so naturally the draft is more of an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Also, most of the references you have included are of you talking about your work or other subjects, when what's needed is journalists or other authors writing about you.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:17:02, 11 March 2015 review of submission by Naamam118


Hi, I would like assistance with uploading a company logo to an existing company page. Could you let me know how to add the image? The page is an existing page and the logo uploaded - but it appears as a link on th epage, rather than an image. How can it be displayed as an image? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woobi

Many thanks! Naamam118 (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Naamam118: The code is [[File:Name of file.png|thumb|Caption here]] (notice that's "thumb" and not "thumbnail"). There are other options, which you can learn about in the picture tutorial. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anon126 talk so much for all your support!

11:41:41, 11 March 2015 review of submission by Roni1965

I need help or guidance how to improve the article. This is the note I have received: This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summaries information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. Who can assist me? Roni1965 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Roni1965: You have submitted a well-written essay, which may make a good tribute to this man in a magazine or book, but unfortunately much of the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia article, which doesn't contain opinions, feelings, hopes, speculation, etc., but only bare facts which are summarized from published documents. The references should be to the published works of journalists, science or medical writers, or other authors, who are independent of the subject, and not to material written by Michael Silberman or his friends and family. For example, text such as "This belief penetrated Silbermann's DNA at an early age and has remained with him ever since." is extremely subjective . Encyclopedia articles summarize not what a person and those who are close to him want to say about him, but what independent sources have written. Also, the long lists of everything he's every done makes the latter part read like a resumé, and should be written much more briefly (ie, summarized), in form such as "Dr. Silberman spoke at many conferences and symposia around the world, including (mention two or three of the better known ones)".
By the time you have made these changes, perhaps your article will no longer be three times as long as the ones for Alfred Nobel and Frederick Banting, two rather famous scientists.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:02:44, 11 March 2015 review of submission by Adweewfwf

I request to have help by experienced editors to help edit the referencing of this new article page. It is a new football tournament which cannot have any more references than I have put down. I hope someone can put in the the extra few references it requires as the tournament will start in 3 days in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Only references i can find is on the Afghan Premier Leagye website and I have referenced two url's from that website.

Adweewfwf (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Adweewfwf. Wikipedia only has articles about well-known topics that have been written about extensively by journalists or in this case sportswriters in newspapers, magazines, etc. It's not a place to announce upcoming events. If this is a new tournament that hasn't happened yet, it may be too soon for an encyclopedia article about it. Perhaps after the tournament there will be press coverage of it in sports sections of newspapers.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:37, 11 March 2015 review of submission by Avicennia marina


Hi there,

This is my first wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Evidence-based_conservation) and I am trying hard to improve it to meet wikipedia's policies. I am copy pasting the conservation I had with the editor who rejected my article.

"Onel5969: This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

Me: I am not sure what the editor means by opinion here or original research. Substantial references have been provided. It would be great to learn as to how I can improve the article. Avicennia marina (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Onel5969: Hi Avicennia marina - Even though there are references there are also conclusions drawn, which is original research (e.g. "Simply put, seeing what works and what doesn't work should be the basis of environmental conservation efforts.") That statement also is worded in an informal tone. Onel5969 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Me: Hi Onel5969 - That sentence was added by a wikipedia editor (Bfpage). I have removed it in the current version. Could you please suggest any other edits that I could make to improve the article? This is my first wiki article so any suggestions would be useful.


Could someone please help me by suggesting specifically which parts of the article I need to edit now?

Thanks very much!


Avicennia marina (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avicennia marina - I responded to you on my talk page. Onel5969 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:35:00, 11 March 2015 review of submission by 173.56.63.145

My first and second editor both told me that the sources do not focus exclusively on the subject in question. However, as an entrepreneur, all of the most easily verifiable sources (Bloomberg, Crain's, etc.) are business-focused publications that are obviously going to focus on her company. Is there a way around this? Every assertion is cited, I'm sort of at a loss as to how this entry can be attributed any further. I also can't tell if I have the image uploaded in the right place, some guidance on that front would be greatly appreciated as well. Thanks! 173.56.63.145 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@173.56.63.145: If the significant coverage is of her company and not her, then it means that her company is notable enough for an article but she is not. We have to go by what coverage is received from reliable sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:10, 11 March 2015 review of submission by Lgibos


I am unsure as to how to get our school's picture to be displayed. The one I want to display is from Google Maps. Will it automatically populate based on our address? Also is the mission statement too advertise-y to be included.

Lgibos (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lgibos: Google maps images are copyrighted by Google and cannot be posted to Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

02:49:26, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Charlieshen0106

Hello there, I am wondering how can I make my articles to be accepted since I already used independent sources and neutral contents, just like many other corporate wikipages. For example, ECCO, shoe maker like Butterfly Twists, has been accepted and showed in wikipedia but with much less sources and all the sources are links of its own website and annual reports. Please advice. Thank you very much! Charlieshen0106 (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlieshen0106: Wikipedia is run by volunteers, so lots of bad articles can slip through the cracks (like the ones you mentioned). If you want good examples, look at the articles rated B or better at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Assessment#Quality_scale. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:08:31, 12 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.9.139.246


My article weas rejected and I have no idea why! Steven Paul Fisher 24.9.139.246 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC) 24.9.139.246 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven Paul Fisher:@24.9.139.246: Your article was accepted as is located at Robert Earl Roeder. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 130.253.229.146 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Steven Paul Fisher[reply]

05:44:09, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Deepa Topiwala


I am unable to provide notable references because I have physical archives of newspapers which show the credibility of the subject. These archives don't have a soft copy online as they were published much before the news industry went digital...

Kindly guide on how to include these news items to establish the notability of the subject

Deepa Topiwala (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Deepa Topiwala (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepa Topiwala: You can cite offline sources. For newspaper article, make sure you include the name of the newspaper, the date the article was published, the article title and author, and, if possible, the page it appeared on. You can use Template:Cite news if it helps. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:02:58, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Elilat54


last editor lost my list of references some how, why is that ?. Now It won't let me put them back in order as a numbered list. simply says "" jump to "" because its in Sanbox. I had deleted my earlier work, and all that what I left went missing over night as well. It's becoming really annoying. I am wondering if all this old MS DOS data entry is really worth the effort writing in wiki  ???? .

ebliss54 07:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Elilat54: It looks like at some point, someone copied and pasted User:Elilat54/sandbox to User:User:Elilat54/sandbox, and the process of merging the two lost your references. I restored a pre-merge version from the history which seemed to bring them back. However, most of your references still have serious issues. You can't simply point to a web search, a magazine, or someone's writings in general as a reference, you need to give specific enough information that a reader could easily locate the information. If you're citing a newspaper or magazine article, give the exact issue date, the exact article title, and the author (if it's a print magazine, the page number is also helpful). If you're referencing a website, give a link to a specific site, don't just says "search google for xxx". If you're citing a book, give enough information for someone to find the book (title, author, publication date, etc.) as well as the page number or numbers where the information appears. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:47:12, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Tsanko Tsakov

I need some help for setting up a simple page as i find very difficult and confusing all the procedure what goes where and how to add a photo, im not so good with computers. Thas why i need a little support for getting the basic page done. Thank you

Tsanko Tsakov (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tsanko Tsakov: It looks as though you are trying to write an advertisement for your company, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote products. Before putting any more work into this, please consider that Wikipedia only has articles about companies that have been written about extensively in news reports, magazine articles and/or books (social media sites like facebook don't count). If the company is small and/or new and hasn't been in the news or the subject of magazine articles, the page will not be accepted for the encyclopedia, no matter how well it is formatted. Finding and adding references to these publications should be your first priority (see WP:Referencing for beginners. In the mean time, please remove the links to facebook images; Wikipedia pages can't display images that are hosted on external websites. Then, once you have found references, rewrite the text in a neutral way, with just facts and without the word "we".—Anne Delong (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:45:00, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Neeraj Mehta123


Neeraj Mehta123 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neeraj Mehta123 - I already responded to you on my talkpage. Onel5969 (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:30:53, 12 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Narges shiraz



Narges shiraz (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Narges shiraz: What is your question? Your article at Draft:Amir H. Nojan was declined because you failed to show that the subject of the article met the standards of WP:MUSICBIO. Your article needs references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Blogs, such as "New York Music Daily", are not considered reliable sources, and neither are Youtube videos. The artists website and the website of the academy that the artist started are not independent sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:21:39, 12 March 2015 review of submission by Pigpopper19

The page was denied creation based on the organization's notability. I'm confused as there are many businesses in the same industry on Wikipedia, which have fewer participants and have had less notable media coverage.

Some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_Social_Sports_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pickle23/Chicago_Sport_and_Social_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Ski_and_Sports_Club

Is it just a matter of including enough references to prove ZogSports' notability?

Thank you for your help, Pigpopper19 Pigpopper19 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigpopper19: Wikipedia is run by volunteers, so it's very likely that some articles which don't meet our standards have slipped through the cracks (and one of those examples you gave is a draft, not an accepted article). It's not enough to provide enough references, your references must show several examples of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:03:56, 12 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sensoryoverloadmusic


Hello, several months ago I submitted an article for creation for the composer Bryan E. Miller who owns Sensory Overload Music company. I am his assistant, and worked with him to submit the article. I received a message that the article could not be published because it contained copyright material. 1) Can you tell me what material was copyrighted? 2) What happens if the material that was "copyrighted" was paraphrased from a website that we created?

Thanks! Sensoryoverloadmusic (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sensoryoverloadmusic: Your draft appeared to contain content copied from http://bryanemiller.com. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.
Also, please see the message I left on your talk page regarding your username. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

12:53:00, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Manc86


I'm asking advice, rather than requesting a review.

I have a question about notability. The Subject in question has been a member of three bands, whose notability has already appears to have been established. One of them has included Paul Cook from The Sex Pistols and still includes Rob Symmons (founder of Subway Sect). So, if accepted, the page would immediately be linked to from established Wikipedia pages, where the subject's name is mentioned.

(1) Would those inbound links make a difference?

Also, those pages have a load more references, so

(2) should I just copy and paste some of those references to this page?

I figured that if there were links to those band pages, it would be unnecessary to repeat the reference on the new page which was a summary of the activities of the individual band member.

Obviously, the subject's notability as a technologist is a separate issue. These references there came from "The Independent", "Wired" and "The Register", which are all influential and reliably independent.

(3) on the technology sections, are those links enough, if (for instance) the music sections were removed?

Manc86 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Manc86: Inbound links don't make a difference in the review process, and in fact a draft should never have incoming links until it is approved. Copying and pasting references (just references, not text) from other articles is a very good way of making the information in your article verifiable. Those other articles may be changed at any time, so there's no guarantee that they would continue to verify the information in your article in the future. Do note that while articles about the band are great for verifiability, they don't necessarily help with notability because notability of a musician is not inherited from their band. The technology section also has plenty of links for verifiability, but the articles are mostly about his companies, products, etc and not the person himself, so there's the same issue of notability not being inherited (the story in The Register comes close, but isn't enough by itself). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:24, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Mikenseco1


I'm currently trying to post a Bio and I can't get it approve. The bio only have my information there are nothing to reference and I keep getting denied because I'm referencing anything. please help. this is just a sample page.

Mikenseco1 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mikenseco1: We cannot rely on your personal knowledge or experience. All information has to come from outside sources. Please read the golden rule if you have not done so already.
Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for advertising, promotion, or publicity. There are other places where you can do this. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)@Mikenseco1 - Without references that prove the subject's notability it can never be accepted. In biographies of living people all information must have references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:03:36, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Stevehec


Guys - would appreciate a re-review on the above. The wording is completely factual backed up with credible and independent sources, and I believe neutral and unpromotional in its tone. I cannot see how it is possible to make the verbiage more neutral than it already is yet this is an award-winning company with hundreds of thousands of customers so I believe it deserves its place.

I have included a few example of similar companies that are arguably less or similar in note than mine and are on wikipedia yet use more promotional language than I have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Touring_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrepid_Travel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_Vacations

Many thanks! Steve

Stevehec (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that this is an independent source, and several of the other sources I looked at are not much better, being basically recycled press releases or worse. It doesn't help that the formatting and actual content of the Draft is very problematic at the moment. Listing fifteen different awards without explaining in the body of the article what organisation grants the awards, or providing references to independent sources that mention the awards, is not very useful.
Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. It is often better to compare with existing recognised Wikipedia Good Articles. You can find a list of Good Articles about companies at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Businesses & organizations. A Draft wouldn't need to be as long or detailed as these to be accepted, but they can still be good examples of how to structure and reference it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 14

06:45:41, 14 March 2015 review of submission by Itskyleyo


Itskyleyo (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to create a page on the musician Nova Rockafeller. I'm not sure why it was declined. Can a more experienced editor make a page for this topic?

The Draft was rejected for the reasons given on the Draft page itself, Draft:Nova Rockafeller. In summary, providing just a single source is not enough to prove that a person is notable enough in Wikipedia's terms for there to be an article about her. The links on the Draft page will give more information.
You could ask for someone else to write an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but I am not sure how promptly such requests are dealt with, if at all. As an alternative, you could carry on improving your existing Draft... by adding a few more sources... and resubmit it when you feel ready. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

07:17:27, 14 March 2015 review of submission by Rwp002


Why was my article, "bug out bracelet" not approved?

Rwp002 (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources do not look to be reliable or independent. Someone selling the item is not independent. And user contributed content is not counted as reliable. Not only that, the references I saw do not use the term "Bug Out Bracelet" for this. See if you can find book or magazine sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:30:57, 14 March 2015 review of submission by DACLapril

My article has been rejected because of notability. The article is about a prominent and well known actor. I referenced many links and reasons why so why has it been rejected? DACLapril (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:52, 14 March 2015 review of submission by Sansevieria4


I do not understand why this article has been rejected. This musician is part of a Grammy-winning string quartet and has been reviewed in the New York Times. She is no more or less notable than her other group members, Todd Reynolds or Mary Rowell who each have their own articles. Please explain this to me so that I can provide whatever information is lacking.

Sansevieria4 (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

00:14:16, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Susannny


What does the number of days mean? Example, AfC pending submissions 1 day. The reason I ask is, my submission has been in the 1 day category all week. I'm wondering why it doesn't become 2 days, 3 days, as the days go along? Is this an indication that I did something wrong? Or does the day # indicate something different than I think? I assume that it means the number of days since you hit the "submit" button. Thx.

Susannny (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Susannny - I'm not sure what you're looking at, but every day the drafts get put into the next day older category. The only time they sit in a category for more than a day, is if they reach the "weeks" old sections. Currently your draft is in the 3 days old category (which makes sense, since it was submitted on 3/12). Onel5969 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:09:29, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Redilion


I have written one article (my first) which is waiting in the sandbox space for review. Now I want to start a new article but can't find out how to create a new draft page without deleting the one waiting for review. Do I have to wait for the first article to be moved to Wikipedia? I guess I could just draft the new one in Word and wait? Thanks, Redilion (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Redilion (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be answered at User talk:Redilion. If you have another question, please ask it below. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:52, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Drmicrochp


Dear Articles for Creation Help Desk, My first time article was rejected (surprise). Origamite, the reviewer, left an unclear reason for the rejection. She wrote:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

That my first time article needs revision is a normal thing, but the reason does not help me with improving the article. Does Origamite mean: 1. That I do not have enough references or footnotes? 2. That I have too many references or footnotes? 3. That my references or footnotes are not acceptable because they cite a foreign language? 4. There is some coding or formatting difficulty with my references? 5. That my references are inadequate because many of them come from blogs rather than newspapers? 6. That my references do not support the statements in the article?

I would think that Wikipedia would be somewhat more cooperative given the time invested in the article and the brevity with which an article is rejected. Can someone at the help desk assist me in figuring out what Origamite meant? I have over 45 footnotes cited in an article of very short length and so it is not clear when he/she says "Please cite your sources for using footnotes". All of my footnotes have their sources cited.

Drmicrochp (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Drmicrochp: If you are referring to your submission at User:Drmicrochp/sandbox, there are no references at all. In this case the reason is #1. (#2 is not a valid reason for declining: Sources can be in any language. The other reasons are valid, though they do not apply here.)
You can read the introduction to referencing to learn how to add footnotes. Although the formatting is not interfering with the references, it still needs some improvement. You can use the cheatsheet as a reference. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:29, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Bibishadbolt

I enlisted the movie but it was rejected because the language wasn't encyclopedia tine Bibishadbolt (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23:19:18, 15 March 2015 review of submission by SerenaLaVine


My submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SerenaLaVine/sandbox) was rejected because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I need some help with figuring out how to correct the problem.

1. There are currently 2 verifiable sources: NY1 interview and OSL reference to ACMA as significant source for amateur musicians 2. How many would be considered adequate? Is it a question of number? 3. Would testimonials from participants in concerts be acceptable? 4. Any other basis for rejection of article? 5. Would reducing historical text help? Can that be verified by participants in the history? How can early history of any org. be verified externally? News reporters are not present at beginnings. 6. If NY Times wrote article with these contents and I cited it as a source, would that be acceptable?

I'd appreciate any help you can provide.

Thanks Serena (username = SerenaLaVine) SerenaLaVine (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


SerenaLaVine (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SerenaLaVine - You list 3 sources in your article. One, the Carnegie Hall, is promotional. Another, YouTube, is not reliable. The third is the "OSL" you mention above, is a simple reference to the organization. Wiki criteria needs substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. I'm not seeing an interview in the references. Onel5969 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

Request on 01:51:16, 16 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Miamiheat631


Hello, I recently attempted to create an article for Kevin Olekaibe, a basketball player. However, it was not accepted and I was curious why. The message on my talk page said to add "references to secondary sources that are completely independent of the subject." I am not sure what that means and I was very confident in my article. If I could have some assistance, that would be incredibly appreciated. Thank you. Miamiheat631 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miamiheat631 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miamiheat631 - Take a look at the notability requirements for basketball players at WP:NBASKETBALL, none of which this player meets. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Onel5969 However, there are articles on other basketball players who do not meet those requirements at all, such as Casey Prather. If that article exists without meeting those qualifications, then why doesn't mine?
@Miamiheat631: Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, and it is not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. However, in this case, Casey Prather was the subject of significant individual coverage (not just routine coverage of games and transactions) that qualifies for notability under WP:BIO. I don't see the same coverage for Kevin Olekaibe. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:56:50, 16 March 2015 review of submission by 98.218.21.122


I want to know where to request someone to create an article detailing the belly washers drink seeing as it is a product and yet does not have it's own article on wikipedia.

98.218.21.122 (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all products are notable enough for Wikipedia to need an article about them. See Wikipedia:VRS for more details. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:15:39, 16 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Dr Betty Con Walker


<It would be appreciated if you would advise what part of the article was subject to copyright and declined on that basis?>


Dr Betty Con Walker (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Betty Con Walker - Well, since the article has already been blanked, that means that most of the article was copied from another source. Onel5969 (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:21:11, 16 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 106.221.195.154


<-- मै जो आर्टिकल बनाना चाहता हु ये एक जगह के बारे में हैं जो की इस समय तहसील भी है लेकिन समझ में नहीं आ रहा है कई कैसे बनाऊ कृपया सहायता करे । -->


~~विवेक~~

@106.221.195.154: This is the English language Wikipedia. If you wish to edit in Hindi, please use the Hindi Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
यह अंग्रेजी भाषा विकिपीडिया है। आप हिंदी में संपादित करना चाहते हैं, हिन्दी विकिपीडिया का उपयोग करें। --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:01:56, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Disharulzme


I have a question as there are many other Company on Wikipedia? My article is on an Company too, and it got rejected clause A7; please let me know what can I do further for the article to get accepted?

Disharulzme (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check the links on the Draft page itself, linked above. These tell you the problems with the Draft and what you can do to improve it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Disharulzme: Are you asking about User:Disharulzme/Zonic Digital Inc.? If so, please read the links in the decline box, especially the golden rule. Then, read about how to add references. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't see your previous post, sorry. Well, I suppose I guessed correctly, so my advice still goes. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

05:52:25, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Ayazf

My recent article submission was declined because 'references do not adequately show the subject's notability'. Can anyone help me to improve the submission referencing? Ayazf (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:10:35, 16 March 2015 review of submission by 98.113.142.196


98.113.142.196 (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question about why your draft is declined, please first read the decline reason in the box at the top and follow the links.
In this case, your draft was declined because there are no reliable sources (generally books, newspapers, magazines, and the like) cited. Wikipedia needs reliable sources.
Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for advertising, publicity, or promotion. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:17:02, 16 March 2015 review of submission by JaneDuterte


JaneDuterte (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, editors! I submitted a draft article for review but realized that there is a typo in the page name (one letter lacking). Is there any way I can still change this? Your comments will be highly appreciated.

Thank you so much!

We can Wikipedia:MOVE the Draft page for you to the appropriate name, or in about four days from now you will be able to do so yourself. But, I am thinking it might make more sense to move it to Draft:Romolo Nati as this seems to be the name that the person is known by, and there are no other Wikipedia articles with that title. What do you think? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:38:01, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Pfeilers


Hi there,

the Draft for my submission was declined, because the references I used where written (at least in part) by the subject of the article himself. I wanted to ask if a website like [1] or [2] is sufficient as reference concerning the curriculum vitae part of the article. I am not sure how to reference information in the research part, because the best information you can get here are the reviewed publications of the subject himself.

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks a lot.

Pfeilers (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pfeilers - There are two basic types of sources: those for verifiability, and those for notability. The two new websources you mention above are bio pages, which are normally written by someone affiliated with the subject, since the subject belongs or is affiliated with both of those groups. As such, they would be okay to verify a fact or assertion in the article, but don't speak to the subject's notability. For notability Wikipedia needs substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources.
I'm not sure this subject meets notability requirements (see WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS). Based on these sources, there is no substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. In the article you claim that he "became internationally well known for his seminal scanning tunnel microscopic work". If that's true, then there should be a plethora of coverage from independent sources, and that would qualify him for notability. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:58, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Ald7th

I have been rejected twice for copyrighted material. I am not sure why, as I have only written a few descriptive sentences in a neutral tone, as well as outsourced to reputable websites. Is it too similar to the bio on the Basic website? Please see below: Draft:Nazila Fathi (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.basicbooks.com/full-details?isbn=9780465069996} {{subst:Nothanks-web|pg=Draft:Nazila Fathi|url=http://www.basicbooks.com/full-details?isbn=9780465069996} The author asked me to create a Wikipedia page for her (I work at Basic) and I'm just trying to make the author happy. Any help would be appreciated--I suppose I can just rewrite all of the things she's done in her life to make it sound less like the author bio from the book? Thank you! Ald7th (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ald7th: The portion of the article (which is now hidden) beginning with "reported from the country for Time and Agence France-Presse..." appears to have been directly copied from the author's bio as seen on pages such as http://www.basicbooks.com/full-details?isbn=9780465069996. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:09, 16 March 2015 review of submission by 212.198.181.146


212.198.181.146 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Am i On The good way ?????

212.198.181.146 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:19, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Artistsfind


Hello, Thank you for offering to help. This is of upmost importance to me. I value your time. I have put many long hours learning Wikipedia culture, styles, and markup for the purpose of having this artist's article. Please in all candor help me to understand the flaws of this article.

Please allow me to explain this- This artist is influential and very highly regarded. The artist has over one hundred solid offline biographical data and cites stored in library reference books. This doesn't help get references to easily look-up online. Example - The academy awards does not list the art directors or set design winners on line - they favor actors.

Questions- Do you want photocopies? I do have tangible proof of his awards and mentions. If this article is edited again, do you want this article shortened? What should be cut? What should I cut - teachers; education details; intros of others; other details or lists? There is a matter of the image, it is proper to use it and if documentations from the artist (subject) or me is requested I can do so. Help me with getting the image through the proper channels to be approved. Thank you very much for helping me getting this article approved. All advice that you have for me is welcome.Caryl Jean 18:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Caryl Jean 18:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Artistsfind: Please see footnote 5 at WP:BASIC regarding biographical dictionaries: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability."
The offline sources you mention in the article are almost entirely such biographical dictionaries, and therefore don't show notability. Other offline sources should be added as references, but they only prove notability if they are both independent of the subject and are considered reliable sources. (Oh, and the academy awards does list art directiors and set design winners online: here's a random example from 1991). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:35, 16 March 2015 review of draft by Davew123


I'm creating an entry for nonex's. I invented nonex's in 2006 but this is the first public article. Thus I do not have any references because it is brand new. Wikipedia is THE definitive source for the definition.

Davew123 (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davew123: If the subject of the article is so new that significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article don't exist, then it is too soon for that subject to have a Wikipedia article. Per WP:N: "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it"." Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting your invention, and should never be considered definitive for anything (that's what reliable sources are for). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Davew123 - Did you patent the invention back in 2006? I think you need to first publish in a computer science journal - perhaps someone at WP:WikiProject Computer science can give you better advice. I see you are mentioned in Session (computer science) about a "workaround" for something you devised in 1996. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:33, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Pattwala

My submission has been declined/rejected twice and I'm curious to know why. Many other Ontario summer camps have entries. They can all be referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Summer_camps_in_Canada. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Sunrise has only one sentence about the camp and 3 reference cited, but it has an entry. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Timberlane_Canada has issues noted at the top, but it too has an entry.

Any help/advice would be appreciated. Pattwala (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pattwala: Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks. Those two examples you gave were created 5 or more years ago, when standards for inclusion may have been different. The two reviewers that looked at your draft correctly rejected it because it was lacking citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:02:31, 6 March 2015 review of submission by Hewittel

23:10:35, 16 March 2015 review of submission by Hewittel


Thank you for explaining what you were looking for in declining the March 5 submission of the draft article on Roger Brent. I have added additional references and more explanation on a number of them. I added reference to his eleven patents as well. But I'm not sure it's everything you were looking for, or done in such a way that it was clear. I notice that a number of others in Dr. Brent's field have a different format to their articles, with a table of contents and separation of elements, and are included in spite of their work's importance in the molecular biology field being no more important in my opinion. Would a reorganization to enhance readability help? I also saw that one of his awards was from a Trust that had their own Wikipedia article flagged about some controversies that had nothing to do with Dr. Brent and were not in his field - a later political complaint that had something to do with salmon. Someone added to our draft that a Wikipedia article on them did not exist (although it does ...) and the IP address of that commenter was in Australia and at an address owned by a domain name service. Would it be better to omit that award in the submission?

I do appreciate your guidance and positive suggestions for improvement.


Hewittel (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:58:15, 17 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Paulhutchinsfl


You sent me this message about my submissionThe submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia can you be more specific please?Paulhutchinsfl (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)paul hutchins[reply]


Paulhutchinsfl (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paulhutchinsfl. It appears that you are writing an advertisement for a book that you have written yourself. The text contains phrases and whole sentences that have been used in various other advertisements for the book, for example, on this web site: http://www.hubblerevealscreation.com/ . Even though you or your publisher may have written this text, because it is previously published Wikipedia can't use it unless it is officially donated through this process: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. However, there is really no point in doing this, because the text as written is so highly promotional (instead of being written from a neutral point of view), as well as containing opinions and ideas (instead of just facts about the book), that the draft would need to be almost completely rewritten to be acceptable. You have added some references, and that's good - but references must be independently written about the book (not about space or about the telescope, etc.). For example, book reviews, news reports or magazine articles written about this book by journalists or other authors not connected with you or your publisher or friends would make good references. Social media sites and Youtube are not suitable, nor are commercial websites with an interest in selling the book. By the time you take away all of the words like "inspirational". "awe-inspiring", etc., you will likely have solved the copyright issue as well. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:31, 17 March 2015 review of submission by Tinghuber2015


Hi,

The article has been rejected with the comment "You need to prove secondary sources, not just ones from the school itself." Please can somebody clarify this point? I suppose my question is "how does Wikipedia define independent?" as I thought I'd met this requirement.

I'm slightly confused as I have referenced what i would consider secondary sources, i.e., independent news sites, a diploma thesis, a research project, school web sites (not schools owned/operated by UWS).

Is it the entire article that is at fault or just certain facts? Or do I perhaps need to target the references a bit more tightly, i.e., reference individual facts more specifically?

Or is just that a school saying "We work with UWS" is not considered independent enough, but a news article saying "School X works with UWS" is considered independent enough? I've worked on the assumption that content on the UWS web site would be off limits as not independent, but content on third party web sites would be okay.

In more detail:

"They work in Cambodia" fact

http://www.stephencodrington.com/Hub/HK_Blog/Entries/2010/12/4_Just_10_Highlights_of_a_Very_Busy_Week.html Would it help if I added some disambiguation like text to clarify that "United World Schools" and "United World Colleges" are not the same thing? I can see how that might be confusing. Or is that disallowed as a reference as it is a blog? Or is this reference okay?

http://theambitionquestion.com/2014/05/22/we-want-a-school-the-ambition-of-a-village-northeast-cambodia/ I'd actually have preferred to reference his research project but didn't as this is hosted on the UWS web site so it might not appear truly independent. http://www.unitedworldschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Evaluating-the-impact-of-delivering-primary-eduacion-in-NE-Cambodia-Ian-Caswell.pdf

"They work in Myanmar" fact

http://is.muni.cz/th/411489/pedf_m/Diploma_Thesis.pdf That's a diploma thesis so I assume qualifies as independent.

"The charity twins each community school it develops with another school in more affluent parts of the world." fact

I added various links to third party school web sites to verify this. These are not schools owned by UWS, but schools UWS collaborates with.

I also added references to news articles that mention UWS third party school collaborations. I'm not really sure of any way of proving a link between two organisations other than the organisations themselves saying they are collaborating. I'm wondering if there is a lack of clarity in the article about schools UWS supports in Cambodia and Myanmar (not individually listed in the article) vs schools UWS collaborates with.

Or is the point that a link from Portsmouth grammar school or Kings Education saying they work with UWS is not independent enough, but a link from the Japan Times saying British School of Tokyo work with UWS is independent enough?

Many thanks for your help with this. My Wikipedia career is off to shaky start, but it's a start!

Tinghuber2015 (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Verification of facts: Because the editors on Wikipedia are not professional fact-checkers, we depend on those who are, namely the editors of newspaper, magazines, journals, books, etc. Therefore, most information should be cited to a published document with editorial oversight, not someone's personal web page or social media. Some very obvious information, such as the name of an organization or where its office is located can be sourced to the organization's web site if no other better source can be found. Everything else needs to be verified from these edited publications.
  • Notability: Wikipedia only has articles about well-known subjects that have been written about extensively in publications independent of the subject itself. To show that the United World Schools is a topic about which Wikipedia should have an article, the draft should include references to reports, reviews, magazine articles, etc., written by authors who have no conflict of interest in choosing this subject. That means that web sites of schools who have received support, press releases prepared by the UWS, articles or announcements of upcoming events contributed to newspapers by its employees, information posted on its web site, etc., are discounted because they are not independent.

In your draft you have two news reports which are good sources. The academic paper is useful, although a little weak, since the information there is sourced back to the UWS brochure. The information on school websites has been written to promote the schools themselves, and the facts in them are not provided by a neutral source. Here's an article with a small mention: http://www.hinckleytimes.net/news/local-news/higham-hill-headteacher-cambodia-charity-6461255 —Anne Delong (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:12:12, 17 March 2015 review of submission by 212.198.181.146


212.198.181.146 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello ,

tell me if i'm on the good way .... what is right or wrong or may be you can correct me Thank You

212.198.181.146 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:17:54, 17 March 2015 review of submission by 212.198.181.146


212.198.181.146 (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


11:17:54, 17 March 2015 review of submission by {{SUBST:REVISIONUSER}



Hello ,

tell me if i'm on the good way .... what is right or wrong or may be you can correct me or give me an advice Thank you

212.198.181.146 (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:50:11, 17 March 2015 review of submission by Lauren


Hello, I was wondering if you could do an article on Georgie Aldous? He's a YouTube personality from England. I'd create an article because I work for the Local Newspaper in which he will be featured in on Friday but I don't know how to.

He's feature on the below links:

Famous Birthdays [1] Wikitubia [2] YouTube [3] Twitter [4] Website [5]

He is very well known in our area of Great Yarmouth and surrounding Area's. I will have a notable link when I publish the Article on him around Friday.

If you search ' Georgie Aldous ' in Google you will find all relevant information about him.

Thanks for your time, Lauren. 86.16.65.102 (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:03:33, 17 March 2015 review of submission by Shyamw1


My article was denied for submission because the footnoting was incorrect. Can you please look at it and tell me what's wrong. I want to edit it but I don't know what I am doing wrong although I read "Referencing for Beginners". Thank you.

Shyamw1 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Shyamw1: You almost have it. The <ref>...</ref> code should go immediately after a particular statement that the source supports. Right now, they're at the end, which is not very helpful for checking each statement.
For example:
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia.<ref>...source 1...</ref> It is one of the most popular sites on the Web.<ref>...source 2...</ref>
This gives:
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia.[1] It is one of the most popular sites on the Web.[2]
Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:12:12, 17 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 86.131.108.169


I am trying to add a page about Reginald Waywell who was recently honored with a Doctorate in fine art by the Univeristy of Chester. He is a well known artist in Warrington Cheshire UK and has art work in the towns public gallery. He is very much worthy of a page on Wikipedia because he is the most well known artist in the North west of the UK. But you keep preventing the page because of referencing. I do not understand how to write HTML so have been struggling for three years now to get you to publish this article about Reginald Waywell. As I say I do not understand technical jargon so I am unable to even understand why my article keeps getting rejected.


86.131.108.169 (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/georgie-aldous.html
  2. ^ http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/Georgie_Aldous
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/user/ohitsgeorgie
  4. ^ http://www.twitter.com/GeorgieAldous
  5. ^ http://www.georgiesjournal.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=651820777"