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 Splaymudbcr (talk | contribs) at 13:51, 8 May 2017. 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


May 2

00:47:23, 2 May 2017 review of submission by Salomėja Nėris


Can someone please help me write the article on 'Fig Tree Hall, University of New South Wales' so that it is in line with Wikipedia's standards?

Here are some similar articles that exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombo_House,_University_of_New_South_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSW_Hall,_University_of_New_South_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basser_College,_University_of_New_South_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creston_College,_University_of_New_South_Wales

I just want a similar article for Fig Tree Hall, so far I feel like I've been unfairly targeted by Wikipedia editors. I don't think they understand that Fig Tree Hall is a separate organisation and needs its own page. Fig Tree Hall is one of the larger colleges on campus - if a college like Creston that only has 30 students can have a wikipedia page, Fig Tree Hall should also have this right.

The page was deleted earlier this year; previously it had existed since 2014 and was of a much worse standard than the one I had written. Again, I don't understand why editors are just targeting the Fig Tree Hall page. In terms of secondary sources I reference a book written about the Kensington Colleges and an essay published by University Colleges Australia. Many other college pages don't even use secondary sources, and they were accepted.

I am not trying to cause conflict or vandalism, I just want the Fig Tree Hall page published, and at the moment the absence of the Fig Tree Hall page makes Wikipedia appear discriminatory - Fig Tree Hall was originally designed to accommodate students of an Islamic background - to ignore the representation of these students in UNSW's history is unjust.

Salomėja Nėris (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Salomėja. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your question raises some substantial issues. But I think it helpful to note that no one is "targeting" your draft. Although it is true that the other residences have their own articles, this might simply be explained by a failure of other editors to recognize that, despite having the word "college" in their names, they are not actually separately-accredited institutions. Indeed, I'm not entirely sure that those other residences should have their own articles, either. I took a very quick look at some of them and it seems that they suffer the same problem as does yours -- a heavy reliance on primary sources and a dearth of substantial coverage of them by reliable independent sources. As just a thought, perhaps all of these articles (plus your draft) could be merged into UNSW Residential Communities. Such a merger would need to be discussed and, if you wish, you can start that discussion. If so, feel free to ask for information about how to do this. Also feel free to ask any other questions you might have about this response.

Comments from other reviewers here will be welcome. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:32:50, 2 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Yentlvereecke


I wanted to write an article about Critical Communication. My draft was reviewed and declined. It said that the article should be written by a neutral point of view and without any opinions. But I feel like the text is already objective. So how can I further improve it?

Yentlvereecke (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yentlvereecke. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I agree with the reviewer -- your draft reads like a sales pitch. But rather than explore that point in any detail, I'll note that the draft is unlikely to be accepted for publication even if it is re-written, because we already have an article on emergency communication systems. I encourage you to take a look at that already-existing article and see what you might do to improve it. If you have any questions about that article, feel free to open up a discussion on the Talk page of that article. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:45:08, 2 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Zoe izoza


Hi, I have created an article and was rejected by Wiki and I have changed the topic and content. However, i am not sure if my article has been resubmit to Wiki for approval yet as I cant find the "submit bottom" in my sandbox page My sandbox page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zoe_izoza/sandbox Kindly advise. If I have not yet submitted, kindly advise how to do so.

Zoe izoza (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zoe. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your draft has been submitted for review and is now located at Draft:Ashkan Mokhtarian. It will probably take a few weeks before a reviewer has a chance to look at it. If you're looking for something to do in the meantime, I invite you to visit our Community portal, where you'll find a list of articles that could use various sorts of assistance. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:44:49, 2 May 2017 review of submission by Therealclarkbrown


Hi, I recently created a new article for the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners. I have the permission of the company's executive director to create the page so I used some content from their website. I don't want to deal with the potential for speedy deletion nor do I want to go through the rigamarole of documenting his permission, so I removed any content that might appear to be copyrighted. Will that be enough for my article to be accepted for submission? Are there any tips you could share so that I could get this article accepted? Thanks! Therealclarkbrown (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clark. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Avoiding copyright infringement is an essential element of getting a draft published on Wikipedia. But it's not the only element. You still need to demonstrate that the organization has received in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources, and then begin to form an article by summarizing what has been said about the organization by those third-party sources. So far, you haven't even started on that task and, until you do, your draft will not be accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:58, 2 May 2017 review of submission by Greg Hullender


I thought I had two independent references to establish notability: the link to the Teleread article and the link the the page reporting that Rocket Stack Rank was a Hugo-Award nominee. Is more than that required, or did I just not make it clear enough in the article?

For comparison, I'm going for something like the page for Tangent Online, which is similar to Rocket Stack Rank

Separately, there's a conflict of interest in that I'm the co-editor for Rocket Stack Rank. Since it's entirely non-monetized (no fees, no ads, no affiliate codes, and no begging for money) I hope that isn't a problem, but I wanted to be up front about it. Should I put that info on the page somewhere?

Greg (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greg. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Fanzines have a tough time here on Wikipedia, because they are generally judged on the basis of the criteria for magazines (found here) and few fanzines can meet those criteria. Frankly, I'm not all that sure that even Tangent meets them, although they can at least point to a twenty-five year history. And being nominated for a Hugo is not at all the same as winning it. But even if your magazine does prove to be the winner, there is still the question of whether that counts as a "major" award. I noticed that the number of ballots that even bothered to select a "best fanzine" was only about a third of those who did so for "best novel", so it's reasonable to ask if even the Hugo voters believe that "best fanzine" is a major award. Aside from the criteria that are specific to magazines, you might try to establish notability under the "general" guidelines of WP:GNG. But here, your claim is based solely on the article on Teleread.com (the listing on the Hugo site doesn't count as substantial coverage of the magazine). One article from a website that does not appear to be itself particularly notable is probably not going to be enough to demonstrate satisfaction with WP:GNG.

I recognize that this is not the response that you were hoping to get. But as things stand right now, I don't see a compelling case for encyclopedic notability. But a different reviewer might feel differently, so I encourage you to take your best shot at it.

Regarding your conflict of interest, we thank you for declaring it. More information can be found at our conflict of interest guidelines.

I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

07:00:17, 3 May 2017 review of submission by Miracle101


Hi, I tried to submit a new entry on a school that I'm studying at (because I think it's a good school; the way they teach Chinese is so different from all my previous lessons at other schools ), but it was rejected on account that it's not a "secondary school". I don't really understand what it means because this is a school with courses that kids, teens and adults can take Chinese courses at. It's the same type of school as Hutong School, Easy Mandarin, etc.

Please enlighten me on how to submit an entry good enough for Wiki. I've read the guidelines posted but still don't get why my entry is rejected while other similar schools are accepted.

Thanks.

Miracle101 (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a secondary school, you need to specify that in the submission, as it is nowhere in there at the moment. In addition, your sources do not prove notability. You need multiple independent, reliable, third-party sources. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:05, 3 May 2017 review of submission by Nplusone


This article moves up the queue and then falls back down (i.e. from in the 600's to in the 800's). Is there something that I should be doing to help it reach review? 2606:A000:111C:C244:782D:8018:948C:997C (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The number that you are seeing this the total number of submissions pending review. Your article is still in the queue. Thanks! ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:06:31, 3 May 2017 review of submission by 121.222.108.252


It is taking a long time to get this approved as an article - any ideas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matthew_A._Murphy

121.222.108.252 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would ensure you are only using references that fit within the bounds of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and that each source is an example of in-depth coverage about the subject matter (not mentioning them in passing with only a mention or two, or talking about the subject in relation to something else) and not a primary source (these are anything affiliated with the subject matter, their own opinions quoted in other articles, etc). Once you have those as the only references on the page, I would write content reflecting the text of those sources, being careful to write neutrally and not copy the sources directly, with your source as an inline citation following each string of content. That would produce a page that is more in line with Wikipedia's requirements and easier to review for potential inclusion. Isingness (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

02:14:56, 4 May 2017 review of submission by Annerpino


I have submitted an article, and was unable to include relevant images. The image icon, dragging and dropping, and copy/pasting did not work. The image icon above, after where it says "Insert" added some code and text to the page, but I was unable to make additions around it. Thanks for your help and good work. Annerpino (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps! ProgrammingGeek talktome 11:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Annerpino: Hello, Anne. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Adding images can be a complex process. You can begin to learn about it by reading WP:Uploading images and WP:Picture tutorial. But before doing that, I note that your efforts will be better placed by addressing the more basic problems that I see with your submission. First, your submission is entirely unsourced and, second, it fails to conform with even the most basic elements of our Manual of Style. Your efforts might be better placed by first working through our WP:Tutorial. But even if you fix all of these problems, there will still be the fact that Wikipedia already has an article on the pineal gland and that we do not need a separate article on one detailed aspect of that body part. I encourage you to start a discussion on the talk page of that article (Talk:Pineal gland), with an aim to seeing how much of your material might usefully find a home there. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:29, 4 May 2017 review of submission by 5.49.140.74


Hi, What is wrong with this page? Each line has reliable sources (Variety, Imdb, Cineuropa, Alternative Press). The main movie directed by the director has already a Wikipedia page. He was selected to Cannes, Cesar, Rotterdam. Thank you for your time. Kazak


5.49.140.74 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The issue does not appear to be the quality of the sources themselves (although you should note that the user-generated IMDB site is definitely not considered reliable here on Wikipedia). Instead, the issue is more likely a question of the quality of the information that is being sourced. For example, citing the fact that someone was born in 1987 or that they later studied filmmaking does not confer notability on the subject, and this is true even if those mundane facts are being supported by high-quality sources. In order to demonstrate "notability" (in the sense that Wikipedia uses that word), you will need to demonstrate that the subject of your draft meets at least one of the criteria set forth in WP:NCREATIVE. I don't see how the subject of your draft meets any of them. And I think it fair to point out that the only reason the "main movie" has a Wikipedia article is because you created it yourself just a few weeks ago. I'm not sure that the film's article would survive a deletion nomination and, based on the director's current level of achievement, I have the same opinion of your draft. But I expect that you will disagree and so too, perhaps, will another reviewer. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the rejection notice at the top of the draft, the words "reliable" and "independent" are in blue, indicating that they are links to what Wikipedia means by them. Please read the pages they link to. IMDB, for example, is neither reliable nor independent, as its entries are written by their subjects. Maproom (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

05:04:04, 5 May 2017 review of submission by Zeeshantariq01

I am trying to publish my first article. But, I fail to include prominent independent reference. I need assistance in finding these references. Any help will be appreciated.Zeeshantariq01 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Zeeshantariq01 (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would recommend reviewing the following link - Wikipedia:Reliable sources - to help you determine what sources are seen as helpful in establishing notability. Good places to seek such sources can include your local library, university library servers, or web searches restricted to bringing up newspapers, books, or scholarly publications. Isingness (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Zeeshan. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Writing an article can be the most difficult of all tasks here on Wikipedia. And it seems that you made your task even more difficult by deciding to write an article without first assembling the sources. I regret that I am not particularly knowledgeable about the Pakistani textile industry, and so won't be able to help you locate sources. You might try asking the good folks over at our WikiProject on Pakistan. The Talk page for that project is at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:16:32, 5 May 2017 review of submission by Sowhatt65


Sowhatt65 (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs,

I have been creating a new article for weeks. Noone approved it as it seems it doesn't meet notability guidelines. I think that I added enough references and I see that similar articles of players that I could show to you have been approved. Please let me know how I can complete my work. Thanks in advance.

Hello, So. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Right now, there are about 300 submissions in the queue ahead of yours, so I think it will be at least another week until a reviewer looks at it. In the meantime, I noticed that several of your references are in the form of "bare URLs". When you give references in that format, you are telling readers (including reviewers) that, if they want to learn essential bibliographic detail such as who wrote an article or when/where it was published, they must leave Wikipedia and find out for themselves. An easy way to provide this essential detail is by using the {{cite web}} template. Also, see WP:CITE for the need to provide essential bibliographic detail. If you have any questions on how to use the citation template, fee free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

04:40:55, 6 May 2017 review of submission by Steve.houston

I have recently made one edit and attempted to create several new pages. The new pages are of little concern to me right now but the edit that I made to an existing page is of concern. I added one small paragraph to the Wikipedia page "Space rock" a sub-genre of rock and roll. I added an internationally recognized festival based in Cullman, Alabama in which Nik Turner (of Hawkwind) has performed. It is called "Space Rock Con". The paragraph was brief and completely factual. Even given the fact that, yes, the page needs work, why was this content deleted? Must everything in Wikipedia be subject to arbitrary scrutiny and given the razor at the whim of some anonymous editor? I am not the creator/curator of this festival, just someone who knows about it. It is significant and gives a sense of completeness to the Wikipedia page. Why did I say "arbitrary"? Because I myself have published scientific papers as well as a Master's thesis. I am currently am working on a dissertation. I know what the review process is all about! I have read through your editing process, followed all of the rules... And still: this? Please advise! By the way, I am not the only person who has complained about Wikipedia's review and editing process. It seems like it's time for reform! Please do not mar this wonderful resource with draconian procedures. Thank you. Steve.houston (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - While this is not the right venue for this query, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Your content was likely removed because you included no valid sources supporting your contention. In that way it is not too dissimilar to academic writing. The removal wasn't arbitrary; simply put, you didn't including any references to support the truthfulness of what you added. Isingness (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:08, 6 May 2017 review of submission by Shahab Khan (Actor)


Shahab Khan (Actor) (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


18:59:12, 6 May 2017 review of submission by Elisabet Stacy-Hurley

I submitted a rough draft of my article because I got lost in what to do next...a gentleman told me what to do next but I have been too busy with other things to get back to working on it since April 27. I made a tiny edit a few days ago, and got back today to try to work on some of what he told me. However, I changed one word first...and clicked on save....and then the entire article disappeared. Been trying to find it again but no luck.....I thought I could go back and work on footnotes, but could not because I am not sure of where the page break should be. I had looked at the Teahouse earlier but it seemed to be for people more advanced that I am. I tried the "Commons" but could not find my article. I am totally lost right now and really need help. I thought I could use the "visual editor" more easily than the Wiki text....but now I realize I'm out of my league. But, I won't give up...one way or another I want to work on this until it is accepted. Elisabet Stacy-Hurley 18:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Elisabet Stacy-Hurley 18:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk • contribs)

Reply - Hello User:Elisabet Stacy-Hurley. I have restored the article for you. In the future, you can do this yourself by clicking on "edit history", and then clicking on "undo" beside the edit you want to reverse. As per the content of the draft, I would recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which can help you understand how to best create Wikipedia entries. Also, in answer to the question on your user page, you can discover how to the contents box is created here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings. Good luck with your article! Isingness (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


May 7

Request on 03:42:55, 7 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Edit king2


I was trying to create a article about edit king but it says it was I was writing like I was writing on Facebook. What changes should I make?Peace out 03:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Edit king. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Writing about yourself is very much discouraged here on Wikipedia. You will have a much better chance of publishing an article if you choose a different topic. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:59:45, 7 May 2017 review of submission by PhalainaBelgium


Hello ! This is PhalainaBelgium better known as Phalaïna.

Just trying to set up our first page on Wikipedia, which is not easy !

Our first attempt was declined.

User:PhalainaBelgium

Phalaïna 11:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhalainaBelgium (talk • contribs)

Hello, Phalaina. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Writing about yourselves is very much discouraged here on Wikipedia. Before writing this, I took a look at your submission and declined it for your failure to demonstrate satisfaction of any of the criteria set forth in WP:MUSICBIO. I also left a comment about the potential copyright violation created by the re-use of material taken from an on-line page. If an article about your band is going to be published here, you will first need to demonstrate that the band has been the subject of in-depth coverage by sources that are reliable and independent of the band. And so far, you haven't done this. On different notes, you might want to read our conflict-of-interest guidelines, which address our concerns with groups that are writing about their own businesses. You should also read WP:ISU, which states our prohibition against choosing a user name that implies "shared use". If you decide to change to another user name, you can do so over at WP:RENAME. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:39, 7 May 2017 review of submission by Kent Westlund


This draft was declined on April 28th on the basis that references do not adequately show the subject's notability, with the comment that "Except a few news publications, I can't find other reliable sources to support such an article." But it seems to me that the references included demonstrate that the subject firm is receiving significant coverage in reliable independent sources (The Boston Globe, CBS news, Pacific Standard, etc). Any suggestions on how these references could be improved? Kent Westlund (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

Request on 04:24:53, 8 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Tabloc



Tabloc (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:49, 8 May 2017 review of submission by Semper liber


Semper liber (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I have changed my article name from Emil_Meek to magomed bibulatov by using the pressing (alt-shift-m) on the move button; however, the article name remain the same. There is the link. Please help and thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Meek

10:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

13:51:37, 8 May 2017 review of submission by Splaymudbcr


Splaymudbcr (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=779367207"