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 Soccerg7932 (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 23 September 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)		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


September 17

06:55:12, 17 September 2017 review of submission by Julientm


Julientm (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how can I cancel a review request for a new article? I obtained an informal review, and it was brought to my attention that this article does not meet the WK criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Julientm/sandbox I don't want to waste reviewer resources and need to cancel my request.Julientm (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Julientm. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Cancelling the request is done simply by removing the template that appeared in the article's code. I've done that for you. But a more-complete cancellation can be gotten by requesting that the entire page be deleted. You can do this by adding the template {{db-author}} (including both sets of curly brackets) to the top of your page. The request for deletion is normally processed within a few hours. Doing this will allow you to start a new article in your sandbox without retaining the old one in its page history. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:10:24, 17 September 2017 review of submission by Shui8


Shui8 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May i know why Param : Book by Samarpan page was deleted. I did not receive any notification on my user talk page either.

Thanks, Shui8 ````

Hi Shui8 it has not yet been deleted. The discussion about the possible deletion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carving a Sky. You need to participate in that discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:15:23, 17 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Neverland1972


Hi, my draft page on the subject of Laurent La Gamba was recently rejected (and I believe deleted) on the basis of copyright infringement. i am new to wikipedia and worked hard to ensure that the article complied with the relevant policies including citing & referencing sources. i would like to review the draft again to see why it is failing to meet the standards and remove any offending text. However I don't know how to access the draft page and I didn't keep a copy - as I didn't realise that it might be deleted (as it was only a DRAFT!!!!). Any assistance gratefully received as this is a lot of hours of work lost:(.

Neverland1972 (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neverland. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. And you're right -- your draft was deleted for copyright infringement and can not be accessed by you. But the person who reviewed the article was not the one who actually deleted it. The actual deletion was done by an administrator whose name and Talk page link can be found by clicking here. If you want to have the draft restored to you, that's the person you need to ask. But I don't want to give you false hope -- there is very little chance that a copyright infringement is going to be restored. And to avoid repeating the problem in the future, please be aware that providing attribution is not a defense against a charge of copyright infringement. It might be a defense against a charge of plagiarism, but that's not the same thing. Your next version of the draft certainly can reflect the material provided by the sources that you used, but that material must be substantially re-written in your own words. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NewYorkActuary, thanks for your response. i have contacted the administrator who deleted the page to see if they can restore or email a copy to me to be amended. Neverland1972 (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:50, 17 September 2017 review of submission by Lak2017


Lak2017 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JCC ('tea and biscuits'), Thank you for responding to my question about my draft article--I appreciate any help! But where can I find your response? I am unsure how to navigate the Wikipedia Help Desk as of yet. Thank you, Lak2017.

Hello, Lak. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The response from JCC has already been archived -- you can see it by clicking here. But when you read it, you'll see that JCC was just alerting you to the fact that another reviewer had already left comments on your draft. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:25, 17 September 2017 review of submission by Ungathering


I created an entry for Ralph Prator, the first president of California State University, Northridge, an article that was rejected for lack of notability. I'm not sure why it was rejected because I relied primarily on a published journalistic obituary from the Los Angeles Times, a secondary source that is reliable and is independent of the subject. Ralph Prator appears to meet the Wikipedia standard of notability. I would appreciate advice on this. Ungathering (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: A discussion has been started on the Draft's Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:25, 17 September 2017 review of submission by Rileycurry19

Hi, I've been informed that the page is being declined as there is no sufficient content for an article on its own. May I get more details regarding it? Rileycurry19 (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: A comment has been left on the Draft page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

11:29:48, 18 September 2017 review of submission by Justarandomuser1234


Hi there,

Having read the reason for declining this article it makes sense. However, just wondering if the event could be made as a page or if not would any further information be enough to create the page for the person themselves.

Rob Pope has run 365 marathons this year and is on local TV in America very frequently, I am unsure if this makes him more famous than notable however there is a lot of press surrounding him and this amazing endeavour he is continuing on. As a sports person he has also won the liverpool marathon and became Australian running champion as well as just this weekend winning the prefontaine run, is this a better avenue to produce an article?

Justarandomuser1234 (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justarandomuser1234: Hello, Randomuser. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I think the draft's reviewer made a good call in citing the "only one event" criterion when declining your draft, even if it was a close call. I'm also a bit troubled by how much of the sourcing is local coverage. True, you've shown that the coverage is coming from a lot of different localities, but that's simply the nature of this particular event. Most of that coverage is of the human-interest type, with the reporters essentially saying "Hey folks, an unusual person is in our locality!". But one of your sources -- the one from the BBC -- turns out to be more substantial than the others. And this leads me to wonder whether you might make a better case if you widened your search for sources. I'm thinking particularly of magazines that cater to the running community (I don't know the names of any, but I'm sure they exist). If you can show that two or three of them have published feature articles on the guy, then I think you'll be able to argue that the subject is considered significant in the field in which he operates.

On a less substantive note, I see that your draft fails to conform with some of our basic standards for creating articles. If you haven't already done so, you might want to work through our WP:Tutorial to learn more about these standards and practices. It also wouldn't hurt to look at some of our better articles on runners, such as Terry Fox or Stamata Revithi. Doing so will help you see how the basic techniques get used in practice. And it wouldn't hurt to format your references using the {{cite web}} template, which makes it easier to provide the essential bibliographic detail required under WP:CITE (and which you are currently not providing). Later today, I'll head back to your draft and format one of the references, which you can then use as an example for the rest.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:50:01, 18 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Giznej


The article was three times rejected by different reviewers saying that it should be included into "Multi-objective Optimization" or elsewhere. As I don't think this is a good idea I would like to know what to do in this case. The reason why "Draft:Multi-objective_linear_programming" should not be included into an existing article is twofold. On the one hand the topic is way too complex, my article is just a beginning and is planned to be extended. By the same reason, Linear Programming is an extra article and not a subsection of Mathematical Optimization. Another reason is that the solution concepts in Multi-objective Optimization are not always compatible with those of in Multi-objective optimization. Giznej (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:42, 18 September 2017 review of submission by Political Fill


Has the page i wrote been published? It should be under Laura Curran.

Political Fill (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Political Fill: no, your submission is waiting for review. The infobox has been fixed by Worldbruce, but you still need to address the notability issue that SwisterTwister gave as the reason for declining. You should fix this as soon as possible while waiting for another review. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:22, 18 September 2017 review of submission by WIREeditor

I believe I posed a query about the rejection of this page earlier this morning, but now can't see it in the list of today's questions. Is that simply because it's not been answered yet or does that mean that it's been lost (which may be because I failed to save it correctly) and I should try again? WIREeditor (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WIREeditor: It's good that you followed up on this. There's no record of you posting a question here (you can verify that by looking at your contribution history). My guess is that you somehow forgot to hit "save". So, yes, you should re-post your question. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:10, 18 September 2017 review of submission by WIREeditor

OK - since my follow up showed up and my first query didn't I thought I'd better do it again!

I had a proposed page on the English artist Walter Hoyle rejected on the grounds that 'This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. ... Relies entirely too much on primary sources and any third party coverage seems routine or minimal in terms of the subject'. However, I'd note the following points. (1) My first reference is to a chapter dedicated to Hoyle in a book published by the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, within the last two years. That seems neither routine nor minimal, and I'd note that the other 7 artists with chapters in that volume all have Wikipedia entries. (2) In the references and under 'external links' I cite the online, searchable catalogues of the V&A, the British Museum and the Bibliotheque National in Paris. Surely, for an artist, such e-catalogues count as significant secondary sources demonstrating notability? (3) In the body of the article I provided links to existing Wikipedia pages on the Great Bardfield Artists and St Mary Abchurch in London. Both of these make reference to Hoyle, and allowing those references to become links to additional information on the artist was a motivation for creating this page. That continues to seem like a good idea and a potential improvement to Wikipedia content. (4) I assume the mention in the comments of primary material relates to references to Exhibition Catalogues from the mid-twentieth century. Whether these are primary or secondary sources seems to me a moot point, but they do establish the contemporary importance of the artist. I can remove them if that helps, but it seems an odd thing to do.

I'd welcome suggestions for how my referencing could be improved, but I do feel that the stated reason for rejection fails against its own criteria and would ask that this is reconsidered. WIREeditor (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC) WIREeditor (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WIREeditor. After some cleanup, I accepted Walter Hoyle on the grounds that he meets WP:ARTIST criterion #4 (and arguably #3). Overall it's a fine start, but some passages could be improved. For example, it discusses him, his wife, and then "his children". Were they not "their children"? Did he have them with someone other than his wife? Some terms are used without sufficient explanation, such as "linocuts" and "lino". --Worldbruce (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:20, 18 September 2017 review of submission by Cozy1626

Hi, I submitted the article 8/23 and have been waiting for the review for more than 3 weeks. Is this still under review without any issues that I need to handle? Would it be possible to let me know when I can expect to receive an answer? Thank you for your effort. I look forward to seeing my article published soon.

Cozy1626 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This draft is the subject of a question asked on September 19. A response was given there. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:56:23, 18 September 2017 review of submission by Schin10301


Can you tell me or help me add this wiki url to google search engine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Abeles Schin10301 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs to either be reviewed or remain unreviewed for 90 days before it is indexed in search engines. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

Request on 04:08:54, 19 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Susanne mi


HI Wikipedia Team, I'm new in the community and would like to contribute a bit. I'm alumni of Glasgow University and Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU) and thought that a good starting point would be to help update their pages a bit. I noted that specifically for Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU) the German wikipedia pages are (probably naturally) more advanced. I also wanted to create a page of Professor Edeltraud Hanappi-Egger who is the Prinicpal of WU. She has a Wikipedia Page in German, and I thought I can simply translate the one in German to English. Nevertheless, my request was declined, due to "notability" issues.

I was wondering how a person can have a wikipedia page in German, but is not good enough for the English page? Also, as a Principal of one of the biggest and top-ranked Business School in Europe, I believe that the person is notable enough. Unfortunately, almost all sources of evidence are in German, which could be the problem here?

Would be great if you could help how to fix this issue.

Thank you!

Susanne mi (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Susanne mi. The draft has been accepted because the subject meets WP:PROF criterion 6. German-language sources are fine, although English ones are preferred if available.
In this case you chose your topic wisely, it's notable in both language versions of Wikipedia. For future reference, bear in mind that each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Also the existence of an article doesn't necessarily mean it should exist, it could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:53:45, 19 September 2017 review of submission by Selvakumarcs


Selvakumarcs (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi team Could you please let me know why my articale was rejected?

Hi Selvakumarcs. Draft:Maniyanoor cites no sources. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. The usual way to attribute information to reliable, published sources is with inline citations. Help:Referencing for beginners explains how to do this. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:13:54, 19 September 2017 review of submission by Bu11man7



Regarding Decline of Epi proColon - Methylated Septin 9 Test (Bullman7:SandBox)

This submission was Declined by Whispering on 9/19 for being an Advertisement. NOTE: the user Whispering has a tendency to 'automatically' decline most new submissions.

The posting of the following 4 similar and parallel one-of-a-kind diagnostic tests establish precedence that these scientific backed Wikipedia postings should be acceptable: Allomap - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlloMap_molecular_expression_testing Cologuard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitarget_stool_DNA_screening_test Oncotype Dx - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncotype_DX Oncotype Dx Colon Cancer Assay - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncotype_DX_Colon_Cancer_Assay

The Epi proColon Wikipedia submission was parallel to the format and information included it the aforementioned postings. The Epi proColon submission is backed by well referenced and cited - including information from the FDA, USPSTF, and several peer-reviewed articles.

Please overturn the Decline and Accept this submission.

Should changes need to be made, please indicate the specific sections and/or statements. Using the aforementioned examples, Epi proColon should be accepted 'as is'.

Thank you for the consideration and review.

Bu11man7

Accepted by Mr. Guye. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted as copyright infringement from the companies press release, plus G11, plus TOU violation, plus misrepresentation of US government positions. Please ping WT:MED for medical articles. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:59, 19 September 2017 review of submission by Political Fill


On July 27th I'm told my page is ok and I need to make some edits - which I did. I write back asking why the page hasn't published, and now I'm told by a different reviewer that my page isn't meeting the mark. Please let me know what is going on. I've been going back and fourth ont he creation of this page for nearly two months and would like to see it published.


Political Fill (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Political Fill. I can see how you might feel that lunatics have taken over the asylum. What you have encountered is to some extent the nature of Wikipedia, where everyone is a volunteer and no one is in charge. Editors sometimes disagree. When that happens we try to reach consensus. The best way to do this is to attempt to address the issues that the second reviewer raised.
Can you add coverage from beyond Long Island, such as this article in The New York Times?
Can you make the draft less like an elect-Curran direct mail piece? The draft makes it appear that no one has ever publicly disagreed with her or criticized her positions, which is remarkable in politics. Avoid a campaign-handout style. Instead of just saying she advocated for police to be equipped with cameras, explain what she did or didn't achieve and what tradeoffs she made, such as "but was unable to overcome opposition from those with privacy concerns" or "succeeded in getting 20% of the force equipped with cameras at the cost of reducing the number of officers on the street by three" or whatever is the case.
You have made no contributions to Wikipedia other than creating this draft. Being a single-purpose account eager to get a political bio published before an election raises concerns that you may have a conflict of interest, and an undisclosed one at that. If you do, you may find it impossible to edit objectively enough to produce an acceptable article on the topic. That may not be a bad thing for you. Most new editors underestimate the Law of unintended consequences.
As a final note, citing seven sources to prove four endorsements is WP:CITEKILL. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:52, 19 September 2017 review of submission by Cozy1626

Hi, Thanks for reviewing the article. I was informed that it was declined after 3 weeks since I submitted. I'd like to revise it based on your advice. Would you please let me know what exactly were considered as promotional materials, or what sources are unreliable among the references?

Also, according to the notice in the pink box, if I intend to fix it, I should remove the notice. Would posting this message here remove the notice? Or what do I have to do to continue to work on it? Thanks.

Cozy1626 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cozy1626: Hello, Cozy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. To answer your first question, you (as creator of the Draft) may not remove the notice. I see that you have already taken the first step in saving the draft from immediate deletion -- you have posted a message on the draft's Talk page which will be read by the administrator who will make the decision on whether to delete or not. As for continuing to work on it -- yes, you are free to do so. If you feel that further work will improve the chances of saving the draft from immediate deletion, feel free to do that work. But I recognize that you are not quite sure what changes ought to be made. And so, let me suggest an additional course of action. If you go back to the draft and click on the "View history" tab, you'll find out which person actually placed the notice (it should be a name at or near the top of the list of edits). Then, click that person's "talk" link and ask them the same question that you've asked us here. Because they're the one who placed the notice, they are the one in the best position to tell you exactly what gave them concern. Finally, and before getting a response, go back to the draft's Talk page and add a new paragraph to your statement, letting the administrator know that you have sought feedback from the person who placed the deletion notice and that you are awaiting a response. I don't know whether that will save the draft, but it will let the administrator know that you are actively taking steps to address the problem. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:47:41, 19 September 2017 review of submission by 2603:3024:1528:2B00:E1C0:4083:85E2:2550



Hello, Can someone please let me know why the edits were declined? This is very similar to other already approved pages for people in the same industry - bodybuilding (Phil Heath, Jay Cutler) and trainers (Gunnar Peterson). I am happy to make edits, but I don't see any issue with how it is presented currently. Thank you. (nick erbe for Hany Rambod)

Hello Nick Erbe. Your edits to Draft:Hany Rambod make it appear as if you are being paid. Paid promotion is an especially egregious type of conflict of interest (COI).
If you are receiving or expect to receive money for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post the disclosure at Draft talk:Hany Rambod. The template {{connected contributor (paid)}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=InsertName|U1-employer=InsertName|U1-client=InsertName|U1-otherlinks=InsertAffiliations}}.
If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being paid, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

03:05:52, 20 September 2017 review of submission by The wicked ape


It's simple. I submitted a page - Username the wicked ape. The page is called The Pineapples. I submitted it from the sandbox. The title says "Draft: The Pineapples." I want to make sure the final title that comes up in search is The Pineapples. Not Draft: The Pineapples.

Thank you,

Michael The wicked ape (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The wicked ape. The leading "Draft:" in the name of the page identifies a namespace, other than the main article space, where the page is located. If Draft: The Pineapples is accepted for publication, it will be moved to the main article space, where the page name will not begin with "Draft:". --Worldbruce (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:06:33, 20 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.80.215.57


My page draft has been rejected due to not having reliable sources. I'd like to know which of my sources are not seen as reliable and why. He's a very accredited person and I would like some guidance on the type of sources I need.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_L._Elder

Thank you,

Ashley 24.80.215.57 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24.80.215.57 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ashley. It was not declined because some of the sources are unreliable, but because there are some statements in the draft that the reviewer felt should be backed up by reliable sources but which cite no sources. The entire "Early life" and "Affiliations" sections, for example, cite no sources.
Also note that Wikipedia does not normally list an academic's journal articles, only their books. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles for other ways to improve the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:41:15, 20 September 2017 review of submission by AndyBPA


Hi, I am Andy Wiltshire from BulletProof - the developer of the game Brutes.io. My page has been rejected twice, apparently for unreliable references - but that information doesn't tell me how I need to improve it. I'm the developer of the game, the game is released and playable, what else do you need to know? I based my page off this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_of_Ages_II:_Bigger_%26_Boulder - which as far as I can see basically has the same sort of info - In fact I list all links to everything to do with the game. So what do I actually need to do, in detail, to get my page approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brutes.io Thanks in advance...

AndyBPA (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyBPA: Hello, Andy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response.

Regarding the existence of other pages that have similar sourcing problems, Wikipedia has more than five million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they shouldn't. But the fact they do exist just means that someone should consider deleting them -- it does not mean that we should lower the bar for accepting future articles.

The way to improve your chances of getting your article on Wikipedia is to demonstrate that this not-yet-released video game has been the subject of "significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer". That quote is taken from our notability guide for video games, which will provide you with more detail. Right now, the only source material that is not directly related to the game (i.e., developer or publisher) is the brief capsule review from AlphaBetaGamer (and it isn't all that clear to me that this is a reliable authoritative source anyway). I don't know which particular additional sources might prove helpful to you, but I do know that you need to do a better job of finding those additional sources.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Hiya. "not-yet-released video game" - ummm, the game is very released and very playable... https://brutes.io | It was also accepted on Gamepedia: https://brutesio.gamepedia.com/Brutes.io_Wiki | And has an IndieDB page: http://www.indiedb.com/games/brutesio - what more could you need?
@AndyBPA: Thanks for following up on this. Sorry about the confusion regarding release status. I guess I was misled by the statement in the draft that release was "slated for October 2017". But as for the main point of your follow-up -- the draft still does not demonstrate that the game has been the subject of "significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer". The new references you've added -- your "official Wiki" and the listing at IndieDB -- don't make that demonstration. I still don't see how you've satisfied our notability guide for video games. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:28:13, 20 September 2017 review of submission by The wicked ape


The page was denied because of "inadequate referencing." I've looked at other music pages, for example MV & EE and some more obscure topics, and there is no referencing. So, the page we've submitted has links to reviews, articles and lists which support all the statements of fact in the page. I need to know more specifically what type of reference is needed. It simply says the subject isn't notable. I think it is. Is there an example of a reference which can show notability? The wicked ape (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The wicked ape: Hello, Wicked Ape. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response.

I don't know if this band is notable, but I do know that you've done a poor job of demonstrating it. Other than that unnecessary reference to Carlos Castaneda, all of your references are simply "NAME OF NEWSPAPER, DATE". This falls far short of providing the essential bibliographic detail required under WP:CITE. Who wrote these referenced sources? What pages are they on? And what are they? Are they album reviews? Interviews? Ads? Feature articles? You've given the reviewers no basis for knowing and it isn't surprising that they found the article's referencing to be inadequate. There's also a second problem -- there seems to have been little effort made to present the information in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Instead, you've presented us with something that appears to have been written by a fan of the band. Even if the sourcing issues are fixed, this draft would still face difficulties for its overly promotional tone.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:02:25, 20 September 2017 review of submission by Nhpackard


Hi.

I am patiently waiting for any issues on the McCaskill article (submitted over 3 weeks ago). John McCaskill is a historically important scientific figure of significant renown, so I don't think there should be a problem.

I have a problem with the picture I uploaded of him. It has now been removed, with the cited problem being "Lack of licensing information". I was pretty careful to follow instructions for including the copyright information, and I obtained a letter from the copyright holder conforming to instructions (below), taken pretty much straight from your templates. But I have the impression that perhaps there is something wrong with the letter? I would appreciate any clues for how to proceed.

Best regards,

Norman Packard

nhpackard@mac.com


Begin forwarded message:

From: Nerissa Escanlar <nescanlar@gmail.com> Subject: John McCaskill Image ausage Date: August 14, 2017 at 4:29:05 PM PDT To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Cc: Norman Packard <n@protolife.com>


I hereby affirm that I, Nerissa Escanlar, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of John_McCaskill.jpg, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Nerissa Escanlar

Copyright Holder

August 13, 2017


Nhpackard (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nhpackard. There may be nothing to worry about. The backlog at Commons:OTRS is approaching two months, so they may not have processed the email yet. In that case, when they do reach the email, if everything is in order they should restore the deleted file. If you're concerned that there many have been a problem with the letter, you can contact them at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


September 21

00:29:37, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Jeanlucbonaparte


Hi, I tried to write a page for the artist Farrah Karapetian, and hope to use this experience to better write other pages in the future. Anyway, the page was rejected for the following reason:

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

I thought I had had plenty of references, but I have since edited it to make those references even clearer, and certainly all of the references are published, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject... They are some of the world's leading art publications. Can I get some clarification about what is wrong with the entry so I can better edit it? Thank you.

Jeanlucbonaparte (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeanlucbonaparte: I've left a detailed comment on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thank you very much; that's really clear. I think I've made the necessary changes. Jeanlucbonaparte (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Jeanlucbonaparte[reply]

04:00:42, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Annonymous4


I’m requesting a re-review for Manu Rios, as I have provided enough information about this person, he is really famous on social media, and is an actor. If you would like Edit please do so, thanks in advance.

Hi Annonymous4. I've removed the sources that lack the characteristics of reliable sources, and what was sourced to them. Not much is left, and nothing independent. The subject does not appear to be suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for marketing, public relations, or self-promotion. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:27:35, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Annonymous4


Betttr sources like what, the links I’ve provided talk clearly about this person and his acting career. Please if you would like to make any edits to this Wikipedia page do so.

@Annonymous4: Examples of reliable sources for news include: El País, El Mundo, and ABC. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources for resources that wikipedians have found useful in writing about film, and, by extension, about actors. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:01:36, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Dippyreader

I submitted an article for creation on Wikipedia. However, my article was not created. Can you please help me out with the process and tell me the mistakes that I made, or the edits I need to make. Dippyreader (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submitted draft reads like an advertisement. Please read the policies linked at the top of your draft. JTP (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:12:25, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Rpfergu

My article was declined because it sounded too much like an advertisement. Please give me some advice on what language to remove to make it sound more neutral. Rpfergu (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rpfergu. Before focusing on language, I suggest you heed the second sentence of the decline, "Encyclopedia articles ... should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." The draft relies almost entirely on information from the magazine itself. The draft stands no chance of acceptance unless the topic is covered at some depth in multiple, arms length, reliable sources. You may find Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:37, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Adarrah


I did not expect an immediate response to my submission so that is the reason I am responding at this much later date.

I am perplexed by Wikipedia’s rejection of my article on Helen and Frank Schreider. The rationale for the rejection states as follows:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. 

The comment the reviewer left was:

Their own works cannot be considered as independent references for them. We need more reliable sources independent of the subject for this to pass

In checking Wikipedia standards, I note this: Sources need to be independent of the subject of the article, with a reputation for fact-checking and oversight, because sources close to the subject might naturally be biased or promotional.

Also Wikipedia states that articles should be based on reliable, published sources, and that self-published articles or books are not reliable sources.

I want it noted that none of the publications by the Schreiders were self-published. All their articles were published by National Geographic and Saturday Evening Post and their books were published by Doubleday, Coward-McCann and National Geographic. Other references to them are from Los Angeles Times, New York Times, United States Information Agency, and the Explorers Club. How can any of these sources be considered unreliable? If these publishers can’t be considered as “reliable sources,” then I really have cause to be perplexed.

Specifically, with respect to this statement: Sources need to be independent of the subject of the article, with a reputation for fact-checking and oversight, because sources close to the subject might naturally be biased or promotional.

Surely National Geographic, Doubleday and the other publishers of the works of the Schreiders have a “reputation for fact-checking and oversight.” And could all these publishers be accused of being “biased or promotional” because they published material by the Schreiders?

Does this mean that if a bio or a story about Hemingway was submitted, his own published books and his publishers could not be considered as reliable sources? I don’t understand this. One of my friends, a retired professor and the author of numerous academic articles and several books is certain that the article as written and documented would meet the standards of an academic journal and would be accepted for publication; why is it not acceptable in Wikipedia?

I would like to have my submission reconsidered.

Hi Adarrah. There are two different concepts in play here, reliable sources, and notability.
If their book 20,000 Miles South, published by a reputable publisher, says that Frank wrote the first three chapters during the journey back, then it's a reliable source for the statement "During the journey back, Frank wrote the first three chapters of their book 20,000 Miles South, which Doubleday published in 1957." (You should, however, state on what page that fact can be found. The point of the citation is to facilitate verification.)
Demonstrating that a subject is notable requires reliable sources, but being reliable is not sufficient. To demonstrate notability the sources must also be independent of the subject and of each other. In other words, notability is not proven by things the Schreiders wrote, but by what other people wrote (in reliable sources) about them and their writing. The bulk of any article should be based on such sources, although non-independent reliable sources may be used to a lesser degree for facts about which there is no controversy.
If no one had ever written about Hemingway and his oeuvre, Wikipedia would not consider him notable. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We're not reading Hemingway and deciding whether or not he's an important author, we're summarizing what scholars have written about Hemingway's life and writing.
I think the reviewer is saying that the four cited sources not written by the Schreiders are not enough to demonstrate notability. One could argue that point, but they certainly are not enough to justify an article of this length. Try to find additional arms length reliable sources. Also, it isn't clear where most of the content in the draft came from. Not until the end of the sixth paragraph is there an inline citation, and it's another six paragraphs before the second citation. You aren't required to have a citation for every sentence, but a greater density of citations is expected, especially when one of the subjects is still alive (because Wikipedia has stricter rules for articles about living people). --Worldbruce (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:52:22, 21 September 2017 review of submission by Pooja Thakur (Ptk)


Pooja Thakur (Ptk) (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I want to create my page , please accept request. thank you[reply]

@Pooja Thakur (Ptk): Hello, Pooja. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Writing an autobiiography on Wikipedia is something that we do not encourage (see WP:AUTO for the reasons why we take this position). But if you continue to seek to publish your own autobiography, keep in mind that it will never be accepted in its current form, because it contains no references whatsoever. You need to find reliable sources that have talked about you in some significant way. You also will need to show that you have achieved encyclopedic notability. For actors and actresses, this means meeting the criteria set forth at WP:NACTOR. As you look for sources that talk about you, it will be helpful to keep in mind which particular criterion at NACTOR you feel you've met, so that you can place extra effort in finding those sources that best support your claim. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

00:37:27, 22 September 2017 review of submission by Avciercan


Avciercan (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01:31:33, 22 September 2017 review of submission by J1836


Hello,

I am contacting you because I wrote an article about a very important individual in the movement of standing rock, and I would like to know the status of the review.

I hope you are well, and thank you for your time.


J1836 (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J1836. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. Given the current backlog, it probably will be reviewed in the next two weeks. From a cursory reading, I think it is unlikely to be accepted in its current form. While you wait, I suggest you try to improve it, using Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Writing better articles as your guides. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:47:22, 22 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jahangir.baigal


The article that I had Submited for a review has been declined claiming that it has not a neutral tone. Yes it has a neutral tone, but the person's contributions are basically in a language which it self needs an identity. The article is praising his contributions. And one more thing he belongs to a remote area, so lack of technology resulted in lack of information related to the person on internet. I have refered to the available evidences. I request you to consider my Case and resolve it as soon as possible. Thanking You


Jahangir.baigal (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jahangir.baigal. Based on the cited sources, the subject does not appear to be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. You may wish to explore alternative outlets that have different inclusion criteria than Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:19:10, 22 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Pavel.3


Hello, we have tried many times to create an article for Wikipedia. After many revisions we have learnt that the main issue right now is our sources. That they are not strong enough as the subject is only a mention in the article or more advertisement driven. As there are a lack of citable resources out there at the moment, I am assuming the best thing for us to do is wait till there are more reliable sources available for our submission. Would that be correct? Or, is there something else we should do?

Thanks in advance!

Pavel.3 (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavel.3. Waiting until reliable sources are available is a good plan. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:55, 22 September 2017 review of submission by The listener90


The listener90 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Why was my recent created page for "Baconsale" turned down, and what could I do to get it created?

Hi The listener90. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate compendium of everything. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics — those that have garnered significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by in depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If no reliable arms-length sources can be found on a topic, then there should not be an article dedicated to it.
Draft:Baconsale was declined because it cites no independent sources (no sources at all, in fact). To get it created, you could rewrite it using books and articles that have been written about Baconsale. If you can't find any, wait a few years; maybe some will be written. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With it being a podcast, I highly doubt someone would be writing a book about it. Is their website and over 120 episodes over 3 years not enough of a source? I'm not trying to indiscriminately add content and I'm not involved with the show. They have garnered quite the following in the West, namely Utah, and I think they have become fairly culturally significant in their time producing the podcast. They are a part of a network of podcasts as well that has a site and bio on them. If I have two websites cited for them would that be enough to get this article created?

@The listener90: By definition, nothing they produced can demonstrate their notability. Only reliable, independent sources - ones that have no vested interest in the topic - can prove notability. A podcast network, of which they are a member, is unlikely to be regarded as an arms-length source, but you're welcome to add sources and resubmit. If they're as culturally significant as you suggest, eventually someone will write articles about them in reliable sources such as academic journals, magazines, and newspapers.
Also, when you post on discussion pages please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:07, 22 September 2017 review of submission by Meenakshi Rana

Draft:Jupiter_in_Astrology : May I know why my article has rejected. What reason? or changes i need to perform before re-submission. Meenakshi Rana (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:52, 22 September 2017 review of submission by Rpfergu


Please give me advice on what I need to do to get this article through. My magazine is notable as it is the first of its kind (first magazine in stores to have the word "Vegan" in the title; first magazine in history to combine vegan/vegetarian culture with fitness/bodybuilding). I looked at pages for these other magazines for guidance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VegNews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkesworld_Magazine. Please note that the article I wrote has as many references as the article for VegNews, and the same proportion of independent references.

September 23

04:10:28, 23 September 2017 review of submission by Imranspatel



Dear Sir

I am the grandson of the person of whom I am writing this details. Please help me how I can verify the content as the person of whom I had written has died long long back

11:07:47, 23 September 2017 review of submission by J3010daahfuq


The name Bavarians is taken for 2 different concepts(historic tribe and the today's people of bavaria), that needs to be seperated(I explained this more detailed in the talk page of Bavarians). This problem doesn't exist in the german wiki, because there are two distinct names for these 2 concepts("Bayern" for the people of Bavaria and "Baiern" for the tribe), whereas in english both concepts are called "Bavarians". I now wanted to improve(or rather create) the article Bavarii(which links to the article Bavarians), for the tribe, and make a disambiguation page to seperate them accordingly. Now is the question, how the progress this succesfully. first disambiguation page or first the article(I would have to delete the link to the current page). respectively if it would be better to make this two seperate topics in the existing article(which I would strongly oppose, however) J3010daahfuq (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:26:04, 23 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Soccerg7932


Hi, I am having trouble getting my article published. I cannot find sources on the internet to verify the Cortland information because they are printed articles from newspapers with no online sources. I can take pictures of the articles and send those to you if that works? Thanks, Alyssa

Soccerg7932 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=802042159"