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 Benonaji (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 13 October 2017 (→16:27:30, 13 October 2017 review of submission by Benonaji). 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


October 7

00:18:26, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Drakside

Hello! I had requested this Wikipedia page for review but unfortunately was declined. I’ve provided links where talk clearly about this person’s popularity. This person is very known by his social media accounts and ,as well, has appeared in some tv shows. I’ve read about Wikipedia guidelines and I think this person is eligible to have a Wikipedia article. I would like to get help on what type/specific websites can be used for it to be accepted. Please help me get this article published on Wikipedia! Thanks in advance! -Drakside

Drakside (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drakside: As I explained to Annonymous4 a couple weeks ago, examples of reliable sources for entertainment 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.
The sort of sources that do not demonstrate notability are the subject's website, their social sites (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube etc.), user-generated content (IMDb, Ancestry.com, wikis), and sources with no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. In other words, the sources that Draft:Jan Doblado and Draft:Manu Rios cite. If no one can come up with in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources, then neither draft stands any chance of being accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:20:53, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Nmmoore

How do I link material in the External Links section? I can not find it. Thanks! Nmmoore (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nmmoore: The "External links" section is one you can create below the "References" section. See WP:ELCITE. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:00:20, 7 October 2017 review of submission by OxanaSelekhova

14:06:22, 7 October 2017 review of submission by OxanaSelekhova

{{Lafc|username=OxanaSelekhova|ts=14:02:14, 7 October 2017|link=

Draft:'LATO, or Liquidity Asset Token --> Hello, I created an article which was rejected 3 times now based on referencing and i need your help please.

  • Comment: The only good reference is to a 'Forward contract', and the topic already exists in Wikipedia. Do not resubmit. David.moreno72 09:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

David.moreno72 wrote to me that The references have to be about the topic, not something else.

When I looked into the article again, I realised that I input all articles about the subject into -External links instead. If I try to re-arrange and let’s say, link LATo related articles into referenecing, like I did to number 3 and 5 (References) does it look better?

[3]Will Blockchain Ignite Fractional Ownership Market For Homes? [4]Cryptocurrency Exchanges Are Increasingly Roiled by Hackings and Chaos [5]LAToken Implements Blockchain to Sell Fractions of Any Assets – From Real Estate to Art Objects.

  • I need your opinion if you find references 3 and 5 appropriate?

I took it from external links and linked it to referencing, is it better? Can I re-submit? David.moreno72 wrote to me - Do NOT resubmit, Is it a final don't or it can be impoved ?

Thank you ! I very much appreciate your help… OS 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC) OxanaSelekhova

Hi OxanaSelekhova. Pages under www.forbes.com/sites that are written by contributors (rather than Forbes staff) are not the same as Forbes magazine. They are click-bait blogs with little or no editorial oversight. They are not reliable sources for facts, only for the opinion of the author. So the webpage Will Blockchain Ignite Fractional Ownership Market For Homes? should not be used as a reference, and does not help establish notability. The Fortune article is a reliable source, but does not mention LATO or Liquidity Asset Token, so it does nothing to establish the notability of 'LATO, or Liquidity Asset Token.
Based on the cited sources and my own searches, I have to agree with reviewer David.moreno72 that this topic is not a suitable one for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for marketing, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:39, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Bappi847564

15:38:39, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Bappi847564


My draft has reliable source. Why my article has declined Bappi847564 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Bappi847564 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:37, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah


I have a number of comments to make on latest assessment of my submission on Helen and Frank Schreider.

First of all, I have fully revised the original submission and have now included a number of additional sources, addressing both notability and reliable sources, expanding the footnotes from 16 to 41.

With respect to the notability of Helen and Frank Schreider, I note that what is required is “objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.” I wish to point out that both Worldbruce and the previous reviewer ignored the significance of the last paragraph and its footnote (last paragraph in the original submission but now the 4th last paragraph in the revision), followed by the current footnote 37. To simplify matters, this is the paragraph: “Frank had been inducted as a member of the Explorers Club in 1956 but Helen wasn’t since this was a club for men only. Eventually, women were also accepted but it wasn’t until 2015 – 59 years later – that Helen finally caught up with Frank, becoming a Fellow National, not just a Member of the Explorers Club.[37] “ What had been ignored is the significance of the fact that both Helen and Frank had been in inducted into the Explorers Club, Frank as Member and Helen as Fellow National – and this is listed in their bios.

The Explorers Club is a prestigious body that includes every significant explorer in the world. This includes Robert E. Peary & Matthew Henson (first to the North Pole, 1909), Roald Amundsen (first to the South Pole, 1927), Sir Edmund Hillary (first to the summit of Mt. Everest, 1953), Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin & Michael Collins (first to the surface of the Moon, 1969).

By being elected as members of the Explorers Club, Helen and Frank were put in the same league and category as the above-mentioned explorers and all other major explorers in the world. If this isn’t “objective evidence” of “notability” as explorers, what else could be better? What else should be required for them to gain “verifiable” evidence of their notability? Although other references pale in acclaim compared to the recognition by the Explorers Club, I have now included other references as well.

Also with respect to this matter, there is this point: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. The Explorers Club is of such high quality that multiple sources may not be required in this instance, but I have included others.

For example, the fact that before they had been become members of the Explorers Club, Dr. Melville Bell Grosvenor, the head of National Geographic at that time, hired Helen and Frank Schreider to work for the magazine on the basis of their exploration abilities exhibited on their first major trip. I have cited this in the revised submission. Surely this is additional proof of their “notability” as explorers.

The article that I cite in current footnote #37 is from the Explorers Log (Vol. 47, No. 4, 2015). It explains that although Frank was inducted into the Club in 1956, Helen wasn’t because at that time this was a club for men only. It was only in 2015 – 59 years later – that the oversight of not including Helen was rectified and she was made a Fellow National. To make amends, Fannya Rose, a former past president of the Club, flew from New York to Santa Fe to present to Helen in person a framed Fellow National diploma at a surprise party. In my revision I did not include this point but I am wondering if this fact should be included, although it is mentioned in the article listed in footnote #37. Please advise.

A further matter that contributes to Helen’s notability is that in 1976 she received the Presidential Design Award from President Ford for her work as a museum designer for the exhibit that she had created at the Statute of Liberty for its bicentennial celebration. This indicates notability in an area other than exploration. It seems that you haven’t considered this to be significant.

After one of their journeys they had been interviewed at 60 Minutes, an hour-long feature on them. Also Helen had been a guest on either What’s My Line or To Tell the Truth (TV shows in the 50s)…she can’t recall which one. So far I have been unable to get a response to my inquires about these shows. Would this now be necessary?

Aside from this Helen has a collection of articles that were published on their travels and exploration in Time, the Christian Science Monitor and other publications. If anything further would be required to add to the substance of their “notability” I could include some of these.

As a final point I’d like to note that I had occasion to use a hyperlink for a person’s name to refer readers to a source, but nowhere in Wikipedia resources was I able to find the procedure for doing this. I created the hyperlink in my draft but this was removed when I entered the text. Ironically, throughout your instructions hyperlinks are used extensively, but you don’t provide the instructions on how to do this. I wound up using a footnote instead.

I hope that my revision now meets your required standards for notability and reliable sources.


Adarrah (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adarrah. As you can see I have moved your draft article from your sandbox to Draft:Helen and Frank Schreider, as that is the normal place for AfC submissions. I'll have a closer look tomorrow and get back to you here, but my first impression is that they are notable and you just need some extra/improved sourcing which is fairly easy to find, e.g. this lengthy obituary in the New York Times or this lengthy review of their book 20 Thousand Miles South, also in the New York Times. In other words, you need more independent sources which are about the Schreiders and their work, not sources by them, although they can be useful for filling in some details. Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:01, 7 October 2017 review of submission by Human Venue


The wide ranging references for Alan Read (Writer) include leading publishers, peer-reviewed journals, the BBC, institutional web sites with stringent quality control and verifiable sources from notable figures in the disciplinary field. The subject of the entry happens to be a Professor at an established University, but as the entry makes clear is more significantly a widely published writer with a curatorial history at internationally significant venues such as the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, is involved in public, academic and curatorial events of international note, and has a history of involvement in influential artistic practice. The question of Notability is indeed a critical one and one that the subject fulfils in both the disciplinary field in question (Theatre and Performance Studies) but also in the wider international sphere of curation and artistic practice. A further review taking these criteria into account would be appreciated. Human Venue (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Human Venue The draft suffers severely from a couple forms of citation overkill. Many of the references only prove that a person or organization exists, they fail to show any connection between them and Read. Remove all such chaff to help expose the wheat. When there are multiple, presumably self-written, biographical profiles of a person (such as on the websites of employers, publishers, etc.), there is usually no need to reference each one. Cite the most recent or most complete one, and cite older ones only if they add some unique detail. A good source, well used, will support content in several different places in a well-written article. If each source is cited exactly once, the author is probably doing something wrong. See Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once for the best way to cite a source multiple times.
Be more discriminating as you summarize his life. That will help make what he is notable for stand out. Be particularly ruthless in trimming long lists of people and organizations, especially ones that are not notable themselves, and those whose connection with Read is not covered by third-party sources.
The draft must not contain original research. Statements such as, "what Susannah Clapp of The Observer has described as 'Tompkinsesque' characteristics of theatrical design, could be said to share significant features with Read's long running concerns ..." cannot be made just because the similarity is apparent to you. Clapp doesn't refer to Read, so such a statement must be supported by a reliable published source that has analyzed what Clapp and Read wrote, and has observed substantial similarity between the two. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

17:41:17, 8 October 2017 review of submission by Ogodej


I have completed the references, now the band's wiki page is accessible in English as well. The band in question is a widely known one, we could even call them famous. Several international newspapers have published interviews with them. They are about to go on tours with many famous musicians, and they are valued and acknowledged by professional blues musicians and experts (see reflist). Claims and facts in the article are well supported by the references and the website of the band (see ref. 1). I do not see which facts are the ones that are not supported appropriately by the references, but I am happy to add the links if required. All the best: Ogodej (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ogodej: I see that Draft:Mojo WorKings still cites no sources. There's a list of references at the end of the draft, but none of them is cited within the draft in support of the statements there. Moreover, most of the references are not independent of the subject, and so would do nothing to vouch for the subject's notability even if they were cited. Maproom (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom: The provided references are all independent, high quality, international journals. These prove all the claims made in the article. I cannot point to any facts that is not supported at least by one of the provided references. The band is famous, they are going on a European tour in the upcoming weeks. Based on the fact that the uploaded article was rejected only a few seconds after it had been uploaded, I only can conclude that it has not been thoroughly inspected and read. As a result, I cannot take the inspection procedure seriously. I will stick to my opinion even if after all this you would take an actual look at the atricle and would cherry pick some details that you do not like. I do not wish to discuss the topic any further. :( All the best: Ogodej (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is to MoJo's own web site, and so not independent. The second is about an interview with band members, so also not independent. And none of the references is cited. No statement in the article is followed by a citation of a supporting reference. Maproom (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:58:31, 8 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Zacharymoskow


I need help getting this page up and running. The news links are at the bottom of the page labeled news.


Zacharymoskow (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zacharymoskow. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch article is a solid start, but the Montco Today piece is merely a recap of it, and so doesn't count as a second source. As for the other two sources, when evaluating notability, reviewers may discount student publications such as Student Life because they're produced by people still learning their trade and because they have a limited circulation and audience. To demonstrate the notability of an organization, at least one regional, statewide, national, or international source is necessary to show that the organization is not of purely local interest.
Reviewers are also weighing whether the organization has had any significant or demonstrable effect on culture, society, entertainment, economies, history, or education that would justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. That may be difficult to show because of the nature of the business, or may only become apparent some years from now. At this time the subject does not seem to be suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for marketing, promotion, or pubic relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

05:03:59, 9 October 2017 review of submission by 82.74.22.35


82.74.22.35 (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply] 


                                   6 october 2017 
                                    
                                   Assen, NL

From: reader to: editor

Goodday, I would like to ask question about this rockstar that`s just died in his late sixties. Tom Petty his name is and he is an American rockstar. My question is, isn`t there anything that you should add about his personal life, the man his familylife or his familyroots ?! I bet some Wikipedia guests are interested in biographical facts.. At least me, I`d like to read things like that about the backgrounds of men.

best regards, H S in Assen, the Netherlands

Hi H S. You may be interested in the following reviews of a recent biography of Petty: Zanes, Warren (2016). Petty: The Biography. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1-250-10519-6.
If you read the book, think about becoming an editor and using material from it to improve article Tom Petty. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:42:38, 9 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by MadeforU


With respect, Can you tell me what I wrote in the article, what is lacking in it that you are not publishing it

MadeforUSend me a message! 09:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't write anything in the article. It was rejected becasue it was blank. Wikipedia does not accept blank articles. Maproom (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:32, 9 October 2017 review of submission by MadeforU


How much time will it take for me to do this article now?

MadeforUSend me a message! 11:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:47, 9 October 2017 review of submission by MadeforU


Can you tell me what the article is, what is it that has given you that you have not been able to accept, what is it that you can do to help others?

Hi MadeforU. Draft:Richard Prasad is in the pool of drafts to be reviewed. Given the current backlog, it may take a month to six weeks for it to be reviewed. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:37:03, 9 October 2017 review of submission by Albert-bell

I am absolutely changed the article and there is no anything like advertising or anything bad. There are just very short description of the method and that's it. Please check again and advice what you think about it. Albert-bell (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albert-bell. None of the cited sources exhibit the characteristics of reliable sources, as described in WP:MEDRS, so User:Albert-bell/sandbox has no chance of being accepted for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:32:49, 9 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Skdwived


Hi All, I have recently submitted an article about "Yuni Beauty" but it seems like deleted due to promotion language, can anyone please help me like how I can update the article in acceptable way. Thank you.

Skdwived (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skdwived. To retrieve your deleted draft, you can head over to WP:REFUND and submit a request there. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


October 10

01:51:38, 10 October 2017 review of submission by TanyaPearson81


I'd like to know why the Women of Rock Oral History Project article was rejected- it is a collection of primary source materials housed at a major institution and these personal histories can be linked to existing pages and can be used as references for new pages. I don't understand how this is any different from an artist/ band wikipedia page. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

TanyaPearson81 (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TanyaPearson81. Your choice of user name and the source you cited[1] suggest that you may have a close connection to the subject of Draft:Women of Rock Oral History Project. If so, it is vital that you disclose that connection. I've left more information about this on your talk page. We encourage archives to get involved with Wikipedia, but writing an article about your organization is strongly discouraged. For better ways to contribute, see Wikipedia:GLAM/Contribute.
The draft was declined because it fails to demonstrate that the world at large has taken significant enough notice of Women of Rock Oral History Project to justify including a stand alone article about it in an encyclopedia. That doesn't mean WROHP isn't a good or useful thing, or necessarily that WROHP isn't notable, just that the first draft fails to prove notability.
You write, "The references ARE reliable secondary sources, completely independent from Smith College or the Oral History Project, and the references I used are about WOROHP- not mentions." However, there is precisely one source listed in the references section. That source, an article in the Daily Hampshire Gazette is, as you say, an independent, reliable, secondary source that contains a significant depth of information about the topic, so it's an excellent start. Perhaps the problem is merely of form. If there are more sources hiding in the draft, but not formatted in such a way to convey their presence to reviewers (perhaps lumped under "External links"), then see Referencing for beginners.
Whether the sources need to be exposed or added, multiple sources are expected. Novice editors are often advised to cite at least three. For organizations, at least one source should be regional, statewide, national, or international.
External links (links that take the reader away from Wikipedia) are not allowed within the running text of an article. All of those need to be removed. Instead, use double square brackets around a name to create an internal link to the relevant Wikipedia article, like Lydia Lunch. An external link to Lunch's interview at WOROHP might be appropriate in the external links section of that article, but Draft:Women of Rock Oral History Project should not have a long list of external links to interviews in the archive. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:26:25, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Ms4263nyu


Request on 10:10:28, 10 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Roxana Gibescu

I am writing regarding this draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Crotto (which I have just edited a little since the review from SwisterTwister as in I have changed the order of references, put the most important ones first). The message SwisterTwister left is that I should prove the artist's notability through museum collections and art reviews, but I have done just that. I have over 15 cuttings of reviews in art magazines from the 60s in Paris, which I have included in the article, but it is true that I can't find this articles online. Please tell me how else to prove the existance of this art reviews articles (very complex articles dedicated to artist Paul Crotto) and museums or very important group gallery exhibition for which I can't find online proof, as probably they werent archived (as much of the 60s in visual art isn't), though I do have press cuttings and gallery/museum cuttings and brochures. 

Do let me know, please, what are the rules for references (important press cuttings and articles) which I couldn't find online, but I have them physically in press cuttings or exhibition brochures/catalogues. Just because they aren't archived online, doesn't mean they did not exist or that they were not important/relevant at their time.


Roxana Gibescu (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roxana Gibescu. By "museum collections" I believe the reviewer is referring to WP:ARTIST criterion #4 part d, "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". The draft doesn't show that Crotto's work is held in the permanent collections of any galleries or museums. Contrast this with, for example, Jean Bellette#Legacy, which lists seven galleries and museums that hold her work.
You write that you've cited very complex art review articles specifically about Crotto, but that they're offline. Offline sources are fine. When sources are offline, reviewers may look first at how you've used those sources, to get an idea of how deep they are. Each of your offline sources is used exactly once, and to support a trivial statement, like "Galerie René Drouet, Paris, 1964." This type of usage can give reviewers the impression that the sources are trivial, a thought that may be reinforced when the sole book cited makes only the barest passing mention of Crotto.
If your offline sources are detailed, a good way to show that is to use them to support all the content they can, such as a description of Crotto's work and its critical reception. See, for example Jean Bellette#Career. It can also help to use cite templates (except of course cite web) for your offline sources just as you have with your online ones. The purpose of the citations it to make information easy to verify. Lowering the burden on the reader/reviewer by identifying what part of the citation is the author, what part the title, what part the publication name, etc. is common courtesy. All readers of the English-language Wikipedia will recognize common sources like the BBC News or The New York Times, but it's helpful to wikilink more obscure sources like Dagens Nyheter.
Finally, the way the draft is written suggests that you have an interest in selling his work. If so, it's important that you follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and declare any interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 10:10:28, 10 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Roxana Gibescu

HiWorldbruce. Many, many thanks for the useful information, it will be of immense help as I will include information from the many art reviews dedicated to Paul Crotto. I actually thought that writing what galleries (and museums) have his work in their collection will suggest the interest in selling his work. I saw that in Jean Bellette post as well, that even contemporary galleries hold her work, which for me alludes to the interest in selling her work. But as it doesn't, I will contact the mentioned galleries (which still exists today) to see what works they do still have in their collection. Probably you got the impression of my interest in selling his work from the links in the references, which I used just because they were the few online public links to prove some of the information about him. I am not related to those auction houses in any way, I am a PhD student focused on Paris art scene from the 60s.

Many thanks again. Please, could you also tell me if after I make this changes I should re-submitt the draft?

Roxana Gibescu (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxana Gibescu: The convention on talk pages is to start a new section only for new discussion threads. When continuing a conversation, indent your reply one level more than what you're replying to, by beginning with one more colon than the previous text. See Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages for more information.
When you sincerely believe the draft is ready for publication, the best thing to do is to re-submit it. There is a chronic backlog, and this help desk is not a shortcut for bypassing that. Hundreds of reviewers work in Articles for creation, so it isn't efficient to wait for a review (or "pre-review") from a particular one, especially since, as volunteers, they may or may not show up for work on any given day. Also, another reviewer with other strengths may see different aspects of a draft that need improvement, which leads to a stronger article in the end.
I've left on your talk page a welcome basket of links that may help you develop the draft. It may also help to study Wikipedia's best writing about artists. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:24:27, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Jeremydandrus17

Hello,

I am wondering why my submission was declined. The user who declined my submission states that the article needs to be written "from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just materials produced by the creator of the subject". I did not write this article in the first-person, and if it perceived that I did, then I would like a more clear explanation on how not to write this submission in first-person. I have included a range of independent, reliable, published sources that have written articles based on research from Olson Communications and its separate divisions. This argument as to why my submission was denied then should lead to the removal of any and all research, public relations, marketing and advertising companies that have pages on Wikipedia. They have similar pages to what I have submitted, specifically Edelman, Ketchum, Leo Burnett, etc., yet my submission was the only one that was denied.

All I ask is further explanation be given as to why my submission was denied, while other similar companies/agencies are not denied.

Thank you

Jeremydandrus17 (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Jeremydandrus17#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:35, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah


So far I have not had a follow up response.

Adarrah (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Adarrah. As you can see I have moved your draft article from your sandbox to Draft:Helen and Frank Schreider, as that is the normal place for AfC submissions. I'll have a closer look tomorrow and get back to you here, but my first impression is that they are notable and you just need some extra/improved sourcing which is fairly easy to find, e.g. this lengthy obituary in the New York Times or this lengthy review of their book 20 Thousand Miles South, also in the New York Times. In other words, you need more independent sources which are about the Schreiders and their work, not sources by them, although they can be useful for filling in some details. Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Adarrah (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:58, 10 October 2017 review of submission by Lee Vilenski


Hello,

Sorry to bother anyone with the question, I am looking for information on sourcing (I'm sure that is 80% of questions.) The article Draft:Pro Wrestling Pride has been declined due to poor citation; stating that the article cannot be based purely on cagematch.net.

I understand from some research that the site in question is suitable for match results (and thus stipulations) as a reference, and have also included information from other sources such as local news and F4W.

Am I simply referencing incorrectly, or too much? Is there anything I can do to improve the article (and for articles in the future), as I am unsure of the complete reason for failure.

Best Wishes Lee Vilenski (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Lee Vilenski (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


October 11

01:17:52, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah


I have had no follow up from the response to me on Oct 7

Adarrah (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:50, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Lehradhurkot


16:17:25, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah


I have had no follow up to your response of Oct 7, in which you stated that you would respond in greater detail in a day or so. Where do I stand with my submission?

Adarrah (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:12:18, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Drakside


What are some good reliable resources that a Wikipedia page should have to be accepted. Please give me some reliable resources not just three or four. Thanks in advance.

Drakside (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your aim is to get Draft:Jan Doblado accepted as an article, three or four good reliable sources should be enough. Why do you ask for more? Anyway, I've tried looking for reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of Doblado, and failed to find any at all. Maybe there aren't any. Maproom (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:28, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Adarrah


If you check your files you'll see that on Oct 7 I had a brief reply but was told that a full reply would occur in a day or so. But there has been no follow up on this. So where does my submission now stand?

Adarrah (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the editor who hoped to help you, Voceditenore, has been busy with other things. What's the urgency? Maproom (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adarrah. It would appear the user that you were speaking to is busy. We are after all, real people. I have had a look at the article; but my lack of knowledge (Or indeed zero knowledge) on adventuring leaves me slightly behind on what would be suitable. The comment that was left with the last review 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 user:Jupitus Smart 03:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I see you have since added more references, which is good. It's a shame from my end that they are all written citations; as I cannot verify the strength of the sources (If they are simply a mention, or more); but a more experienced Wikipedia member might well be able to do such a thing. My suggestion would be, that as you have edited the referencing, it may be worth resubmitting your article; as you may be more successful on this occasion. I would also suggest that the article needs tidying up (An info box, and links to other articles); before it should be made as a page on Wikipedia for real. It may also be beneficial to edit your references so that they are in a good standing, using cite tags.
I hope this helps, I am no experienced user; but I feel as though a new reviewer might be more forgiving with the new sources of info. I understand that this may seem urgent; but in the grand scheme of the wiki, it needs to be done correctly. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:28, 11 October 2017 review of submission by Ayirp Sharma

Hi, I am wondering why my submitted article has been rejected. It is possible for you to guide me what are the concerns.
Sincerely,
Ayirp Sharma
Hi Ayirp Sharma. I have returned User:Ayirp Sharma/sandbox to the pool of drafts to be reviewed, because the reason given for declining it was incorrect. There are, however, many problems with the draft which, if not corrected, will cause it to be declined.
The method of referencing is incorrect. I have redone the first inline citation as an example. Redo the others. If the source is available online, give the complete url for it rather than just a partial path like "publications.gov.sk.ca › ... › Executive Council › News Releases › 2005 News Releases 4" or a file name like "Aspen Ridge Area, Saskatoon, Canada.pdf".
Large sections of the draft cite no sources, which leaves the reader/reviewer wondering where that information came from and whether it is correct. If it came from personal knowledge, such as from being his daughter, be sure to comply with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Wikipedia may only include information from published, reliable sources.
The Saskatchewan Order of Merit is a significant honor, but the others listed are much less so. The Royal Society of the Arts, for example, has 28,000 Fellows, and seems to admit almost anyone willing to pay the monthly dues. Move insignificant honors out of the lead, and consider omitting them from the article entirely. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

10:23:30, 12 October 2017 review of submission by Truesix123


Hello, How can I add a logo for this software?

Truesix123 (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truesix123. Any logo is likely copyrighted. A logo can often be included in an article under the fair use provision of copyright law, but that provision does not apply to drafts. So for now, don't add a logo. If and when the draft is accepted and published, then revisit the matter. Adding an image is a two step process: first upload it, then use it in on a page.
Go to Commons:First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes Wikipedia:File names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, there is a dedicated help desk for image uploading.
Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial can guide you through how to use it on a page. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:53, 12 October 2017 review of submission by Vespro Latuna


I tried to create an article about the founder of italian-spanish startup Watly, using material I found on the web, but the draft has been rejected by Dr Strauss, who's currently on vacation. Perhaps someone else can help me finishing the article and make it fits better with wiki policies? Thank you very much

19:51:47, 12 October 2017 review of submission by Shrutispm.ak

Hello, thank you for reviewing the article named Dr. Addanki Ranjeeth Ophir. He is a noted preacher, reformer, author, songwriter, singer in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh states of India. His books were published by Tate Publishing and Enterprises LLC. Would you tell me if a news channel telecast the news of the topic is a valid reference for the topic's notability? A debate was held on the book 'Haindava Kraisthavam' between the author, Addanki Ranjeeth Ophir and Hindu Dharmachaarya Prathistan was telecast live for 7 hours on TV5 news channel. Please check the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKbIARoP92o Waradhi is a Telugu daily newspaper which has published various news about the author, reformer, and social activist. http://waradhi.net/. Please check the following links https://www.amazon.in/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_6?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=apostle+ophir+addanki&sprefix=ophir+%2Caps%2C394&crid=16C29NCAF1ISP; http://rkpi.org/  ; Shrutispm.ak (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


October 13

01:30:36, 13 October 2017 review of submission by Matthew8187

It said the article did not have citations, but I did place citations. What really confuses me is I used a reference of another local church and that page on wikipedia has no references yet is published. Please help. (See link below to reference church)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Michael%27s_Catholic_Church_(Galena,_Illinois)

Matthew8187 (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi user:matthew8187 - The problem with the citations in this article are more to do with three of the four references being direct primary sources. Wikipedia is made up of pages sourced by secondary sources. I'm sure with a little bit more notoriety it will pass AfC. The other page you linked did not go through AfC. Hope this helps With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:47, 13 October 2017 review of submission by 2604:2000:F604:8000:69CC:E08:3C28:AAF5


2604:2000:F604:8000:69CC:E08:3C28:AAF5 (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC) i recently submitted a profile for a new client for wikipedia - Jeffrey Citron - it was declined due to sourcing i think. Can you help me with that so it is posted.[reply]

15:28:41, 13 October 2017 review of submission by Arboryama


I added some more sources to this after it was rejected. Are there still any problems? Thanks. Arboryama (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:30, 13 October 2017 review of submission by Benonaji


Benonaji (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) 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 organizations and companies, 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.[reply] 

The comment the reviewer left was:

needs independent sources

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=805182140"