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 153.2.246.35 (talk) at 15:10, 30 October 2018. 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


October 24

00:02:10, 24 October 2018 review of draft by Mfleming458


Hi, I am requesting assistance with creating an infobox on the entry I am working on (titled International Space Station United States National Laboratory). I tried to use the Infobox Laboratory template to create it, and I entered the fields I wanted to use in the box, but the box didn't show up on the page (it just shows the title of the info box and nothing else). Can you please help me with this? I spent a long time trying to figure this out. I just want a simple info box with a few basic fields that I filled out using Visual Editor. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Mfleming458 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mfleming458 I've added an infobox, if you don't like it you can let us know. Good luck with your draft. JC7V-talk 00:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for getting back to me so fast! And thank you for your help. I like the infobox, but I was hoping I could add a line at the top that says "Established 2005". And could the order somehow be Established, Research Type, Budget, Director, Location (International Space Station), Operating Agency, Website? I just tried to make these changes myself but wasn't able to. Again, thanks for all of your help. I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfleming458 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfleming458 The location paramater doesn't seem to work for a laboratory infobox (unless you use city ,state ,country ,paramaters), see Template:Infobox_laboratory for usable paramaters. Address is the easiest one to use that I saw on that list. I added the established portion at the top as you requested. Good luck. JC7V-talk 01:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good news I also added location in the infobox as you requested. Read above template on the infobox for more help on that or simply ask here some more if you need additional help. Cheers. JC7V-talk 01:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:13:25, 24 October 2018 review of submission by Shaheba Sultana

I need to publish it soon. Please help me by publish it soon, it will be kind enough. People want to show this page by searching in google. please help me Shaheba Sultana (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was on you userpage where no one would see to review it. I've published it. Legacypac (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:36, 24 October 2018 review of submission by Sean bhean bhocht

As the person I am adding qualifies absolutely for a Wikipedia page : journalist, biographer, editor in chief of several prestigious fashion magazines, I must be doing somethingg wrong. But what ??? Sean bhean bhocht (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:54, 24 October 2018 review of submission by MateoPerez21


Hi! I already removed the press releases for this article. Hope this solves the issue! Thank you so much! MateoPerez21 (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:51:01, 24 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Лев Усыскин


Could smbd explain me more detailed why this page declined and what shall I do to improve it? What part of article seems like advertising?


Лев Усыскин (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:41, 24 October 2018 review of draft by Shon820828


Shon820828 (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC) can you please help the zulu kingdom[reply]

@Shon820828: Your draft doesn't list the Kings of the Zulu nation (a topic already covered at List of Zulu kings). It lists you, with a link to the article about Shon, a figure of Hindu mythology (which you then vandalized to be, again, about you). I don't know what help you expect to find, but I don't think there's anything to be done with what you've given us. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:55, 24 October 2018 review of submission by AAW89TH


Hello - I wish to remove the redirect link to the Sing page and link directly to the article I created that has been accepted. Please can you help / advise as I am unable to edit it as per the instrucations online? Many thanks in advance.

AAW89TH (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

00:57:21, 25 October 2018 review of draft by MediaEditNZ


Hello! I am trying to get this article to the mainspace. The first series 100 Day Bach is already on the mainspace. This is the new TV season of this series. Thank you! --MediaEditNZ (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MediaEditNZ (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have approved it under WP:TVSHOW however I'm not convinced that merging the seasons into a single articles would not be a good idea. Also have you followed WP:COI and WP:PAID? Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:17:07, 25 October 2018 review of submission by 164.215.104.169


I have put together this page about Mark Mosimann, that is entirely fact based with appropriate external references from neutral sources, but have been told that it is too advertorial. As none of the sources are from advertorial feeds, rather they are from editorial, I do not understand how this is a valid reason for the page to be dismissed?

Many thanks for your assistance.

164.215.104.169 (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:13, 25 October 2018 review of submission by Markatmojo


I don't understand why my article has been rejected.

Markatmojo (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:50, 25 October 2018 review of submission by SaviiDigital

This is my first article and I was prepared to wait for 2 months to get my article to be reviewed and in 3 minutes it got declined and the reason was that it is too much like an add. Can anyone please help me figure out what parts are reading like an add text since I have not yet figured out what subjects are off limits and how my article got reviewed so fast. Thank you, Not The Sharpest Tool in the Box :)

SaviiDigital (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was reviewed fast because it is so obvious that it is not in compliance with Wikipedia policy. There are lots of similar drafts that get created and declined because they are what I can only describe as advertising for cryptocurrency startups. The entire article, even the subject is the problem here. You won't get anywhere by fixing a few bits of the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:44, 25 October 2018 review of draft by Suresh D Sarada


Hello, I submitted a draft more that two months ago, and I understand that reviewing takes time. However, I am not able to find my draft in the Category:Pending AfC submissions, it is just not visible. Is there any possibility that my wikitext is lacking some code and how to fix that to make my draft visible for potential editor? Suresh D Sarada (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suresh, your submission is here , in the 'very old' submission category. Cheers. JC7V-talk 15:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

01:47:41, 26 October 2018 review of draft by Ouzas


Ouzas (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC) I am trying to publish an article and my submission is rejected. The explanation I receive is the following:[reply]

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

And I do not understand exactly what is means and cannot figure out how to fix it despite the Reference for beginners instructions. Can someone help me?

It is a very simple article about a recognised architect and his work. I have included a list of publications on his work (generally articles on newspapers or magazines). I have called the list of publications "References" and hiperlinked every item so you can link easily to the specific article if available online. Is this the problem? Ouzas (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FINALLY, MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Save page" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!!!-->}}

  • You need to put those links in ref tags. Like <ref>https://www.example.com</ref> then put the link in the ref tags after the full stop at the end of a sentence. The content of the sentence should be verified by the reference following it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01:58:45, 26 October 2018 review of draft by GKatsiris


Hello. I have been working on a draft page of Francisco Mora Catlett and received a "talk" message that most of it has been deleted due to copyright issues/ plagiarism. However, it does not indicate which sections were problematic or which source they infringe upon. In addition to most of the text being removed, I see the photo is also missing. I uploaded the photo to the Commons with all permissions granted and cited. Please help me understand what I am doing wrong so that I can correct it and not make same mistakes again.

GKatsiris (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GKatsiris Greetings. Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright infringement very seriously as it entails legal implication. Content should be written on your own words and it should be supported by independent, reliable sources which the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept. Pls see the article's history page to find out the copyrighted article HERE. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source was given; remove copyright content copied from https://jazzdelapena.com/profiles/artist-profile-drummer-composer-leader-visionary-francisco-mora-catlett ; see the iThenticate report. The sections affected are the ones that were removed. The lesson here is don't copy, you need to try and do something different. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

02:45:10, 26 October 2018 review of submission by KSwaroop20


Added external references for better understanding of the article. The information supplied by these resources provide further details about the article. KSwaroop20 (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KSwaroop20 Greetings. Pls note that inline citations is what we looking for and not external links. pls read referencing for beginners to understand how to insert a inline citation. Secondly pls note content need to support independent, reliable sources which the sources talk about the subject in length and dept. Thirdly, pls note that Wikipedia CAN NOT be the source (pls see WP:CIRCULAR AND sources from user content site such as facebook, twitter, home page and etc) are considered NOT independent and can not use to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Lastly, pls see politician notability to understand the requirements needed. Thank you CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This person passes WP:NPOL I cleaned up the page and noted where you need sources to support the claims. All the detail about his father and kids is inappropriate. Resubmit when you have added the sources (I expect some might not be in English) 06:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Even for a person who passes NPOL as an MLA, you still need to show better referencing than this actually cites before an article about him can actually be approved. All I see for referencing here is a list of the district's MLAs, a raw table of election results and a page that tangentially verifies the existence of a government agency named in the article body while completely failing to mention anybody named Umesh Shukla at all. These are not sources that make a politician notable — what you need to show is some evidence of media coverage about him, such as newspaper or magazine articles, not just cursory primary sources like these. No, the sources don't have to be in English — you can use sources in Hindi or Marathi or Telugu if you've got 'em — but they do have to support more substance about him than just verifying that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:20:49, 26 October 2018 review of draft by Lord Beowulf


Ok, so someone is going to have to decide exactly what it is you're looking for and enforce that equally. I originally created a detailed page with references and information matching most of the other observatory pages referenced from this List of astronomical observatories and was told it read more like an advertisement, although it contained essentially the same information as those other more detailed pages. So then I stripped all of that out and duplicated one of the basic pages (all approved) that just gave the basic details. Now I'm told there's not enough information. The above reference shows links to hundreds of approved Wikipedia pages exactly like the two I've attempted to submit, but I've been rejected at both extremes. What gives? If those pages are good enough then why aren't mine? If mine aren't good enough, then why is the page I copied and modified to create the stub I submitted allowed? That doesn't seem right. If the two reviewers could get together and agree on what they're really looking for, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Beo

Lord Beowulf (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are all volunteers trying to help new or unregistered users. There is of course a range of opinion on any draft. AfC is optional - move the page yourself. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Beowulf Greetings. Pls note a page in mainspace does not mean it has met the requirement of Wikipedia and it should not take it as the benchmark article but one should seek to meet the guidelines of what is required. Secondly, any articles in the main space in Wikipedia could subject for nomination of AfD (article for deletion) it the nominator deem the article fall the notability guidelines Lastly, pls read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional information. Appreciate the help. I want to play by the rules, but it felt like I was getting bounced around by two differing opinions of the reviewers. Thanks again. Beo
There is some local news coverage, but I can't be certain on the notability of the observatory. Generally speaking people look for adverts to delete over and above short stubs. What the reviewers are really looking for is somewhere in between, but with five or ten news reports from regional newspapers and maybe a mention in a book. The ideal article is rare so don't worry too much about it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:06:55, 26 October 2018 review of draft by 122.170.210.251


122.170.210.251 (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:34:30, 26 October 2018 review of submission by Gownssews

My article was denied on the grounds that it is more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Could I have some more clarity on why this is? I also do not believe the sources used were biased as they come from reputable organizations such as WAN-IFRA, and most of them were not produced by the subject of the article. Thanks in advance. Gownssews (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Gownssews (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most the sources are either written by him or by organisations close to him and are thus primary sources. Other than Crunchbase I doubt any of the sources meet Wikipedia criteria. He also is not very significant as a CEO, all his companies are local newspapers and media. If he was the founder of Africa's biggest news portal, or even the #1 in Egypt then maybe. #4000 does not show a great deal of promise. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:56, 26 October 2018 review of submission by Aditya Pratap Singh Raghuvanshi


Aditya Pratap Singh Raghuvanshi (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:06:15, 26 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 1Dreamer2


Hello... my page submission got deleted because the reference was not considered suitable. The reference used was IMDB.com (Internet Movie Data Base) I want to challenge that as it is a reputable database used by the entire Hollywood Industry for professional information. In order to be on it- IMDB has to accept and approve- which is not easy to do. How can I go about this?

1Dreamer2 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

04:00:11, 27 October 2018 review of draft by Thermbal


I wish for this whole page to be deleted. I will start again later. Thermbal (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Thermbal (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC) There is no "Save page" button below. Thermbal (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that is a fine userpage, not an article draft. I've requested deletion for you. Hopefully you can contribute in your area of expertise. We always need help on science topics. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:26, 27 October 2018 review of draft by Vishnukvv


Vishnukvv (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

How can i add the newspaper citation images here for resubmission.tell me

Vishnukvv Greetings. Pls visit referencing for beginners for inline citation. thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:50:44, 27 October 2018 review of draft by Nipe Cold


Nipe Cold (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nipe, what is it that you want us to help you with? JC7V-talk 17:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is waiting for a reviewer to review it. When your draft is accepted, declined or commented on you will be notified. There currently is a backlog. If you need help with anything else don't hesitate to ask. JC7V-talk 19:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:23, 27 October 2018 review of submission by Nisha Mandani


Nisha Mandani (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:04, 27 October 2018 review of draft by Yakshaver


I would like some advice in regards to the column, usually placed on the right side of a page, which contains the portrait and summary information about the writer/etc, who forms the subject of the wiki article. I do not know how to access that template, and what I have done does not have the same look & feel. In the meantime I am working to learn and apply the referencing properly, as advised by Whisperer. Regards yakshaver Yakshaver (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

14:50:05, 28 October 2018 review of draft by Fpopal


Fpopal (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:26, 28 October 2018 review of submission by Vdrapalova

Hello,

Unfortunately yesterday I received a note that my submission was declined due to a potential COI (that the artcile reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia). As I have spent months researching the subject I am writing about (studying hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, TV and online interviews, books, etc.) and really tried my best to make a high quality wiki entry, I am actually quite crushed as I have no idea what might have indicated advertising or COI. I am someone who loves mountaineering and climbing and felt that there is no mention of him on English WIKI page while he is probably the most accomplished Czech climber of all times who also belongs to top climbers of the world (this year he received the highest global award).

As I don't know the subject personally and thus have no clue how can I be in COI, I would really appreciate someone's help to add, change whatever is needed to make it OK for submission. There is already a Czech WIKI page on him but I wanted to make it richer on information and sources for the EN one.

Thanks in advance for your support and help.

Best,

vdrapalova


Vdrapalova (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your writing was too positive. Normally people who write about how great something is are doing it to promote something they are close to, or to promote themselves. The decline for "it doesn't read neutrally" has all that included as standard. All that said, you could do with adding more references. You don't need a link to make a reference, offline newspaper and such are fine. As Theroadislong has tidied the article a little I have taken the opportunity to accept the draft and promote it to article space. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:56, 28 October 2018 review of draft by Libromancer


Hello! I named my first article "Anthony Porter", forgetting there was already a page with that title. I'm wondering how I can rename the article so that I'm not attempting to duplicate a page, perhaps something like Anthony Porter(Activist) or something similar.

Thank you!

Libromancer (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


October 29

00:42:35, 29 October 2018 review of submission by Djlcm123


Djlcm123 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know why my article did not get approved it was valid and I did not promote myself

User:Bearcat - Some editors really are so clueless that they don't know that they aren't supposed to use Wikipedia for promotion, or don't know the difference between neutral description and promotion. If he says he did not promote himself, he may believe that. Some editors are completely clueless. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01:23:52, 29 October 2018 review of submission by Luminaire Zeal

Hello, i submitted an article for a game, but it was declined with the reasoning being "Looks like an advertisment". Could this be elaborated on? Is it just poorly written, or is something else wrong with it?

Nevermind that. There was a second box going into further information that I didn't see.. Thanks, i'll head over the teahouse and see what I can do to improve the article. Luminaire Zeal (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03:55:08, 29 October 2018 review of draft by Powerofshark


I am simply adding the next volume in a series of recordings by the author, Harlan Ellison. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but I have successfully added the previous six volumes. Now a user is saying I don't have any sources to back up the page even though the record label link for this release has been included on the page submitted. Also, I'm having trouble remembering all the hoops to jump through to get the cover image approved. Any help most appreciated.

Powerofshark (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Powerofshark Greetings. please note notability of page need to be supported by independent, reliable (at least 3) sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length. Press releases, home page, user generated content source, listings, any sources associated with the subject could NOT use to demonstrate the notability requirements needed. Those 6 pages are in the same situation as of this one and they would be subject to be nomination for deletion. I suggest you to find independent, reliable sources to back up the contain claimed to avoid the pages to be deleted. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Harlan_Ellison_albums where all the existing pages could easily be deleted for lacking sources. Why does anyone caee about this artist? No one knows based on these directory type listings. Has anyone reviewed these albums? Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To make something notable enough to have an encyclopedia article, its referencing has to be to media, such as newspaper or magazines reviewing the recordings. "The record label link for this release" is not a source that supports notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:56, 29 October 2018 review of draft by JanSchnabelHegelmann


Hi, So I pretty much just translated the wikipage "Hegelmann Group" from the already published German page. So I dont quite understand why it got rejected. Of Course I maybe have a conflict of interest, but I did not add anything that wasnt aleady there, except One sentence, updates and a few links. So maybe someone can help to tell me what excatly is wrong, so I can write a proper article, that doesnt feel like an advertisement for the company, which it is not, it should just give generel information about the company, as there are many similar articles about companies. Thank you very much. JanSchnabelHegelmann (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article does not meet the policies of the English Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia is different with different rules and you need to completely rewrite the article to stand any chance of it fitting in here. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:22:55, 29 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Nh-expera


Hello, i have made an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epsilon_Grammar_Studio, that was denied to be published. I have seen other pages in similar fashion like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_Parser_Framework and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scannerless_Boolean_Parser, and they are fine without any external citations. What is the page i made different from the referenced ones, so i can change it and be published? best regards Nh-expera Nh-expera (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both the examples you cite have 3 different external links that act as a type of reference. It is better if inline refs are provided but it is not required. You provided a single primary source. We have also tightened standards over time. Can you show how independent reliable sources have treated this this topic? Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, will work on that. Thank you very much for your fast answer. Nh-expera (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:31:59, 29 October 2018 review of draft by Cocolinovich


Hello! I made a submission a while ago on the subject of Masternodes. It has recently been declined because it "reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article". I want to keep working on the article and improve it, but I am unsure where to start. I would really appreciate it if I could receive some pointers on where the text needs to be changed (some examples would be great). Thank you very much!


Cocolinovich (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear, there are potential issues with writing about the subject of the blockchain. Maybe Database is a good example to look at, I don't know what a masternode is similar to. The issue is partly how it is written, partly how the article is structured. Most your sources are unreliable and that will be a problem going forward. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:13:26, 29 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by AstroEmy


Dear Help Desk, My article submission has not been accepted. However I disagree with the explanation provided by the reviewer. The reviewer writes: "The ones provided are either from non-notable blogs (board game geek) or school (KU Lueven) or primaries (his research paper) Engineering work appear to be low profile" Defining board game geek as a non-notable blog is absolutely incorrect. BoardGameGeek is the world-wide authority in terms of board games, as one can read from the BoardGameGeek Wikipedia page. The "school" is KU Leuven, one of the top European universities and the source is the campus newspaper. In order to write my articles, I took inspiration from several Wikipedia articles about board games creator, that all in fact refer to BoardGameGeek as main reference. For these reasons, I believe that the reviewer assigned to this article was not knowledgeable enough about the topic and his assessment is incorrect. Kind regards, Emanuela

AstroEmy (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Campus newspapers are generally treated the same as local newspapers, which is as not showing notability. You can't expect a biography to be accepted based on a review of his game in Boardgamegeek. Sorry but I agree with the reviewer. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfC reviewers are not assigned, we are volunteers approved to use the interface and we pick and choose what to review and when. Some of us target selected topics and others try to clear all the submissions left to review from a day regardless of topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also , WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Just because those other sites used the blog as a source doesn't mean it is correct and within policy. JC7V-talk 19:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:02, 29 October 2018 review of submission by DLLHell

I created this article because I'm a user of this software and have been for about 20 years, but it's not represented in Wikipedia like many other similar FTP software. I based this new article on an existing article regarding similar commercial software, CrushFTP Server, and my article reads no more like an advertisement than the existing one. The reviewer also said that it "refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed", but from what I can see, my references are almost exactly the same quality as the Crush FTP article, so I'm mystified as to why Crush FTP (and many other FTP software products) is allowed to have an article but Rumpus is not.

My desire to make an article for Rumpus is because I want to have it included in the Comparison of FTP server software page, as a reference for Mac users who are seeking FTP software (because Apple is eliminating their official Server softare that does FTP), but that page does not allow simple red links...so I'm trying to create a good article for Rumpus. All of the articles on commercial software linked from that page seem very similar, and all have been allowed to become articles, so I'm not sure why I'm not allowed to add this one...it seems like there's a double standard being applied, or a standard not being applied uniformly.

Maybe I'm missing something, so I'd appreciate it if you can assist me with suggestions on how to improve this article to allow it to pass muster, as apparently many other very similar articles have.

Thanks! DLLHell (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia's standards have changed over time, many if not most articles about software would not be approved if they were written now and may even be eligible for deletion. The modern and stricter standards for inclusion say your article is substantially below the minimum requirements. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd then venture to say that the entire Comparison of FTP server software, and all contained articles, are candidates for deletion, and in fact have no business being on Wikipedia (although I personally consider it very useful). Having only a partial list of software is misleading to readers, and the fact that the list consists of many articles that don't meet current standards (and yet the list requires articles, not red links) has already relegated it to a hopelessly out-of-date status. Would you say that's an accurate take-away from this inability to create a new article to keep the Comparison of FTP server software article up-to-date and as complete as possible? If so, in the interests of assisting as an editor in bringing Wikipedia up to standards, I'll begin that process, referencing this discussion.

DLLHell (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is right approach I think. Make sure to read about WP:AFD beforehand, and don't do too many nominations at once because it is considered disruptive to try and deleted many articles at the same time. It is prefered to do it gradually, and yes this is a primary reason for why there are so many unsuitable articles. Another point is not to try and delete articles such as Internet Information Services, because Microsoft branded products are generally considered to be notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:09:00, 29 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Sawsyon


My proposed page was rejected because of lack of secondary sources, but I was not trying to make a content page, but rather a category page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_and_war_museums. It is not the kind of page that has any secondary literature.

So perhaps my mistake is in titling and I should change "Draft:Arms_and_armor_museums" to "Draft:Categories:Arms_and_armor_museums"? If this is a task that I can continue with, I am happy to do so, but perhaps as a Category thing, this is beyond or not the purview of the usual contributor like me.

Thanks. SW Sawsyon (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:12, 29 October 2018 review of draft by Dbmoelle


Hello, I am requesting help on an article I am trying to submit from my sandbox. Apparently I repeated the text several times? I am very tech illiterate so I am positive this is user error. I am specifically asking for help to clean up the article I am trying to submit from my sandbox. Dbmoelle (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:26:16, 29 October 2018 review of draft by TheAutomobiserCo


TheAutomobiserCo (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than this be a prank it is a school project that I thought would go rather smoothly however, I would like to know if there is any way to still get it published.TheAutomobiserCo (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

03:14:55, 30 October 2018 review of draft by Dane1x


There are quit a bit of topics that I do not know how to add in...... for instance, Kirk is listed in wikipedia already under NAACP THEATER AWARDS The Article is Great.... but more than Likely the references are not.... they are references but I am afraid that I'm not understanding which of Kirk's references to include. also how do I list his credits..... How do I link Kirk to his grandmother's page as well... Juanita Moore is her name Thanks so Much Dane1x (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:11:35, 30 October 2018 review of submission by UnivacTechDweeb

Hi there. I was wondering as to the status of this page. It was reviewed by User:Catrìona and declined on August 11th. I have submitted changes based on her recommendations and am still awaiting further notice of edits needed or publication. CitationBot did some further edits on August 24th and CASSIOPEIA did some further Authority Control changes on September 18th. Can you look into this for me? I understand you are all very busy, but any light you can shed on this would be great and I'd love to get the page live. Thanks! UnivacTechDweeb (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:37:10, 30 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mabilosp



Mabilosp (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:59:28, 30 October 2018 review of submission by AlinaGusewa

The user Aspireforintelligence asks to help him review the article for notability. But it seems he does not know where to submit the request. Maybe someone will help him. The article seems to be not bad. I think this could be a good motivation for a new author. AlinaGusewa (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:54, 30 October 2018 review of submission by 109.67.17.252

I was informed by David.moreno72 that I cannot publish the article I edited since it is 'self promotion'. I find this incorrect since there are plenty of wikipedia pages about current artists/pianists that are currently performing internationally. For example there is a wikipedia article for Murray Perahia, Daniil Trifonov and Yaron Kohlberg. I most definitely fall into this category unquestionably. Must someone else post the article about me in order for it not to be 'self promotion'? Awaiting your reply and many thanks, Benjamin Goodman 109.67.17.252 (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which draft are you talking about? The IP address you are using have not submitted anything yet. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 11:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No draft edited from that entire IP range, and it is not possible to guess at which of David.moreno72's reviews this refers to. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:17, 30 October 2018 review of draft by Micha Jo


Hello. I submitted this article nearly 2 months ago. It was rejected once. Since then I have addressed all concerns and considerably improved the page. It seems to me that it is worthy of inclusion in our Encyclopaedia. My question is : Does the page now satisfy all criteria, or have I missed something ? Thank you for your answer. Best regards. Micha Jo (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Micha Jo (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:05, 30 October 2018 review of draft by Myshkin123


My article has now been declined several times even though I have complied with previous feedback and extensively cited from a variety of newspapers and scholarly journals. I continue to get this message: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

Please advise? I believe this latest rejection must be an error.

Myshkin123 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:42:40, 30 October 2018 review of submission by Yakshaver


I created an article and published it as Draft "Draft:Daniel Reynaud". How could I submit this for publishing? Please forgive the question, this is only my second article. I forgot what I did the last time...

Regards yakshaver Yakshaver (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:47, 30 October 2018 review of submission by 153.2.246.35


153.2.246.35 (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


On This Holiday
Studio album by
Jessie James Decker
ReleasedOctober 26, 2018 (2018-10-26)
Recorded2018
GenreChristmas music
LabelEpic
Producer

On This Holiday is the third studio album by American country music artist Jessie James Decker to be released on October 26, 2018. It is Decker's first full-length christmas album since her EP This Christmas in 2015.

Promotion and release

The track, "Baby! It's Christmas", was made available for download with the preorder on October 15, 2018.[1][2] The full album is scheduled to be released on October 26, 2018 through Epic Records.[3]

Other promotional items include an autographed Vinyl LP with early access to the 2019 tour,[4] and an autographed booklet.[5]

Track listing

No.TitleLength
1."It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year"2:43
2."The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting On an Open Fire)"3:02
3."Santa Baby"3:29
4."Snowlight"4:05
5."Do You Hear What I Hear?"3:19
6."Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree"2:30
7."Wonderful Day"3:54
8."I'll Be Home for Christmas"3:45
9."Christmas In Cabo"3:44
10."Baby! It's Christmas"3:07
Total length:33:40
Target deluxe edition bonus tracks[6][7]
No.TitleLength
11."My Favorite Holiday" 

References

  1. ^ "Jessie James Decker Set to Release New Holiday Album 'on This Holiday'". 2018-10-15.
  2. ^ "My Christmas album is now available for preorder!! Http://smarturl.it/OnThisHoliday pic.twitter.com/O3HWwTlZn8". 2018-10-15. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help); no-break space character in |title= at position 84 (help)
  3. ^ "‎On This Holiday by Jessie James Decker".
  4. ^ "On This Holiday AUTOGRAPHED Vinyl LP + Download | Shop the Jessie James Decker Official Store".
  5. ^ "On This Holiday [Includes Autographed Booklet] [Barnes & Noble Exclusive]".
  6. ^ "Jessie James Decker Set to Release New Holiday Album 'on This Holiday' October 26". 2018-10-15.
  7. ^ "Jessie James Decker on This Holiday (Target Exclusive)".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=866473074"