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 Robert Beckham Mugimba (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 5 March 2019. 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


February 27

00:55:24, 27 February 2019 review of draft by 122.57.181.43


122.57.181.43 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--I am confused, when I asked for review of my article someone called Hell in a Bucket told me to make it more neutral, so I did and re-submitted it for review again. He never mentioned anything about the sources I used. But now, somebody called I dream of horses, rejected it saying its : "Not very well-sourced". At this time these are the best sources I have, I hope to find more. The article is very short and it is sourced according to the Wikepedia guidelines. Please advise. With kind regards.

Nebarolini (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nebarolini I'm sorry you are having trouble. Most reviewers decline a page over the first fatal problem they find. If I find a page reads like an Ad I decline it - even speedy delete it if it is really bad - without evaluating the sources. We have such a big backlog we can't take the time to identify all the problems a new editor may have on a page. This is why I believe editors should get experience with established articles before attempting to create new pages, one of the hardest skills at Wikipedia. The second message means the sources given were judged to be enough to show the topic is Notable (acceptable). The reviewer feels the page would likely be deleted if sent to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:26, 27 February 2019 review of draft by ANTONIOEMOSES


ANTONIOEMOSES (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No question but I've given some advice on the draft and fixed the title Legacypac (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:36, 27 February 2019 review of draft by Sabine retina


I am not sure if I am supposed to do anything to ensure review for approval and posting of this draft? The content of this to-be-created page can be veryfied in numerous independent www.-pages and multiple press releases and in all of Botond Roska's peer-reviewed publications which are also available on PubMed. I edited the draft page, as requested by the first reviewer, a person supposed to be called Sam Holt. I am definetely not trying to 'promote' Botond Roska and/or the IOB (www.iob.ch), beause this is simply not necessary, he is very renowned worldwide as a scientif expert in neurology and particularly for retinal diseases. As many media people and the public have asked why Botond Roska is still not listed on wikipedia, I am now working to try to change this. Again: no promotion, no commercial or financial interest, whatsoever. IOB is a Swiss Foundation, and B Roska is also Professor of the Medical Faculty of Basel University, next to his many other academic roles.

Sabine retina (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:16:23, 27 February 2019 review of draft by Gidoneli


I do not understand how coverage in Three large news organizations (CNBC, Ha'aretz, Yediot Aharonot) won't account as sufficient coverage? I am looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syneron_Medical and this submission has the same if not less coverage by the same types of outlets. Can I have an example of "sufficient coverage"? Thanks Gidoneli (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Draft. If User:DGG says it is not shown to be notable it is not. He is one of our most experienced Admims. Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My judgments on notability are not always correct: my estimate is that I make about 2% errors, and for those that are challenged, about 10% of the time the consensus takes a different view. When requested, I will look at something again. In this instance, I looked again, and it confirmed my opinion that the references are mere notices . See WP:NCORP for what constitutes acceptable sources for notability. Two other good reviewers said just the same.
In years when standards were lower, Wikipedia accepted many articles that were promotional or non-notable, that we would not nowadays accept. It will be many years until we get all of them fixed or removed. In the meantime, the least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:30, 27 February 2019 review of submission by Arman Aryamehr


Arman Aryamehr (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arman Aryamehr: - hi there. This is far off the sufficient notability required - you need reliable, independent (which rules out interviews), in-depth secondary sources. Usually newspapers, books etc are best for this. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:29:43, 27 February 2019 review of submission by 707 HBC


707 HBC (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

because I deserve a second chance at life plz accept mu submission plz it is for the people and for the better of wikipedia

Block requested for this account Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:15, 27 February 2019 review of submission by Wikimocap


Wikimocap (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-submitted an article for the company Noitom Ltd. Article was declined due to "read more like an advertisement" and "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed". I disagree with both of these points. All of the sources (article links) are reliable, credible publications of which none have been produced by the company itself. They are all legitimate write-ups from independent sources. Is there a way to get this reviewed again? And if not, what more can I do to get this published? I am at a loss. The company is 100% legitimate as are the facts listed in the page.

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Wikimocap#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to user's posting on my talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

13:11:01, 28 February 2019 review of draft by BING DA DA DING DIG DNG DUNG DING


What more does this need? It's more noteworthy than dozens of galleries that have their own page - the Jack The Ripper museum two streets down, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper_Museum BING DA DA DING DIG DNG DUNG DING (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BING DA DA DING DIG DNG DUNG DING, I notice it was just established last month, so thee may not be many sources yet. The two sources you did list do not really count as reliable sources for the purpose of notability--reviews in appropriate art magazines or major newspapers would do it. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft (basically the same thing DGG, Theroadislong, and Bkissin said). --Worldbruce (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:38, 28 February 2019 review of submission by OlaniyiMoses2008

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Please, I need to resubmit an article Draft:InterswitchSPAK after disapproved 2 times. But I could not find the submit button again. I have improved on notability of the article. Please, tell me what I must do submit again.

Best Regards.

Thank you

OlaniyiMoses2008 (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC) {{SAFESUBST:Void|[reply]

14:10:36, 28 February 2019 review of submission by Diggerty


I came across this draft article that had been rejected a few weeks ago and think that it is excellent and feel that a lot of people in the UK will learn something from it (as I have) and I feel it is unfair that it has been censured by somebody who is obviously living in the USA and has no knowledge or interest in the subject and is now stopping people from reading it. He has not even made constructive comments on how it can be improved to make it acceptable to him. I worked very hard on this revision, editing it into a neutral article and making it easier to read. In my opinion having studied many published Wikipedia pages on this subject and many others it does not offer any more unsubstantiated views than many others do. Also all the so called 'views' mentioned are merely interpretations of the facts that have been established by the authorities cited and as such ARE substantiated. Wikipedia states that the rules are not supposed to be 'made in stone' but in my mind rules are being unfairly bent in this instance in rejecting this article in this fashion. I know a lot of people who would want to have the opportunity to read this article and it should be freely available for them to do so on Wikipedia which is supposed to be for everybody and this article very much has a place on it. Diggerty (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the "somebody who is obviously living in the USA" I would like to respond to Diggerty. The draft in question purports to be about a movement within the UK to achieve Brexit on certain terms. As a draft about an organization, one would expect it to define the organization: its founding, its history, its leadership and membership, and its achievements. However, the draft in question is an expression of the group's manifesto with none of that other material that one would expect in an article about the organization. I rejected the draft on those terms (as a violation of neutrality). Others are free to re-review the work and see if their mileage varies. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:10, 28 February 2019 review of submission by Arzumio


Arzumio (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I didn't put any sources because me and Lil Chang himself made this because there is nothing talking about him.

@Arzumio: If there's "nothing talking about him" then we won't either. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:57, 28 February 2019 review of submission by 89.216.104.134


Hi! This article is not at all about the football player. This is about totally different Stefan Marinković, a legendary release manager, ie. software engineer responsible for new code releases in many major companies in Italy, Serbia and Malta. Stefari is so famous and well known that many fun clubs (closed membership though, private clubs) dedicated to praise his work exist. Stefari is so huge.

89.216.104.134 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

89.216.104.134, are there publicly avail sources for him, substantial 3rd party independent published reliable sources? If all the information is private, it may not be possible to make an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:38:19, 28 February 2019 review of draft by Theprophetdavid


where can i put a link to the website as a reference?

Theprophetdavid (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 1

01:14:28, 1 March 2019 review of draft by WRain


Hi, so I have referenced a (promotional) concert poster on a draft that I have sourced from a fansite. Is this acceptable practice? And if it is, then how should it be referenced? WRain (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WRain. It is permissible to cite ephemera such as a concert poster. You can use the cite web template for one that is online. A fan site is not an ideal source. Editors are likely to be concerned about: whether the content is submitted by users, the site's editorial oversight, and whether they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. A better source would be an archive at a university, museum, or historical society, something run by librarians or curators.
You can ask for advice about a source at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Opinions there will depend on what article text you want to support with the poster. They may point out that a concert poster only shows a scheduled event, not that the event took place as planned. They're likely to say that there must be a more reliable source than a fan site, such as a newspaper article or even a newspaper advertisement. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:24:14, 1 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by TAHayward


I re edited this article to comply with Music Notability guidelines. I used reliable secondary sources to show source of information about the subject. I corrected the tone of the writing to reflect neutrality. I was advised by the last editor who worked with me on the article of these changes. They replied that if I found a source which reviewed the Netflix Gypsy soundtrack he would mainspace the article. I communicated with them in the talk space. I have carefully attributed all knowledge to reliable secondary sources as you can see in the draft article. I would like to have this article moved to Wikipedia. Is this something that I do or does an editor in the community do that? I researched the subject extensively also reviewing journalist podcasts interviewing him in New York. I believe that I meet all of the Music Notability guidelines - all information is sources, Oli Chang is the subject of multiple, non trivial published works, such as newspaper articles, online print media, podcasts, subject has received coverage of live performance, subject is also published in previous music group High Highs on Wikipedia, has released two or more albums, subject has worked with well known artists e.g.: Nomi Ruiz, has performed music for Netflix Gypsy TV series, has been placed in rotation of JJJ national Australian radio. Please advise me whether the article can be published after this writing and editing? TAHayward (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TAHayward. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. If a reviewer accepts it, it will be published as an article. There are still problems with the draft, which I have detailed there. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:01:53, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Meta in MA


I've spent a lot of thoughtful time rewriting this article with some support from from reviewers who have now left Wikipedia. While I'm waiting for review, I thought I'd ask someone to give me some tips on how to improve it so that when it does get reviewed, it might stand a better chance of getting accepted.

Note that I'd like to document the entire New Age music genre, but I'm hesitant to write anymore because I've had such a problem getting this article accepted. If someone could give me tips on this article, I might write a few more while I'm waiting for this to get reviewed.

All-in-all, the process has been frustrating since the reviewers have left Wikipedia and so much time has lapsed, but I remain positive and hopeful that I can actually get into the flow of contributing.

Meta in MA (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:11:53, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Bryanlim.sdp


Hi, I am Bryan Lim Boon Heng- the Wikipedia subject himself. I understood from my colleague, Clarence that the first draft has been rejected. I have removed the "non-neutral bits" but I don't know what else is required. I am not a techie person so I will really appreciate if your technical team can guide me through on how to get this Wikipedia page up & running as the General Elections in Singapore are expected to be called at the end of this year.

Bryanlim.sdp (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarence.sdp and Bryanlim.sdp: Greetings. See below (also click on the blue highlighted text in the grey pane and the comments in the draft page and below for details info)
  1. conflict of interst As Clarence is the colleague of the subject, this means they have COI and a paid editor (PAID). Wikipedia discourage editor with COI to write about the subject as it is difficult to write the article in neutral point of view (NPOV). I just have a quick read, the article still not free of NPOV. Clarence needs to declare his COI in (1) the article talk page and (2) in Clarence user page. Pls follow the instruction to disclose PAID as posted in Clarence'stalk page. (re-read the instruction as disclosure tag is done incorrectly).
  2. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY - Wikipedia strong discourage Byran Lim to edit his own article in Wikipedia and would request other editors to edit the affected page.
  3. WP:NPOV neutral point of view - pls note at the content should be written in plain, fact format and content should support by independent, reliable sources and avoid writing the article like an essay after all this is an article.
  4. WP:PROMOTION - Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion where by political candidate could use Wikipedia as a channel where info of the subject would be found An article is accepted only if the subject is notable - see WP:NPOL (notability for politician) and the significant coverage of independent, reliable sources (such as from major newspapers) is written about the subject in length and in depth and not only passing mentioned. Note sources can be in any languages.
  5. Examples - check out Hina Rabbani Khar and Newt Gingrich on how a good article looks like. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:59:06, 1 March 2019 review of submission by Adkbay


I guess at this point I don't understand how this entry is not "notable." While ResetEra was formed as a splinter site from NeoGAF after the scandal that happened there, NeoGAF has dropped in prominence by damn near 100%, to the point where game developers and journalists are now congregating on ResetEra rather than the forum that started all of this, NeoGAF. It's been this way for over a year, yet NeoGAF still maintains a Wikipedia entry because there was a scandal that makes it more "notable." ResetEra, at least according to Alexa rankings, hovers around the 3K mark (global), while NeoGAF has fallen all the way down to the 14K mark. The articles cited in the Wiki entry show that the site is used as a source in many gaming publications. If they are not "notable" publications, then why do they have Wikipedia entries?

Let me clear something up. I do not work for ResetEra. I am not receiving any payment from ResetEra. I do have an account as a user on the site, but that only allows me to post and nothing else. I am quite sure that Nintendo fans and the like are free to edit the page for Nintendo, as an example. I saw that the original entry was removed and attempted to improve it, and yet the run-around for fixing this article is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in my lifetime, even while in academia.

If there is something SPECIFIC that I need to add here to make it "notable," please let me know, because I have yet to see any feedback that actually gives information on what "notability" entails for something such as this, in the gaming space, where you do not tend to have academic journals or news broadcasts discussing the topic. If that is the metric for "notability," then I believe you have a much larger decision regarding anything gaming-related on Wikipedia to discuss.

I ask you to reconsider this decision. Thank you. Adkbay (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adkbay Greetings. Reviewers have left messages on the draft page, all you have to do is to click on the blue highlighted texts and they will bring you to anther page where details info could be found. see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResetEra and [[1]]. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:04:49, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Zuvaruvi


I've started a new article, Webeaucracy, have posted about as much as I dare without input. References need to be cleaned up and I lack sufficient expertise. Additionally, I am the author of the original work Webeaucracy: The Collaborative Revolution and want to ensure I have as much oversight on this as possible before it is accepted for publication on Wikipedia.

Thanks!

Zuvaruvi (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zuvaruvi (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:33, 1 March 2019 review of submission by Azzata,G


I have received multiple rejections because of reference. Those references are the only reliable references. Since Mongolian companies are yet to well known to worldwide business market. Could you please help me to solve this reference problem. Your help is greatly appreciated! Thank you.

Azzata,G (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Azzata,G. The reference problem is insurmountable. The reason you give, that Mongolian companies are not well known worldwide, is the reason that Wikipedia should not have an article about this company. Wikipedia articles only cover notable topics—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Write about something else, or try an alternative outlet with different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:30:50, 1 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Annahua

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


Hi everyone, this is my first time asking for help so pardon the lack of protocol. I have been working on an article to help improve one of Taiwan's famous architects visibility. We are a small island but I think this architect deserves a little recognition. He has won quite a few awards the past few years so I believe he passes the notability test. That being said, I am at a loss for how to pass the approval process. I have made changes as they were said by reviewers but the most recent suggestion of removing "peacock" language is lost on me. I read through the article once more and it is my belief that there is no more peacock language. Secondly that this does read like an encyclopedia. I remember reading Britannica back in the day and while I am not 100% encyclopedic. I think I am pretty close. Any help would be much appreciated.


Annahua (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:47:13, 1 March 2019 review of submission by Floyd1965

Hello,

Upon the initial decline of the draft, I sought help at the ‘live help’ channel and the helper who reviewed had commented on the feedback accordingly. Apparently, only inline citations were missing, which I had appropriately incorporated. The resubmission of the draft has been pending for nearly 7 weeks. Request you to please consider and suggest further course of action. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floyd1965 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Floyd1965. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 8 weeks, so you shouldn't have too long to wait. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:32:30, 1 March 2019 review of submission by Whenow


Whenow (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:50:29, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Kh.brian.min


Hello! I thought I made a new article called Kim Ransa on English Wikipedia, but then I realized it was on Korean Wikipedia. I now created a new one in English Wikipedia and I am waiting for it to go under review. I am now wondering what I should do with article (that is written in English) on Korean Wikipedia. Could I go ahead and delete that one since I didn't mean to put it on Korean Wikipedia? If so, how should I go about it?

Thank you, and I would greatly appreciate your assistance. Have a fantastic day!

Brian

Kh.brian.min (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kh.brian.min: Unfortunately, that is out of our jurisdiction. I did some digging and found ko:틀:삭제_제안, which is essentially the Korea Wikipedia's articles for deletion template. If you explain your error (in Korean, of course) in the right parameter and put the template at the top of ko:Kim Ransa, you should be all set. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:17, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Vovagig


Vovagig (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed references, pleas review it is there any other issues that should be fixed.

Thank you

@Vovagig: You might want to check with WP:MMA for additional sources and stylization. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:58:30, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Ian.Kirkland76



Please tell me why the references to The List of Presidents of the Institution of Structural Engineers is not reliable. It is the definitive source surely - since they elect the Presidents in the first place? Ian.Kirkland76 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.Kirkland76 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian.Kirkland76. The key point lies in the reviewer's comment, rather than in the boilerplate language in the big pink box. It isn't a question of reliability. The only source that talks about the list members as a group is the institution of which they were the presidents. So it will be difficult to convince reviewers that the draft passes WP:LISTN and should be a stand alone list.
A better approach would be to embed the list in Institution of Structural Engineers. Few images are available, so omit that column. The image of the first president could illustrate the "History" section. If you can come up with a caption's worth of information about Blockley, that image could illustrate the new "List of presidents" section. Be judicious about linking. Don't link unless there's a reasonable expectation that an article can be written. A table is overkill, make them simple list entries. If you feel sortability is so essential that a table is necessary, then sort names more sensibly. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:18, 1 March 2019 review of draft by Mayuribn


Mayuribn (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:38, 1 March 2019 review of draft by 7urlu7u7u


7urlu7u7u (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made this draft (Draft:Herve_Tullet) today from a page in french Hervé Tullet. I did not use the translation tool offered by wikipedia because I couldn't make it work... But I'd still would love to liink this page to its french "big sister". How could I do that? Should I just wait until it is not a draft anymore?

TY

@7urlu7u7u: Thank you for your contribution. It has been accepted and linked via wikidata to the French article. Remember, because of your conflict of interest, not to edit the article directly. Instead, propose on Talk:Hervé Tullet any changes you believe should be made. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:08, 1 March 2019 review of submission by Jhamalhodari


Jhamalhodari (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 2

01:15:54, 2 March 2019 review of submission by Maqbool ahmed sifu


Maqbool ahmed sifu 01:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Maqbool ahmed sifu: - there is functionally no content in this draft, and is thus completely unsuitable for being a wiki article. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:18:30, 2 March 2019 review of draft by Mxra


Hello. I'm new to wikipedia, and I created two drafts a few minutes ago. The first one is called "Jack Gore", I made it for an American actor. However I discovered the page "Jack Gore" already exists (a deceased rugby player), so I created a new wikipedia draft called "Jack Gore (actor)". Is it possible to delete or fix the first one? Both pages are exactly the same, the title just differs. Thank you very much for your time. Mxra (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mxra Hi Welcome to AfC help desk. You could place {{Db-G7}} on top of 'Jack Gore' page and insert "request article to be deleted by creator" on the 'edit summary' prior saving/publishing the edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk)

03:39:45, 2 March 2019 review of submission by Jeyabalajitm


Hi, I reviewed your comments and added multiple reliable sources from Singapore government, Pubic media and other supporting sources. Please allow me to resubmit this article or please let me know if there any other changes that I have to do. Thanks.

Jeyabalajitm (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:23:44, 2 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by WmGaddy


What I submitted is a well researched account of an incident that happened to Jamestown colonist, Alice Lukin Page. There is an extensive article on her husband, John Page, but nothing about her. If I google his name, I get a Wicki article. If I google her name I get nothing. I feel that women who played a part in the founding of our country should be given at least some historical notice. Your editor claimed it appeared to be part of a story. Of course, it is a part of a story; all history is part of a story!


WmGaddy (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is so poorly written that it's difficult to tell what it's about, and please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you might consider expanding the page on her husband if there is not enough material to support a stand alone page. We can create a redirect for her name there. That is commonly done. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

14:18:23, 3 March 2019 review of draft by Cdogas


why isn't this article published? Cdogas (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:03, 3 March 2019 review of draft by Ajd


My submission of Draft:Gem Harvest was just rejected and I don't understand the reason. The rationale given was "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of Steven Universe episodes instead."

This of course is obviously untrue. The article List of Steven Universe episodes is a list of episodes, with about two sentences of plot summary for each and no room for any more information but some basic infobox data. But a handful of episodes (e.g., Mindful Education, Reunited) that are particularly notable for their production, impact, and/or critical response have articles of their own, so that their notable aspects can be discussed in more detail. I believe this episode is notable for its controversial subject matter, leading to substantial discussion and disagreement in secondary sources; the episode list does not provide space to include such information.

If the reason for rejection were that the draft doesn't establish that the episode meets the notability standard, I'd understand that—I'd disagree with it, but at least I'd understand it. But rejecting it on the grounds that Wikipedia already has an article on this subject just makes no sense, since it doesn't. There's no way to "resolve the issues", because there are no issues raised. The same argument would reject any of the 20 or so Steven Universe episode articles that already exist; it would reject any number of existing articles about episodes of other shows; heck, it would reject the article on New Hampshire because List of U.S. states exists.

Can you please clarify the rejection, and explain what is needed to bring the article to an acceptable standard? AJD (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AJD (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the reviewer, but I'm not sure the article is independently notable. You'd have to have more referencing from independent reliable sources to show that this episode is notable. I don't think it's all that far off though, as I can see other episodes are listed, and likely notable. I've pinged the reviewing editor who will most likely have a clearer view of the criteria here, but I think that's most likely the reason.
PS - The response isn't exactly wrong, as it does exist on Wikipedia, so I can see why they linked to it. It's a well written article, however, so worth a thorough check. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reject is correct on two levels. The topic is already covered on the list article. If you want to do a a bunch of spinoffs you should consult interested editors on the list page and/or the show's mainpage. Secondly the title already exists as a redirect so I can't move the draft to mainspace anyway unless I seek deletion of the redirect which I am not willing to do since I'm not convinced individual episodes are notable enough for a stand alone article. You could expamd the List of episodes info and get in much of the same material. You are not limited to two sentences. Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what it would take to convince you that an episode is notable enough for an article? The draft cites six distinct articles analyzing the episode, by five different authors, published on relatively high-profile media-analysis websites; that seems to clearly constitute significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. And I don't understand what you mean by "if you want to do a bunch of spinoffs". The existence of about 20 articles about individual episodes of Steven Universe is a fait accompli, all of which have been deemed notable enough for standalone articles; "Gem Harvest" is no less notable than most of those. Anyway I'll be happy to try to start a discussion about whether "Gem Harvest" is suitable for a standalone article at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes, but if consensus there is that "Gem Harvest" should have its own article I'm not sure what to do about it, since we'd still have to move it over the redirect. (Also, if AfC reviewers can't move articles to mainspace over redirects, I'm not sure why my move request was transferred to AfC in the first place.) AJD (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:03, 3 March 2019 review of submission by Maqbool ahmed sifu


Maqbool ahmed sifu 16:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maqbool ahmed sifu (talk • contribs)

Request on 16:20:01, 3 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Johnsung123


Hi my draft article on masjid omar salmah got rejected due to copyrighted text. However, I have mixed some reference texts and my own words together, making it confusing to identify which part does not fulfill the copyright requirements. (I have already added references to most paragraphs) Is there a way to find out which part of the article/texts does not fulfill the copyright requirements so that I can edit accordingly? Also some of my images are not licensed properly yet... Is that another cause for rejection of the draft? Please advice, thank you! Johnsung123 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johnsung123 - It looks to me as though it's already been removed. You can see copyviolations with an external tool here. You should write your article in a similar way to other articles that are similar. You have wayy to many images on the article, and it's quite a promotional article. Please read WP:NPOV. The article itself isn't written like articles on wikipedia, so that would be your main point of change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:35, 3 March 2019 review of draft by Cdogas


I am requesting help because the article i submitted "dimitris kaligeris" has been rejected without a reasonable rationale...the reviewer stated that it lacked sufficient footnotes! This is an article of a few lines with 2 footnotes! The sources are Greek websites and perhaps the reviewer cannot read Greek!

Cdogas (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cdogas. If you believe the subject meets WP:NFOOTY, your best approach would be to explain on Draft talk:Dimitris Kaligeris how he meets the guideline, and then resubmit the draft. If you can find additional sources, those would also be helpful, but be sure to use reliable ones. Transfermark profiles and wikis are not reliable sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:49, 3 March 2019 review of submission by Perron olivier


I changed the references to refer to a book from another author. Perron olivier (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 4

00:02:37, 4 March 2019 review of submission by 77.173.90.33

On January 5th I submitted Draft:Jamie Broadnax. Two months have passed. What's going on? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at it. :) --77.173.90.33 (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:41:13, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Hsvenkatesh


Hsvenkatesh (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


02:08:30, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Docia49

I wrote the stub above, and it was denied, but I would like to know if the stub has different requirements than an article? How many references would I need in order for it to be approved as a stub? Thank you. Docia49 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Docia49: - hi there. There is some odd phrasing in the various pages on stubs/articles which doesn't help understanding, but it's easiest to think of stubs as the lowest grade of article, but the minimum requirements for an article still apply.
The main route to demonstrating notability is General notability - while 5 sources would be amazing, 3 high quality sources is a more reasonable target.
The current main problem though is that neither of the current sources would count against this 3. The first is an interview - most of the text is actually given by Conrad (either in direct quotes or in quotes changed into "he said this" etc). As such, the source isn't independent, even though the news source is reliable. The 2nd source is the organisation's website so definitely isn't independent. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear:

Thank you for your reply. I was able to find information about stubs at Wikipedia talk:Stubs where it states, "Although we certainly would like all new articles to have at least one source, it is not an absolute requirement outside the realm of WP:BLP articles." I found the information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Stub. Is this information outdated?

@Docia49: - it probably should be written in that at least 1 source is required. An article that is already in Wikipedia strictly speaking only needs source(s) to exist, as a check for possible sources is part of the deletion process. A location, for example, only has to exist - it doesn't need sourcing about it beyond that. At AfC we set the minimum level as "won't be deleted", as it's preferable for drafts to spend longer here than go into the Article-Space and be deleted in a week.
In short, your article doesn't fall into any of the categories of articles that have lower than normal requirements, so I'd strongly advise hunting additional sources. You are an auto-confirmed user, so you can bypass the AfC process if you wish, but it will still go through the Mainspace patrolling that vets new articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:10:07, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Vorce


Vorce (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


02:36:34, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Azzata,G


I have added more of our company's websites. My latest request was about constantly getting declined due to unreliable references. I assumed that Mongolian companies are not so well known but as I did my research and reviewed other Mongolian companies, many of them had far too few references (1 or 2). Thus, I don't think that is the problem. Compare to some Mongolian companies on Wikipedia, our group company is one of the biggest company in our country. Not only in Mongolia, but we cooperate with many international companies. Lastly, my draft has rejected. Could you please help me? Creating an article about our company on Wikipedia means a lot to me and us. I hope you understand this. Thank you.

Azzata,G (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:45:35, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Singerkirankaur


Singerkirankaur (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:32:55, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Hossam.ouda


Hossam.ouda (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hossam.ouda: - as said in the rejection notice, this is a CV and Wikipedia does not exist to host CVs. There are plenty of websites that do - please add it there. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:22:26, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Eagen1991


THE INFORMATION IS FACTUAL AND RELEVANT TO THE E-CIGARETTE MARKET

Eagen1991 (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagen1991: When editing in talk pages, the use of all caps is perceived as "shouting". Please do not write in all caps.
Factual is good, but encyclopedia articles aren't written about things just because they're true. The topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Whether it is relevant to the e-cigarette market or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:21, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Raresix

I wanted to make a page about him because I think he is a great individual, I talked to him to send me his information for this page. He is a very influential guy and I think he deserves a small wiki page...  I know he is small and only have 15k on Instagram, but in his country thats something.. He comes from a small country named Romania.. Maybe if I do another page with more information and stuff, will you accept it?

Raresix (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Raresix: You have clearly misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not to elevate one's platform or to "spread the word." It is to write about already notable subjects. Please do not resubmit this. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:51, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Benny2828


Benny2828 (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC) 14:50:33, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Benny2828 Benny's Pizza[reply]

I am requesting some help, as this has been decline for submission due to notability issues.. I am having a hard time understanding how this is not a notable subject, even after thoroughly reviewing the criteria for articles for submission.

Hi Benny2828. Notability is judged by looking at the depth of coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Benny's website is not independent of the company. Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source. At best the draft cites one source that counts towards notability, and some reviewers will discount the reliability of a student newspaper because it's written by people still learning the craft of journalism. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage. Some degree of regional, statewide, national, or international media coverage is also required. Coverage of Benny's is likely to be limited to local restaurant reviews. Most businesses are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia article. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:10, 4 March 2019 review of draft by 2A02:A03F:3CF5:F000:4DBE:98E0:5F6D:D4F8


Hello, my submission was declined by DGG five days ago. DGG says to "remove statements of quality or other praise that are not explicitly supported by third party sources". This is my first ever submission to Wikipedia. I have now submitted two edits, both of which have been declined. I made substantial changes after the first time it was declined, adding 20 "third-party" footnotes to back up every statement, so I'm surprised it's been declined again. I am a professional art writer and I noticed that Wikipedia is skewed to cover personalities from the contemporary art market but not well-known personalities from other sectors of the art market. My intention is to submit a number of articles to correct this imbalance but the first attempt has now been declined twice. It would be helpful if DGG could be more specific about what particular statements DGG feels still lack support, I can't see any!!!

By the way, the instructions in this field say to click the "Save page" button, but there isn't one. I'm going to click the "Publish changes" button in the assumption that this is what you wizards mean.

2A02:A03F:3CF5:F000:4DBE:98E0:5F6D:D4F8 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited it for neutral tone and trumpery, so it should be good to go now. Theroadislong (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:31:33, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Grillage 2


Grillage 2 (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Hi! Is there someway I can physically speak to someone about Wikipedia? Its about giving credit to Wikipedia but what I have is very complex! I can give you my cell phone umber if necessary! Thank you, Dave[reply]

Hi Grillage 2. This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Your question is outside our scope. You may find answers at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. You are unlikely to find anyone to speak to. If you did, because of the nature of Wikipedia, they would not be in a position to give you legal advice. You may try asking your question at the Wikipedia:Help desk, where volunteers will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps! --Worldbruce (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:35:19, 4 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by BobScott63


I am looking for assistance to publish my first full submission to Wikipedia. My first draft was rejected, which given my lack of experience I fully understand. I asked several questions to my reviewer and have not received any constructive feedback to assist me. Not having been through this process before I didn’t know what to expect, but would have appreciated some coaching to improve my article through to successful conclusion. I have amended the document substantially since first submission both in terms of quality, accuracy, content and inclusion of additional referenceable citations from independent sources. I would really like someone to guide me through the process. If this isn’t possible please let me know.

BobScott63 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BobScott63 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BobScott63. Understand that what you regard as a successful conclusion (getting the draft published) might not be a successful outcome for Wikipedia. Most businesses are not notable (not suitable topics for an encyclopedia article). Wikipedia wants you as an editor, but may not want you to write what you wrote.
The Bucks Free Press and The Source are local newspapers. Some degree of regional, statewide, national, or international media coverage is required. It isn't clear whether or not the awards help demonstrate notability. Awards that are covered only by the recipients and the awarding organization are of little interest here. If they were covered by The Times, The Guardian, the BBC, or similar media, that would help the draft. Contrast the draft with Wikipedia's best writing about breweries: Boddingtons Brewery, O'Brien Brewing and Malting Company, Stones Brewery, Webster's Brewery, and Worthington Brewery. They show the range and depth of sources expected, although the draft need not be as long or cite as many sources. You may also find WP:BFAQ#COMAPNY helpful.
You are unlikely to find a mentor among us overworked generalists at Articles for Creation, but you might among editors who share your interests (perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer or Wikipedia:WikiProject Buckinghamshire). See Wikipedia:Community portal for other ways to help improve the encyclopedia and gain experience. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:38, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Nmd jbp


Nmd jbp (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:57, 4 March 2019 review of draft by Topofnky


I'm confused because this entry sites sources and this was a notable season in this programs history and I had planned to continue to make more seasons for WKU but apparently its being rejected because it's not a national championship season and the sources aren't good enough? I'm also confused because pages like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_WKU_Hilltoppers_basketball_team and like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932%E2%80%9333_UCLA_Bruins_men%27s_basketball_team. This first being a bad season with no sources the other a random UCLA season with very few wins. I'm happy to attempt to locate better sources but not if it will be rejected.

Topofnky (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:01:09, 4 March 2019 review of draft by 148.167.132.249


foundation for a humanitarian based economy update on googlemybusiness you can just type fhbe and the nonprofit organization show up also registered with the state and irs as a tax exempt organization 148.167.132.249 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@148.167.132.249: - hi there. None of that would make the organisation notable. Organisations, like companies, have high requirements - multiple high quality sources. As noted in the declines, your sources don't provide the in-depth, independent and reliable coverage needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:34, 4 March 2019 review of draft by 148.167.132.249


foundation for a humanitarian based economy update on googlemybusiness you can just type fhbe and the nonprofit organization show up also registered with the state and irs as a tax exempt organization can not receive a message back you can handle it to what extent you do on your end cant receive a message back thank you 148.167.132.249 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of the above Nosebagbear (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:29:26, 4 March 2019 review of draft by Niralidevgan


Hi, I am a little confused as to what is being called blatant copyright? I do not see any highlighted text and am not sure what section is being referred to. I took out some parts which were worded similarly on his bio on the officially company page just due to the fact it was a list of groups that he oversees. Other than that, I would appreciate the help. Thank you Niralidevgan (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niralidevgan. The copyright notice refers to historical revisions, not the current version of the draft (from which the copyright violations have already been removed). The complete history of the draft is available by clicking the "View history" tab to right of center near the top of the page. The problematic text was paragraphs staring "Products within ____ include ...". After an administrator has redacted the historical revisions that contain this text, the revisions will show in the history, but one will not be able to click through to the text that they contained. Then the administrator will remove the notice at the top of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:17, 4 March 2019 review of draft by Carly.juneredford


I created this album page back in December. I somehow managed to have duplicate submissions and they were all denied because of that. I was under the impression that an editor would be sorting out that issue but I misunderstood. Can you help me get my article submission sorted and approved?

Carly.juneredford (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carly.juneredford (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carly.juneredford. I see that you've recently done some housekeeping to delete User:Carly.juneredford/sandbox/Filthy_Apes_and_Lions_(Album) and have submitted Draft:Filthy Apes and Lions (Album). The latter will be reviewed in due course. Meanwhile, please disclose your conflict of interest with regard to the topic. There is more information on your talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:27:17, 4 March 2019 review of submission by Jaakko.saario


I edited a new page about a Finnish actor Esa Saario and it got published but only now I noticed that the main title on the page is unfortunately wrong. I´ve accidentally written the wrong name on the title. It says now ´Jaakko Saario´ while the name is supposed to be Esa Saario. Esa Saario has already an article on Finnish Wikipedia and I was trying to translate that article into English. So page named Jaakko Saario should be renamed to Esa Saario (a Finnish actor). Thank you and sorry. Jaakko.saario (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Worldbruce (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


March 5

01:09:52, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Jeffy7Jeffy


Asking for help. Jeffy7Jeffy (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:58, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Dliccardo


Improvements made based on feedback.

Dliccardo (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dliccardo: - hi there. If you've improved your article based on the feedback, then you'll need to resubmit it and it will be re-reviewed in time. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:35:04, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Dliccardo


Per this Tech Crunch article, this new venture firm is one of the most notable new firms of 2019:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/02/2019-us-vc-funds-take-a-more-boutique-approach/


Dliccardo (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure. See User talk:Dliccardo#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:00, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Mountain Child


Hi Wiki Team I have been tasked to create a Wikipedia page for our business but have been unsuccessful and I am not sure why. I have kept the articles short, factual and submitted a link which supports each fact to avoid being seen as marketing. All our competitors have pages and I have kept to their format. What am I doing wrong? Are there any suggestions to getting this right. Mountain Child (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure. See User talk:Mountain Child#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:41, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Dancesnitch

Hello, I would like to know more about why my recent article post has been rejected. Furthermore how can I edit the article correctly enough to have it published.

Kind Regards.

Dancesnitch (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dancesnitch. The draft has been rejected because the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing could make a draft on the topic acceptable for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:33:46, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Daniyaleroor


Daniyaleroor (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10:35:14, 5 March 2019 review of draft by 202.88.244.213


202.88.244.213 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, @202.88.244.213: - you've made alterations and reuploaded, so it will be re-reviewed in the fullness of time. A NOTE - you can't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. I'd suggest going to the article and finding the original source and using that instead. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:55:01, 5 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Suzannekelder


I was told last year my article was rejected due to lack notability, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models Since then, the subject, Maestro Claudio, has been inducted into the AVN hall of fame which is mentioned as a requirement in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors_and_models I have also provided many sources and information, following the format of many other pornographic directors and actors. Is there something that I am missing? Thank you.

Suzannekelder (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:47:38, 5 March 2019 review of submission by DeringeB


DeringeB (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:51:58, 5 March 2019 review of submission by DeringeB


DeringeB (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 22:07:57, 5 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by IanOverington


Having had an original attempt at an article for Wikipedia rejected, I re-read lots of policies of Wikipedia and could see that there were several places where my original article could be deemed unacceptable. Hence I tried to re-write the whole article, using as many earlier citations as possible to avoid excess reference to my own published work (primarily a book published over 25 years ago through Elsevier, North Holland, which I have always assumed to be a reputable publisher!). Instead I have gone back to first publishing of several of the items which are relevant to the whole topic. But my own research (originally carried out whilst employed by BAe in the UK) was really only primarily putting together a number of individually published items by several other researchers, where the final result was (is) that a claim made in Wikipedia under the main heading Hyperacuity has been proved completely out of date (by about 30 years!). So instead of the human visual system's use of Hyperacuity waiting for discovery it has been shown to be well understood (and has been for over 30 years!). My whole aim is to demonstrate that this capability is now perfectly viable and understood - but has only been demonstrated in my own publications (the book and a number of open publications primarily in the 1980's) and also in a software simulation. I did not set out to be at the forefront of the field, but that seems to be how things now stand and I feel, before I die (I am now 88 years old), that it is important to correct the long out-of-date statement. Also a long standing claim in Mathematics is that the best edge detector is the Canny Operator (nearest pixel) - as also claimed in Wikipedia. But by copying human vision, the best edge detection can also be improved by at least a factor of X10, as well as being as individual local vectors instead of scalars. Hence this also needs seriously updating! To deal with all the foregoing I have re-written my original article to include as far as possible all the original sources of various components of the whole. But this cannot be sorted out simply by small edits of the existing Wikipedia documentation. Rather, it needs quite a re-write - which is what I have now attempted to do. Also, because I seem to have become the leader in at least part of this, there are a few items which I have had to develop for myself which therefore seem to be what is classed original research in Wikipedia - despite them having been published (by me) as part of my book! But how do I now get all this even offered for publication in Wikipedia? IanOverington (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


IanOverington (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:33, 5 March 2019 review of submission by Robert Beckham Mugimba


Robert Beckham Mugimba (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I kindly request for assistance after submitting my draft anumber of times and its always turned down and rejected for almost a year now. its a biography of a living person and everything needed is available including my pictures. i really need help so that my biography draft gets into articles space.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=886377377"