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 VicenteAssensio (talk | contribs) at 03:26, 2 August 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)		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


July 26

00:30:17, 26 July 2019 review of submission by Vietcuongdao


Dear Wikipedians,

Regarding to my article 4000 Years of civilization, I would like to explain to Wiki readers that the figure of 4000 years is written and calculated through historic periods with concrete evidences. As most of readers talk much about 4000 years but do not know how it is developed and shaped [1]. Moreover, some readers have doubt on this figure (We have how many years of civilization?)[2].

The phrase of 4000 Years of civilization is true fact based on the historic development in East Asia countries.

Thank for your kind assistance,

Đào Việt Cường--vietcuongdao (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References:

References

  1. ^ Phan Huy Lê and 4000 Years of Vietnamese History - Le Minh Khai's... https://leminhkhai.word.express/.../phan-huy-le-and-4000-years-of-vienamese-history
  2. ^ Chúng ta có mấy ngàn năm văn hiến? - Chúng Ta.com https://www.chungta.com>Tư liệu nguôn & tra cứu


vietcuongdao (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:42:57, 26 July 2019 review of submission by Mikellysgri

I have edited this document to make it look less like advertising material. Prabhash is a pioneer in the Sri Lankan business world and an highly commended individual, i believe that he is a noteworthy businessmen who has achieved local and global success at a very young age. He is on several Board committees in leading organization and corporate around Sri Lanka, thereby adding value to all verticals of business, including leading Banks, Insurance Agencies, Government Organizations, Industry related Chambers. Prabhash has been invited to professionally addressed several local and international seminars, AGMs and conferences, thereby adding value to the marketplace. Mikellysgri (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikellysgri. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic. What is needed is quality, not quantity. If there aren't 3 solid sources, having 15 poor ones won't get the draft accepted, and if there are 3 solid sources, having 12 other weak ones will only obscure that fact. Examining five of the cited sources at random:
  • GRI Tires is not independent.
  • TVH is a primary source interview in which Subasinghe talks about his company with no independent analysis by the interviewer. It is neither independent nor secondary. It is also published by a company in the trade instead of being a scholarly or journalistic source. With no reputation for fact checking or accuracy, it probably is not reliable.
  • Daily FT contains only two sentences about Prabhash Subasinghe.
  • SDB Bank is a capsule bio supplied by Subasinghe, so not independent.
  • Daily News contains a single sentence about Subasinghe.
Of these, Daily FT and Daily News are the best, but they are far short of being significant coverage. An example of significant coverage of a businessman in an independent, reliable, secondary source is this article about Freedman. If you can't find significant coverage of Subasinghe, he may not be as noteworthy as you feel he is. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:27:10, 26 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Vnarsimhan


This is a company which is more than 6 years in the Visual Effects industry (VFX) and highly recommend this company because it is contributing significantly to the industry with the latest technology. Let me know what else needed to get it accepted? Thammudu (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thammudu (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vnarsimhan. The cited sources don't show that the company meets the primary criteria for notability (for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Most businesses do not, regardless of their age or whether they are "contributing significantly" to their industry. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:02:09, 26 July 2019 review of draft by 72.132.28.246


72.132.28.246 (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Can I get help wit the article?

@72.132.28.246: - the article doesn't have multiple high quality sources about the individual. Reading about the style of article (the psILoveYou), it looks like the subject actually provides the content themselves. As such, this isn't much use as a source. Basic criteria set out the minimum needs for a biography Nosebagbear (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Page

14:56:37, 26 July 2019 review of submission by Davies717


Davies717 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Davies717, there's an empty heading above that says "Delete this page". Did you mean to add it as part of this entry? If so, it will not be deleted. It was created by another user long before you started yet another version yesterday at User:Davies717/sandbox and submitted it for review. It was rejected because of the existence of the other draft. You need to work on improving the existing Draft:RLC Ventures. It's fine to replace the existing content there with the contents of your sandbox. However, note that it is still highly unlikely to be accepted. The references are not of the quality needed to establish the notability of a company. Also, if you have been paid to write this article either as a contractor or as an employee of the company, you are required to declare this. Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure for more information. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:05:05, 26 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Lekkala R Reddy


Hi team,

Namastey from India.

I've created a page was rejected by user: CNMall41 on 24 July.

It was flagged saying that this submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is previously deleted article about the same person and the protection log. I agree, may it was deleted earlier lack of reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient sourcing). Now, he has handsome reliable sources and notability. Google is showing his notability too https://g.co/kgs/6TLjbg

Kundan Srivastava is a noted human rights activist and working since many years from the young age featured in BBC World Service and International media for his fearless and selfless works. Secondly, Please help me to know that on which ground Kundan’s article was actually rejected now? Only because the article about him was deleted earlier many times created by different contributors? I have mentioned the reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient).

I’d request you to check the draft once. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lekkala_R_Reddy/sandbox Please help me to get this article published; if meet all the guidelines. I'll be highly grateful to you.

I believe Wikipedia is for those people who’re doing some notable works in respective fields. Kundan deserves to be included in Wikipedia directory because of his notability.

Many thanks,

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been answered above in your many other identical posts. Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:12, 26 July 2019 review of submission by Johnadaniels


I took a lot of time to write this wiki article which may help someone if they wanted information on a video game named NEXTGEN SANDBOX. I searched Wiki and did not find any information on this game so I thought it would be helpful for people. It was rejected with no reason and no recourse.

Johnadaniels (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given was clearly stated as "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:41:54, 26 July 2019 review of submission by Johnadaniels


Hello Wiki,

When would a video game be considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Here is a PS4 game named P.T., why would it be on Wiki but NEXTGEN SANDBOX cannot be on Wiki? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.T._(video_game)

Sincerely, John

Johnadaniels (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnadaniels The article P.T. (video_game) has 70 reliable sources, your draft has none. Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:30, 26 July 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D47:FAC2:8CB2:A484

Why is this taking so long?

2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D47:FAC2:8CB2:A484 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:93B0:1350:9D47:FAC2:8CB2:A484: - it's taking so long because more editors than we've ever had before are submitting drafts for review. This is great, but all reviewers are volunteer experienced editors and there's only a limited number of us and a limited amount of time we can give to reviewing them. As such, the max time to review goes up.
More importantly for you, currently this draft would not be accepted. You need multiple sources talking about the game itself. This is generally difficult before it comes out (they can't just say it's being made, they've got to talk about it), though not impossible. It may be preferable for it not to be reviewed until pre-release reviews start being made. When they do, add them as sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

04:11:08, 27 July 2019 review of submission by 114.72.97.38


114.72.97.38 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject isn’t notable. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 04:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:32:45, 27 July 2019 review of submission by LivSav19

My article has been rejected for notability, what do I have to, therefore, include to change this? Is it just more information from more sources?

LivSav19 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LivSav19: - notability declining normally requires adding in high quality secondary sources (newspapers, books etc), but this draft was rejected as the reviewer felt it unlikely that sufficient sourcing was possible to acquire. While it's possible that they're wrong, that did seem likely to be the case (at least at this time) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:27, 27 July 2019 review of submission by LivSav19

I do not understand why this page, for a fully verified poet is seen as 'not notable'. How do i build on this page to make it become 'noteable'? LivSav19 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LivSav19 Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by independent reliable sources so that information can be verified. YouTube and Instagram are not reliable sources.

Her own website is also not a reliable source for establishing notability. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. If there are no such sources then we cannot have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:23, 27 July 2019 review of draft by Mharrsch


I created a stub article for the Spanish painter Virgilio Mattoni. It was rejected with the reason stated as insufficient qualified references. An article about Virgilio Mattoni exists on the Spanish Wikipedia. I was trying to follow the directions given to request a translated article for English Wikipedia. In my stub article I referenced four of the main sources used for the Spanish Wikipedia article so I am at a loss as to why my stub article was rejected because of the references cited. I have found an extensive article about him written as a Lot essay by Christie's Auction House which sold his most famous work, "The Baths of Caracalla" for over $250,000. I will add it as my main reference and try to support it with other English language references.

Mharrsch (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:20, 27 July 2019 review of submission by INDIANMORINGA


INDIANMORINGA (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a free advertising vehicle. 2001:16B8:5099:9400:5455:4DAC:A8C5:582 (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:59, 27 July 2019 review of draft by SamieJr10


SamieJr10 (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginner here. I wanted to create articles of footballers. But it's been too hard for me to do so. I'm not English native to understand what Wikipedia is telling me to do to verify. Please help! I wrote an article and I want simple guide to create it.

Hello SamieJr10. If English is not your first language, you may find it easier to contribute to a different language version of Wikipedia, such as አማርኛ. See meta:List of Wikipedias for a complete list of choices. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:30, 27 July 2019 review of submission by Bbarmadillo


Please give me more detailed information on why the article Draft:Zava might not meet WP:NORG. This website has been covered at major media in Germany, the UK, Austria, Switzerland and France and has a substantial book coverage. The subject also has a German Wikipedia article. Please also tell what could/should be improved at this article. Disclosure: Draft:Zava is a properly declared COI contribution. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

00:42:27, 28 July 2019 review of submission by JuniperSprings


JuniperSprings (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to ask if anyone could help me make my article look less "like an advertisement" which it's not. I pulled from various interviews and other published materials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BevVeg_International_--_Vegan_Certification#BevVeg_International_--_Vegan_Certification_%28new_section%29

08:19:17, 28 July 2019 review of submission by Aumora

Hello! can someone help me? I'm waiting for more than 2 and a half months for a second review for my draft Draft:Daniel S. Milo. I need help because TheRoadIsLong does not answer me anymore. Please, I think I did good Job and the Draft is appropriate for being an article. Thanks a lot, Aumora (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not edited since May, I'm not sure what you are accusing me of? I replied to your comment with "I will leave it to another reviewer to take a look". Please be patient. Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:30:39, 28 July 2019 review of submission by Romylynmalacadrosel


Romylynmalacadrosel (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romylynmalacadrosel Your draft appears to have been copied from Facebook, it gives no indication whatsoever as to why the person might be notable enough for an article, hence the reason for rejection. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:16, 28 July 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:C72:10CE:BF8B:F5A6

Can you please help?

2600:1700:93B0:1350:C72:10CE:BF8B:F5A6 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of advice are you looking for? The article was declined because it does not have sufficient sourcing. As the reviewer stated, it is too soon to create a separate article for an unreleased game. It will most likely not receive in-depth coverage until media reviews it. However, even so, it likely makes more editorial sense to include this content in a section in Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

03:52:13, 29 July 2019 review of submission by 97.115.3.184


I've added the first two rounds of matches for this competition. The third round of matches will be drawn after the second round completes in mid-September. There is no longer anything speculative or unfinished here, this is am important annual event in the English football pyramid for small community clubs.

97.115.3.184 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer commented, "lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources". The draft still cites a single, non-independent source, thefa.com. If the competition is being discussed only by the organizer of the competition, then the topic isn't suitable for Wikipedia, and discussion of it should remain on thefa.com. If the competition is as important as you suggest, than it should be easy for you to cite three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of it. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:39:24, 29 July 2019 review of submission by Template:Chinu977


Chinu977 (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:46:27, 29 July 2019 review of submission by Lethgawd


Lethgawd (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lethgawd: - the draft had no sources and did not appear like to be able to gain those references either. As such, the reviewer was right to reject it for failing notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:19:46, 29 July 2019 review of submission by Sarahsullivan2009


Hi, I am writing in regards to the request for 'Connexin Ltd.' page being denied. In Hull, the broadband industry is highly dominated by KCOM (who you have granted a page to) this is due to them buying and owning all the fibre lines in the city. It is not commonly known that there are other broadband providers available - after living in Hull myself for years I was shocked to find out I could receive broadband from a different company and when researching online it was evident that these companies were not publicised online. Connexin is a large company and is now more known to the public, I think it is fair that they should have a Wikipedia page like KCOM does. I have now been a customer of Connexin for a couple of years and I want to make sure that people are aware that there are other options available to them. I will also be contributing by creating a page for 'Pure Broadband' as they are the only other company, along with Connexin, that provides Broadband in Hull. I do not think it is fair or right that many people like me are not aware that we can pay significantly less for broadband in Hull - the only reason I was originally put off switching providers was because of the lack of publication online. It seems this has changed and now Connexin has had more coverage in general media - even holding their own events in Hull but Wikipedia is the only website that now does not cover them. I hope to see that the page is granted soon, and also hope this will be taken into consideration when I create 'Pure Broadband's page. Thank you!

Kind regards, Sarah Sullivan

Sarahsullivan2009 (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahsullivan2009 Your draft has zero reliable sources and totally inappropriate content eg. "Connexin has the vision to reinvent how we communicate using the Internet." Do you work for them by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:13:57, 29 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ch3rn1k


Hey! I've tried to rewrite Endel ( company) article, regarding submission comments about ARTSPAM, but I don't understand, how should I rewrite page, to make it more clear to user's view. Can I get some help from experts? Where exactly it seems, that there is my point of view? Ch3rn1k (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ch3rn1k The draft is not written in a neutral tone eg. "historic deal", " soothing, and physiologically natural soundscapes", "esteemed psychologist,", ""truly endless applications", "celebrated neoclassical composer". Theroadislong (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:08:51, 29 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Taylor4567


I am very new to this and not fully computer literate. I have tried to write about a website and Facebook page, that has had many newspaper stories about it, but can not for the life of me understand the citation process. The links are below and I have tried to do it manually to no avail, please can somone help me to do this?

Taylor4567 (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:19:46, 29 July 2019 review of submission by Anastasi yes


Unfortunately, I can't understand clearly why the article have problems with the references. Could someone help me to solve this problem? Thank you in advance!

Hi Anastasi yes, what problem do you mean? There's no error message or reviewer note about the references. Yes the references are mostly bare URLs but that is a minor issue that's easy to fix, I'll do it right now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:05, 29 July 2019 review of draft by Reinhard-G-Mueller


This article was declined because it does not have enough citations. Unfortunately, since this article is about a person, Prof. Werner Stegmaier, the only source that exists about his biography is the German Wikipedia page (there is nothing printed). My draft page is a translation of the German Wikipedia page. Is this sufficient as a source?

Thank you!

Reinhard Mueller

Reinhard-G-Mueller (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reinhard-G-Mueller: Wikipedia cannot use user-generated sources, such as other language Wikipedias. In short, this is because they are not reliable -- anyone can edit them. We need reliable third-party sources for this, especially so for biographies. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:51:54, 29 July 2019 review of draft by Lrichman


I'm trying to submit an article about Dr. Fitzhugh Mullan, but I'm not sure I'm doing it correctly. I clicked "Publish page..." in the top right corner after writing an article with embedded links and citations. I was then sent a message that said "Draft article not currently submitted for review," so I clicked the blue box that said "Submit your draft for review!" in the bottom right corner of that message, but I was then shown the same message. What can I do differently? Thanks so much.

Lrichman (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

05:02:39, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Grahamfried


My first version of this page was rejected because it relied on primary sources. I have changed the page draft so that it now only references reliable secondary sources, and I believe (and hope!) that it is now fit for publication. Thanks! Grahamfried (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


07:24:49, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Babitahamdard


Babitahamdard (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:00, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Benjamindavidharvey


This page was submitted due to the elevation of the parent company Spirax-Sarco releasing a history book and being recently elevated to the FTSE 100. Watson-Marlow are a significant company with a rich history and significance in the pumping market.

Please clarify why this was not a notable enough subject? Is it the sources?

Benjamindavidharvey (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that you have provided do not show that Watson-Marlow is sufficiently notable independent of Spirax-Sarco (because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). Wikipedia uses the word notable in a way that means independent sources have written about the subject, see WP:N. Sources must be in-depth and independent coverage, see WP:RS for more information. I quickly evaluated the sources that you listed, Spirax's website is not independent and neither is the Scientist Live piece (it was written by a Watson-Marlow employee, like a lot of trade magazine articles). The Business Cornwall article I would mostly call "routine coverage" of business activities per WP:CORPDEPTH, merely expanding a factory doesn't make a company notable. Some of this information could expand the Watson-Marlow section of the Spirax article (you could request an edit there since you have a COI), or you need to find at least 2 or 3 good sources about Watson-Marlow specifically. Writing articles about companies is difficult. Hope this helps. shoy (reactions) 14:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:56:25, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Ankit Chamol


why my article got rejected Ankit Chamol (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My article has knowledge on business coaching. I covered Why, When, Who and How all the useful aspects which will help entrepreneurs. I have not promoted any company or individual. I have valid references from Frobes, Inc.com, Entrepreneur.com. Why my article is rehected and wha changes i do so it gets accepted. Ankit Chamol (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ankit Chamol take a look at WP:NOTGUIDE. Your draft breaks that rule with almost every sentence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:06:24, 30 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Elifnurk


I have an article rejected (MArio Grigorov) , however i think i have made the suitable changes now and would like to know how it would be accepted.

Thanks

Elifnurk (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:20, 30 July 2019 review of submission by KLSB

Reworking the article, I have deleted the paragraphs that could have been misunderstood as advertising (e.g. on pricing). Plus, as I have added multiple highly reliable third-party sources to the article (e.g. Forbes, Bloomberg L.P.), the argument (»reads like an advertisement«) appears not valid any longer. Even more important: Same as Lime (transportation company), TIER is one of the leading companies (+5m rides, +300 employees, +30m funding) in the growing e-scooter industry, which is why a wikipedia entry for TIER is highly relevant. KLSB (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


16:48:54, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Sandy Di Yu

Hi there, I was wondering if it's possible to get a second opinion on this draft. It was rejected as the editor deemed it did not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I reviewed in meticulously so to ensure the sources I used would fit the eligibility as outlined on the page.

I believe the guidelines have been followed for sources 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 on Draft:ArtRabbit. The editor stated that the sources "consists of passing mentions and self-promotion", which I do not believe is the case for the above-mentioned sources. For example, source 1 is a book publication from an established publisher with several pages dedicated to the topic I referred to. Source 4 is in an academic journal which speaks about 4 organisations, including the one I wrote the article about, as a secondary source. Sources 5 and 6 are articles from news outlets, and they are both solely about the organisation. Source 8 is a documentary that prominently features the organisation.

Is this still insufficient? If so, could someone please clarify why it's insufficient? Thank you for your time and dedication!

Sandy Di Yu (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:37, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Ljadams1984

Hello. I received feedback about this wiki article that it goes against the purpose of wikipedia however there are various similar personalities featured on the website. The cases discussed in the article are sourced from mainstream media outlets as well and the details of the cases were headline news on Russia Today, The Southern Poverty Law Center, Branston Trilakes, KPRS, and various other mainstream media outlets. An example of a similar article with similar content can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau

Thank you.


Ljadams1984 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:58, 30 July 2019 review of submission by 106.206.0.55


106.206.0.55 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Could you help us?

21:17:11, 30 July 2019 review of submission by Thomasskm


Thomasskm (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has now been deleted twice, for copyright and then being unambigously promotional. I suspect you need to declare your connection and until you can write a company draft in a neutral form, it won't be accepted (drafts can often be declined for advertising, even if they aren't unambiguous pure promoting - they have to be fully neutral). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:54:47, 30 July 2019 review of draft by Ncamhi


Quiero crear una página de Wikipedia para Robero Camhi, destacado empresario y emprendedor chileno, sin embargo, es necesario arreglar ciertos aspectos en el código para que la página quede bien. Ncamhi (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Ncamhi, esta es la Wikipedia en inglés (en.wikipedia.org). Si desea publicar un artículo en español, hágalo en Wikipedia en español (es.wikipedia.org) 80.130.157.66 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

08:31:17, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Anki 84

I have now added relevant references for making this article published on wikipedia. Please review it and allow it to get published. Anki 84 (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anki 84. None of the three sources you added does the slightest thing to demonstrate notability. The reason for the STOP sign on the draft is that rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:31, 31 July 2019 review of submission by VmwareVrni


Eliminated product use cases. Keeping just the product name and one-liner purpose.

VmwareVrni (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:25:44, 31 July 2019 review of draft by Ashashko


Hello! I've translated article about The LitRes company. Can you please help me to understand what I did wrong? Beacuse it's just the translation of the Russian article, nothing more.

Ashashko (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashashko: - there's 3 issues with this.
Firstly, you need to fix the copyright, as you've declare it's a translation of another wikipedia version. Please make a blank edit and in the summary add a URL link to the view history of the article you've duplicated this from.
While this comes from another Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it meets our rules. Wikipedias can set different rules, and en-wiki has strict notability rules for companies, so better sourcing is needed.
While it's not extreme promotionalism, it reads more like what they'd say on their website, listing all the good things they do/offer. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, @Nosebagbear:! 1. Can you please explain to me what the "blank edit" is? Can you please provide me more details how I can do it? 2. But what if sources are in Russian not in English? 3. Can you please explain what the article should be about?

Request on 09:51:49, 31 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Stylus123


I have provided 2 sources in my article. How many reliable sources do we need to pass the notability criteria? Also, the two links which I provided did not qualify the wiki notability norms? secondly, can I do further edits and add more reliable sources in the same article and re-submit?


Stylus123 (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stylus123: - so your first source doesn't tell us more than the address and a 2 line summary of what the company does. Sources used to show notability have to provide significant coverage. The 2nd source isn't reliable or independent as it's basically a press release.
We suggest 3 high quality sources, as that makes it clear - currently this doesn't have any.
The draft also shouldn't have external links in the main body of the text. It doesn't need links to the biographies of the key individuals or the the commerce chamber. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:56, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Dfsp94


Dfsp94 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I want to write this article the most neutral as possible, so I removed parts that might be bias. What advice can I further get?

13:18:45, 31 July 2019 review of submission by ElectiveCare

Hi I am new to Wikipedia and this is the first article I have tried to post. I would like your help with two things please. 1. When I first arrived on the site I tried to notify that I am an interested party: I work for the NHS and this article is about a project I have been working on (though I won't be working for them soon). However it told me there was no page with the title Elective Care which I chose as my name for this and after that I didn't seem to get the option again. Please can you help me? If I post the article when I am no longer working on the project, do I still need to notify an interest as by then I will not have financial interest in it? 2. I don't understand what I can do to meet the criteria. There are references to EyesWise on the Royal College of Ophthalmologists' website: https://rcophth.ac.uk/2019/04/eyeswise-leading-transformation-in-ophthalmology/ and NHS England's website: https://www.england.nhs.uk/elective-care-transformation/best-practice-solutions/eyeswise/ but I don't know if these count. Please can you advise? We are expecting it also to be on the RNIB and Macular Society websites soon. Would this be sufficient? If not, what further references and sorts of references do I need? Thank you very much for your help. Emma ElectiveCare (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ElectiveCare (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:52, 31 July 2019 review of submission by MattJohnson5

The draft submission was declined with reason given that it, "...not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject...". There are, however, a number of third party, reliable, published sources such as The Hamilton Spectator, The Spec, National Post, and The Toronto Star. The articles are fairly in-depth and some detail the opposition faced. Could I get some additional input on what is required for acceptance? Would it be 'more' articles or something else? Thanks. MattJohnson5 (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may have inadvertently clicked the wrong decline reason on this one, it should have been declined as reading like an advert probably. Theroadislong (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:22, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Nikosathens31


Nikosathens31 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:38, 31 July 2019 review of draft by Mrhaandi


I recently wrote an article (under User:Mrhaandi/sandbox) and was unsure whether I needed to submit the draft for review, which I did. As it turns out, I was an autoconfirmed user and did not need to do this. Now I already created (and improved upon) the article Intersection_type_discipline properly and am not sure how to retract the draft submission in User:Mrhaandi/sandbox. Mrhaandi (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox deleted by Orangemike. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IARA Awards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IARA_Awards

please help the article got declined first time created article improve it please and publish it really heart broken crying inside heart :(:(:(:( --Andoster (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:IARA Awards was deleted at the user's request. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:45:45, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Lukyamuzi Joseph


Lukyamuzi Joseph (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MARY BABIRYE KABANDA

I have tried often to edit a draft article for publishing with the above name or subject but unfortunately am not making headway. I am trying to profile my Masaka area leaders including MPs and Local Govt leaders. I intend to move on to places of interest in Masaka and so on. My fear is that if I abandon an article and move on to another before its published, it might never be.

To the best of my knowldge I submited verifiably independent news sources about the subject at hand. For instance Parliament's website abd other news papers with online postings. I will much appreciate any help rendered.

Thanks. Awaiting your help, thanks.

Your draft Draft:Mary Babirye Kabanda is not in the queue for review as you have not re-submitted it.You have yet to add three reliable sources as requested back in April. www.parliament.go.ug is not an independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:13:15, 31 July 2019 review of submission by DavekickrOZ


DavekickrOZ (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:15:17, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Vikingwonder


I would like to know exactly what the issue is with my posting of Draft:Shoplifter / Hrafnhildur Arnardóttir. I know whoever reviewed it stated that it wasn't written like an encyclopedia and it seems to be not completely neutral. How would I go about fixing this, and resubmitting so then it gets approved?

Vikingwonder (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikingwonder: - I would say some of the tweeks made since the decline have improved the tone sufficiently to meet the minimum requirements on those grounds. It could be a couple of days until I get a chance to review it, but I'd be happy to give it another view (if no-one gets there first). Please feel free to poke me if I don't get round to it by Sunday (just visit my talk page). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:12:42, 31 July 2019 review of submission by 106.206.61.23


106.206.61.23 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:24, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Rolfy47

The comment "no evidence this list is of particular note" is curious. This would be a child page of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_100_Countdowns" which already has several child pages of the same sort from 2001 through to 2016. I notice there are no child pages since then, so is this a new policy about this parent page? If so, I find this disappointing as this is a much more usable resource that the original site that doesn't allow for sorting or export is a usable format. Please reconsider this submission in light of the parent page and the usefulness of a one stop shop for all of these countdowns. Thanks Rolfy47 (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rolfy47. Although it is natural to learn by example, it is safer to work from the official guidelines, in this case notability. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it may mean only that no one has gotten around yet to fixing it or deleting it. Existence is not a good reason to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.
To show that Draft:Classic 100 Composer is a suitable topic for inclusion in the encyclopedia, the draft needs a few reliable, secondary sources, independent of ABC, that discuss this year's countdown. I've added one article from a major newspaper for you, so you just need a couple more. In past years there has been some coverage in Limelight, so you could try there. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:04:49, 31 July 2019 review of submission by 205.173.217.10


The page updated has been updated with match information for the first two rounds - the initial submission was made by another user before the draw had been announced. Both this and the 2019-2020 FA Vase page should be added - both competitions have been updated in Wikipedia year-after-year. I submitted an Afc Help ticket for the FA Vase page a few days and have gotten no comment. These competitions begin in August and September, so there is a timely need for approval.

205.173.217.10 (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2019–20 FA Trophy has the same problem as Draft:2019–20 FA Vase, it cites no independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the competition. If the topic is suitable for Wikipedia, it should be easy for you to add three such sources.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Saying "there is a timely need for approval" smacks of recentism. There is a considerable backlog of drafts awaiting review. Volunteers are currently reviewing ones submitted 20 weeks ago. If you have no conflict of interest with the topic, are not blocked or banned from editing, and don't wish to wait 20 weeks, you are free to create an account, make 10 edits over a four day period, and move the draft to article space yourself. As long as you've first added the sources necessary to demonstrate notability, it should survive there. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

07:24:43, 1 August 2019 review of submission by 116.68.247.65


116.68.247.65 (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


07:36:15, 1 August 2019 review of submission by Spawnspawn

Double standards. The current person has more reasons to have article in Wikipedia than this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_McMorrow Spawnspawn (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spawnspawn: As the reviewer (@Zxcvbnm:) noted, the sources have to be about the subject among other things to establish notability. Just because a game is notable, does not mean the game's author is (and vice versa).
The article you linked has been tagged for notability issues. Unless additional sources are provided, it will likely not survive a deletion discussion. The difference is that no one has reviewed it yet, because it was created directly. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:41, 1 August 2019 review of submission by MaskedSinger


Has already been declined 3 times due to promotional language although to be clear, it wasn't until the 3rd time that it was explained to me what was actually promotional about the page. Updated it accordingly and would now like to resubmit it.

MaskedSinger (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:47, 1 August 2019 review of draft by MisMurphy


I have been waiting for a review for 3+ weeks and the number of submissions is getting longer rather than shorter. Anything I have done wrong or need to do in order to be reviewed within the 8 week estimate?

MisMurphy (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MisMurphy: - I'm afraid the key bit is that it's 8+ weeks - currently the longest ones in the queue are up to 14 weeks. We've had an extremely high rate of submissions for the last couple of months, and with roughly the same amount of reviewers the backlog obviously grows. You've not done anything wrong, but I can't guarantee a review within 8 weeks. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:25, 1 August 2019 review of draft by Stephanierr86


I am seeking some help in making a small change in creating this article. I made a mistake when creating the title and I don't know how to change it. I would like it to simply read "Terri Maxwell" instead of what's there. Can you show me how to correct this or direct me how to get it changed? Thank you.

Stephanierr86 (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephanierr86: I moved it to Draft:Terri Maxwell for you. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:09, 1 August 2019 review of draft by Mountain9


I can't find a save button for my sandbox and I inadvertently pressed the publish button. I'm sorry I did that. Please can you tell me how to save a draft in my sandbox prior to submitting it for review? Many thanks Mountain9 Mountain9 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Mountain9. "Publish changes" is the button that saves a page, any page. It doesn't submit a draft for review. The button that does that is typically blue, and labelled "Submit your draft for review!" or "Resubmit", if the most recent submission of the draft has been declined. If you want to save work in progress without agreeing to Wikipedia's Terms of Use, licensing your contribution, and publishing it where other people can see and edit it, you must save it somewhere off-wiki, such as on your home computer. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:12:33, 1 August 2019 review of draft by BlakeB93

I have been waiting more than 8 weeks now for the article to be done. When is it going to be reviewed? Can you assist me in getting it done?

BlakeB93 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:14:51, 2 August 2019 review of submission by ShirleyMarcus


ShirleyMarcus (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I was missing notable, verified articles. I have added 8+ of them now.

03:26:10, 2 August 2019 review of draft by VicenteAssensio

Can you plase point out what part of the article is not referenced by a "reliable, secondary, published, independent" source. It's not clear.

Thanks

VicenteAssensio (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=908957896"