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 Kribondhar (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 4 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 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 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]

Hi Lrichman. The draft has not been submitted. To submit it, go to Draft:Fitzhugh Mullan and, while on the "Read" tab, without entering the editor, click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the big gray box. That will put you into the source editor, which may look strange if you're accustomed to using the visual editor. There will not be a "Publish changes..." button at the top right corner, but there will be one at the bottom left, if you scroll all the way down. Click that button to finalize your submission. I haven't submitted the draft on your behalf because reviewers would decline it in its current state.
Of the draft's 13 sources, only 2 (Smitherman 2009 and Ficklen 2009) are not written/edited by Mullan, and Smitherman doesn't mention Mullan. Wikipedia doesn't much care what someone says about themselves. The bulk of an article should come from independent sources, but less than 5% of the draft is from independent sources. His being an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine cites no source. Many other details don't cite any sources, which makes one wonder if you can write about his grandfather, father, where he grew up, where he went to school, etc. because you have some close connection to him outside of Wikipedia, perhaps as a colleague or family member.
Finally, although this would not cause the draft to be declined, external links - ones that take the reader away from Wikipedia - are not allowed in the text. The dozen or so in the draft must be removed, converted into references if they support content about Mullan, or moved to and "External links" section at the end if allowed by the guidelines for such links. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:35, 3 August 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]

Hi Sandy Di Yu. The Evening Standard piece is a good start. Design Week and East London Lines are less compelling in terms of significant coverage. I don't have access to the Manoto TV documentary, so cannot evaluate it directly, but you didn't get much content out of it. If you resubmit the draft (the most certain way of getting a second opinion), and if I have time available when it next reaches the head of the queue (i.e. 20+ weeks from now), I would be willing to get the book evaluate it as a source.
It's difficult to publish pages about companies and their products on Wikipedia these days. If you follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Article alerts you'll see that such pages are deleted, merged, or declined with great regularity. If you nonetheless decide to pursue this, I suggest:
  • Wait a year or two to see if more is written about ArtRabbit in independent, reliable sources.
  • Remove Apollo - if the awardee and awarding organization are the only ones to publicize an award, it isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia.
  • Try to replace Brexit Podcast with an independent source. If you keep it, indicate in the citation where the supporting material can be found, such as "5:42 minutes in" so that reviewers don't have to wade through the whole half hour.
--Worldbruce (talk) 23:07, 2 August 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]

@Ljadams1984: The existence of similar articles is not an argument that will carry weight with reviewers, since existence doesn't mean "meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.
RT (Russia Today), "as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation, including the promotion of conspiracy theories", is not generally reliable for controversial topics, see WP:RSP. I haven't looked at it closely, but suspect Free Republic, American Freedom Radio, justiceforshawnaforde.com, website.informer.com, thetruthdenied.com, and the various primary sources are also problematic. KPRS and the Branson Tri-Lakes News sound better. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:07:22, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Ljadams1984



Thank you for your feedback and review. I have removed the references to thetruthdenied.com. The main source of the information comes from the following sources: Voice of San Diego news paper San Diego Citybeats Southern Poverty Law Center San Diego Court Records San Diego Union-Tribune KNSD San Diego KSPR Branson, MO Branson Tri-Lakes News

The websites: American Freedom Radio is the radio station which the programs aired on. The information from that website is simply biography of the programs Truth Brigade Radio and Soul Journeys Radio. The information is also mentioned in the mainstream media articles from the sources listed above. The reference to Russia Today is referencing an interview of which the subject of this article was a guest and does not reference any material reported by Russia Today itself but rather words of the subject out of their own mouth.

If further editing is required I will be happy to do so. However, I would kindly ask that you please review the Wiki article as I am confident the information contained meets Wiki standards.

Thank you again for your time and attention to this.

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]


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Washington_Tennis_Academy This Academy has less information but it is still there on Wikipedia. I am not able to understand why Atletas Tennis Academy cannot be on Wikipedia? Anki 84 (talk) 08:31, 31 July 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?

@Ashashko: For a ping to work, you must sign your post in the same edit in which you type the ping. See Help:TALK.
1. Wikipedia:Translation explains the attribution requirements (in section "How to translate"). Since you didn't do that on the first edit, the insufficient attribution needs to be repaired using the procedure described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution, with an edit summary that is a blend of the examples given on the two pages. By a "blank edit", Nosebagbear means what is formally called a dummy edit - one that makes a small formatting change, such as an extra space at the end of a sentence, just enough that the editing software recognizes a difference and allows you to save an edit summary.
2. You may cite Russian sources using the same cite template you use for English ones. For example:{{cite news |author=Maksim Kotin |date=19 January 2007 |script-title=Книга с маслом |trans-title=An English translation of the title |url=http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/858954 |work=[[Kommersant]] |language=ru}}
3. An article about a company should focus mainly on the company's history. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Worldbruce, I appreciate the response and suggestions. Thank you for taking the time to assist.

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) @BlakeB93: it was declined for being in a tone not appropriate for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia by @Theroadislong:. Unbekannter z34-56r-ghf-aq2-d0r (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

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.

Subsequently deleted at the request of the author. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hi VicenteAssensio. I'm not sure that's the most pertinent question to ask, since no reviewer has said that's the problem. The most recent review says the draft fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic.
The draft cites a single source inline, and quotes a second without, for some reason, citing it inline. The first is a primary source, an appraisal. Primary sources don't help establish notability. It is unclear whether the second source may be used on Wikipedia. Is it published, in the sense that an archived copy exists somewhere that the public can examine (possibly at considerable cost and inconvenience), or is it a report produced privately and locked away in the vault of whoever commissioned it? Sources must be verifiable. If it may be used at all, as a technical report on an examination of the violin, it's another primary source, so it doesn't help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:32:31, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Hrmehrotra

Hello Team,

I found 3 and 4 companies named with "CloudConnect" so i am looking to get the one where, i am working in Wikipedia for authentication of the firm. please help me, do i have to provide any more details or is there anything wrong?

I appreciate your help. Hrmehrotra (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrmehrotra: As the reviewer noted, the article lacks sources. You need to add at least 3 or so independent and in-depth sources. The two in the article do not satisfy the criteria explained in the decline reason. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:26:56, 2 August 2019 review of draft by Barankeegnu


I've added more links and references as it was proposed in declining reason. Some of the references were declined by Wiki (for example AliExpress, there were an article about CDEK China there). I can even add more references but most of them are in Russian, I don't feel it has a lot of sense. Barankeegnu (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barankeegnu: Sources do not have to be in English. But sources have to be in-depth about the subject. Not part of a list, not a company profile or directory entry, not written or presented by someone from the company or a brief passing mention without any details. I checked the sources (I speak Russian) and none appear to satisfy this. I agree with the reviewer's conclusion. The criteria in the decline reason explain exactly what sources are needed for WP:GNG, but mainly significant. In the end, most companies do not pass the notability criteria for Wikipedia as there is little to say about them other than to make a company profile, which is against Wikipedia's purpose. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:48, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Sameerbhosle9


Hi, can you please suggest necessary changes or suggestions to this article as it is not getting approved. Thanks

Sameerbhosle9 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:18:12, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Benjamindavidharvey


Hi - I have referenced a publication 'Knowledge, Service Products' by Nigel Watson as a primary resource - is this a suitable/ notable? It appears as the spirax sarco website but this is because it is a link to the publication pdf. Any help would be appreciated. Many thanks-

Benjamindavidharvey (talk)

Hi Benjamindavidharvey. The draft references http://www.spiraxsarcoengineering.com/Pages/home.aspx. The publication Knowledge, Service Products would be http://www.spiraxsarcoengineering.com/AboutUs/Documents/Knowledge,%20Service,%20Products.pdf. It is not an independent source because it was commissioned by Spirax-Sarco Engineering plc, the parent company of Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group. So it does not help establish 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 a stand alone article 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. You could propose at Talk:Spirax-Sarco Engineering the addition to that article of a modest amount of information about Watson-Marlow. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:16, 2 August 2019 review of draft by JIm DeNunzio


Hello. I have an article in the Draft section that I am trying to publish. Is there anything else I need to do other that wait for it to be reviewed? I know that it may take 8+ weeks to publish, I just thought I would see if there was any improvements to the article that I need to make. Thank you for your time.

JIm DeNunzio (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:54, 2 August 2019 review of submission by Yafimpico

subject is a notable figure in a category with little representation, Kapler is a well known producer in a religious jewish music genre, please review the info again, he is not an artist but a producer of the most influential religious jewish songs in the last few years.

Yafimpico (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


22:16:54, 2 August 2019 review of submission by 41.113.14.159


41.113.14.159 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

03:22:59, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Kimhancey


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} I added many inline links for the notable persons with whom Daniel Doen Silberberg has studied and taught. I added more references and sources. Thank you for taking another look at this. Kimhancey (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:18, 3 August 2019 review of draft by Carrolquadrio


I am trying to submit for review an article on the Hollywood Hotel in Sydney Australia but it seems to be rejected on the basis of an article already existing. The thing is that the article that already exists is in California not Australia. How should i proceed please? Should i change the name of the draft or otherwise? Thankyou--Carrolquadrio (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Carrolquadrio (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have resolved the issue and it is now awaiting review, thank you.--Carrolquadrio (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Carrolquadrio. Are you referring to the message "Warning: The page Hollywood Hotel already exists. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located to the correct title"? That isn't a rejection, just a warning in case people didn't know that there is already an article with that title. You know that, aren't writing about the same hotel, and as a brand new editor can't change the draft's title, so there's nothing for you to worry about. If a reviewer accepts the draft, they'll note the warning and move the topic to a new title to distinguish it from the other Hollywood Hotel. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Actually I got the title wrong, the title is Hotel Hollywood not Hollywood Hotel. None of the work is copied and it was just declined as seeming like an advertisement with too many issues relating to tonality. I want to delete the page with the name Hollywood Hotel (but I am not sure how to do this) and I have created the new article Hotel Hollywood taking out any phrases that might imply value. What is noteable about the Hotel is the publican is iconic and just died.Perhaps I should make the article about her and not the hotel? If so, how would I do this? What is your opinion please?--Carrolquadrio (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:03:41, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Jayanagas

GrabOn is a coupons and deals platform with six years of standing in the market with proper attirbutes and credentials. It can be compared with Groupon. The article is not an advertisement nor is it an undue publicity to the company. Since it provides deals and discounts on almost every purchase and they are genuine and authentic, I request you to review it once again. Jayanagas (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was declined is because it has a serious advertorial tone. The draft reads more like the website "about" page than a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used as a means to promote the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:06:55, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Jayanagas

GrabOn is a coupons and deals platform with six years of standing in the market with proper attirbutes and credentials. It can be compared with Groupon. The article is not an advertisement nor is it an undue publicity to the company. Since it provides deals and discounts on almost every purchase and they are genuine and authentic, I request you to review it once again. Jayanagas (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:52:30, 3 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tarab Khan



Tarab Khan (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:49, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Tarab Khan


If I remove the external link (www.tarabkhan.in), hope my article will get published or do I need to remove any other link? Please guide !!

Tarab Khan (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarab Khan. User:Tarab Khan/sandbox was deleted for being unambiguous advertising. Drafts usually have to be egregiously promotional to be deleted for that reason. So no, evidently removing the external link would not have been nearly enough. If Tarab Khan is notable enough to warrant an article, and you wish to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the best thing to do would be to provide any useful sources and request that an independent editor create the article. Specifically:
  1. On your user page, disclose any connection you have to the person.
  2. Go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and find a category under which to list your request.
  3. Describe the very basics of who Tarab Khan is, no more than a couple of lines, and avoid puffery. Be up-front about your conflict of interest by mentioning it in the request.
  4. Find a number of independent reliable sources that have substantial information about the topic, and provide links to them in the request. The only really good one I found is [1], but there are also some weaker sources, such as [2] and [3].
Wikipedians are always on the look out for topics to write about. If the topic has promise, an editor with no connection to Tarab Khan may eventually start an article based on your sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:32:06, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Akram.altameemi


Akram.altameemi (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Akram.altameemi (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Hi I want help to fix the errors found in the articles I wrote if I found a mistake - I have a draft I wrote today but I do not know how to bring it to the audit did not show me notice lifting to the audit Akram.altameemi (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Ali Ramzi Neamah Thanks to all Akram.altameemi[reply]

The poster also asked at Wikipedia:Help desk#ALI RAMZI NEAMAH, and was given good advice there. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:43, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Dextergonzalez

I've edited the page and added more sources of information. This page has a lot more to improve but please consider publishing this page. Kindly indicate the things that needed to change, thank you. Dextergonzalez (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dextergonzalez. Malls can be notable for their economic, social, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage over a period of time in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Robinsonsmalls.com and parent company jgsummit.com.ph are not independent. The remaining three sources are all from the week of the mall's opening, so they don't demonstrate lasting significance. Moreover, Philstar and BusinessWorld are plainly regurgitations of the same press release, so not independent of the mall. ABS-CBN also has echoes of the press release and of jgsummit's announcement of the opening, but there may be some original reporting there.
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) at this time. No amount of editing can fix that. At the moment, the mall merits only a line in Robinsons Malls and a sentence or two in the economy section of San Pedro, Laguna. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again in the foreseeable future. You may re-examine the topic in a year or two, by which time more may have been written about the mall in suitable sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:36, 3 August 2019 review of submission by Vyrussbeatz


I'm requesting for a review due to the first catastrophic mistake by making information seem promotional, which wasnt intended. Neccesary correction has been made by reading through the proper guidelines. Thanks.

Vyrussbeatz (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vyrussbeatz. The draft is wildly non-neutral. Why doesn't it mention his defeat in the 2015 election to represent the Asa/Ilorin West Federal Constituency? Why doesn't it mention the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission investigation of the alleged N50m ($138,000) bribe paid to him, allegedly to manipulate the outcome of the 2015 Nigerian general election? Based on my searches, that's the only way in which he might be notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:32:00, 3 August 2019 review of submission by TransporterMan

I fixed the refs in this draft at the request of the author and advised them to resubmit it for further review. I'm not sure they did the resubmission right since it does not appear in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfC_submissions_by_date/22_July_2019. Could someone check to see if it's been resubmitted properly? TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: Yes, it has been. The big yellow box at the bottom of the draft tells us it is in the pool to be reviewed. Thanks for giving them a hand. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:29:22, 3 August 2019 review of draft by Moonstar36


Moonstar36 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


How do I delete the page I started Ronnie Jacques... silly me not spelling it right...Thank you!! :)

Hi Moonstar36. You may delete the draft by adding the code {{db-self}} to the top of it; it will be deleted shortly thereafter. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:33, 3 August 2019 review of draft by Teachingtool


Hello I have edited the article on Helmi Sharawy in response to Dan and would like it to be checked for approval please if possible? Many thanks!

Teachingtool (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

Request on 05:13:01, 4 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Prasmita


I am trying write wiki for BBC Sajha Sawal presenter. But I am not able to because of lack of reference. would you mind hep me where the error is so that I can fix it.

Prasmita (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:39:39, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Tom (LT)


I would like to:

  • Comment that I do not think this article should be accepted in its current or any form, as it:
    • Is very poorly written and will take a lot of time to convert into correct English
    • Contacts content that is already present throughout our Wikipedia
    • Does not actually reflect "Bowel Function" but a potpourri of other topics related to the digestive system and intestinal tract

I would also like some pointers as to how I can do this by myself in the future? It is difficult to work out where to start or how to do things on AfC so I'd love some pointers. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT) (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:41:26, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Tom (LT)

Similar to the above comments I'd like to indicate that:

  • I think this draft can be moved to mainspace - it is suitable referenced and independently notable and yes, it is WP:NOTFINISHED but there's no need in my opinion for it to be in draft space (I will tinker when it's moved)

Tom (LT) (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:43:22, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Tom (LT)


Tom (LT) (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:22, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Crsweeney

My client has requested me to create this Wikipedia article to help support her name in the desired industry (performance based), thus a notable page enlisting her credential would be most sufficient. Please provide a reasonable explanation for the refusal of this particular Wikipedia page. Crsweeney (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:34:47, 4 August 2019 review of submission by Kribondhar


Hi , I have made the necessary changes in the article and utmost care has been taken so that it complies with the wikipedia community standard. The article is regarding a Camping company which is providing first of its kind overlanding expedition experience to the travelers. So it is a notable topic and can be included in the wikipedia so that a number of people can actually learn about the new kind of adventure tourism trend in India. Hope the community accepts the article this time. Thank you With Regards Krishanu Dhar Kribondhar (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=909293762"