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 Michaelmonet44 (talk | contribs) at 09:08, 13 November 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


November 7

03:50:27, 7 November 2019 review of submission by TZubiri


Hello, here is a list of links regarding Kenneth Reitz's notability:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requests_(software) <<-- Kenneth Reitz as a red link https://vorpus.org/blog/why-im-not-collaborating-with-kenneth-reitz/ <-- Viral news about Kenneth reitz https://www.reddit.com/search/?q=url%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fvorpus.org%2Fblog%2Fwhy-im-not-collaborating-with-kenneth-reitz%2F <-- Instances where the above link was referenced. https://talkpython.fm/episodes/show/115/python-for-humans-projects <-- Interview with kenneth reitz https://www.leica-camera.blog/2013/09/05/kenneth-reitz-exploring-the-material-world-in-an-electronic-universe/ <-- interview 

https://realpython.com/interview-kenneth-reitz/ <-- interview
https://realpython.com/interview-kenneth-reitz/ <-- interview
https://www.heroku.com/podcasts/castalio-podcast/episdio-80-kenneth-reitz---python-requests <-- interview

https://medium.com/@DJetelina/pipenv-review-after-using-in-production-a05e7176f3f0 <-- Critique on one of his libraries

Anyway, I was looking for a review regarding the content, grammar, style and how I handled the primary sources.

Thanks, though. TZubiri (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TZubiri: Please read our guideline on reliable sources for reasons that these are not acceptable to demonstrate notability. shoy (reactions) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:45:12, 7 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Salahuddin Ahmed Azad


Why my page titled Keith Sutliff isn't published? I've provided enough references and information. But why is it still in draft?

Salahuddin Ahmed Azad (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salahuddin Ahmed Azad. The draft has not been published for three reasons:
  1. IMDb, being user-generated, is not a reliable source. I see nothing to suggest that Mixcloud is a reliable and independent source. Indie Activity is a primary source interview without analysis by the interviewer. It is not independent. The Los Angeles Times is the only independent, reliable, secondary source. Novice editors are commonly advised to provide at least three such sources.
  2. The draft fails to objectively summarize significant viewpoints on the subject. It describes the reviews of Refuge as mixed, but the only review cited is negative.
  3. In a biography of a living person, you can expect that almost every statement about them is likely to be challenged, but the bulk of the draft has no inline citations.
--Worldbruce (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:01:54, 7 November 2019 review of submission by Aayushmamu04

Please, Review again. Thank you.

Aayushmamu04 (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aayushmamu04, This person is not notable. They do not meet our requirements for inclusion. Only those who have received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources qualify for articles. As is, most of the article is unsourced, and only serves to promote the subject. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:48:07, 7 November 2019 review of submission by ThiagoTechera28

Why has my Cookie Clicker Beta Achievements review been declined? Link: Cookie Clicker Beta Achievements ThiagoTechera28 (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:29:32, 7 November 2019 review of draft by ThiagoTechera28


I think I did everything right on my draft! Please tell me what I need to do to improve. ThiagoTechera28 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThiagoTechera28. Draft:Cookie Clicker Beta Achievements has been declined, as stated on the draft and your user page, because it cites no independent, reliable, secondary sources, and thus fails to demonstrate that the topic is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:15, 7 November 2019 review of submission by Neomohatli60


Neomohatli60 (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Content removed per WP:BLPREMOVE] --Worldbruce (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iyini I-Card B's Net Worth? Inani le-Cardi B elikhona njengamanje, elinganiselwa ku- $ 8 million ngoFebhuwari nguForbes, manje libalwa ku- $ 12 wezigidi yi-Celebrity Net Worth.

Umsebenzi weCardi B UCardi B, ogama lakhe langempela nguBelcalis Marlenis Almanzar, wazalelwa esigabeni saseWashington Heights eManhattan ngo-Oct. 11, 1992 futhi wakhulela eThe Bronx enezingane zaseNew York ngabazali bakhe baseCaribbean émigrés - ubaba waseDominican kanye nomama waseTrinidadian / waseSpain.

Igama likadadewabo nguHennessy Carolina, ngakho-ke abantu baqala ukumbiza njengoBacardi - igama ayeshintsha kulo ngegama lakhe "lesiteji".

Hi Neomohatli60. If English is not your first language, you may be more comfortable contributing to one of Wikipedia's other language versions, such as https://zu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhasi_Elikhulu. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:52, 7 November 2019 review of submission by Tanmay Chakrabarty

I think i made the nessary changes and added all the things requested

Tanmay Chakrabarty (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, it has no independent sources with which to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:32, 7 November 2019 review of draft by Sunshinedaydreamwiki


Sunshinedaydreamwiki (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I reference a movie that the subject was in, but her name does not appear in that link, should I use the link as an External Link that is provided for informational purposes about the movie? Sunshinedaydreamwiki (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshinedaydreamwiki, Probably not. Also please note, that IMDb, and Wiki's are not reliable sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:12:15, 7 November 2019 review of submission by Cezar.vasiescu

Hello! If you are kind please give me some advice on what is to be done to get my article validated. I work for Framför and I think it would be a good thing for our company to be visible on Wikipedia. I expect your reply. Best regards Cezar Cezar.vasiescu (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Cezar.vasiescu (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:44:25, 7 November 2019 review of draft by Randy000


There is a notice on my submission re the artist Rudy Rotter, that states ... "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Rudy Rotter, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one."

The most recently edited version (in which I have now included === header marks) is the submission I want to keep. I'm not sure what and where the other submission exists, but if you can help me deactivate it, it will be appreciated. I presume the other article version was also created by me ... but if not, I would then want to view it before deactivating. Otherwise, have the above referenced article is my request.

I'll likely have other future questions being a novice, but for now this assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, and please let me know of any questions .... Randy Rotter (randy000)

Randy000 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

03:10:41, 8 November 2019 review of draft by Tandy


I tried to submit a page (about Karrie Karahalios, Full Professor of Computer Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), but it looks like my page is still just a draft and has not been submitted. I am not sure what I need to do to submit it. It's been sitting there a few weeks. Any advice you can give would be helpful. Thanks! - Tandy Warnow Tandy (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:18:36, 8 November 2019 review of submission by Tandy

I got a response to my earlier inquiry from Longhair (about the page I had written for Karrie Karahalios). I had declared the conflict of interest, based on both being in the same department. I thought that the declaration would allow Wikipedia to *evaluate* the suggested page on its merits. It seems, based on the response from Longhair, that perhaps Wikipedia will not even consider it, because of the conflict of interest? I am not sure how to interpret the response in some other way. If that is the answer, then I would respectfully request that Wikipedia write a page about Karrie Karahalios. By the way, she was just elected a Distinguished Member of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), so she really *is* a distinguished researcher. In any event, some clear instruction would help. Tandy (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tandy. Editors are discouraged from creating articles about colleagues, but it is not forbidden. If you are going to do it despite being advised against it, then you are going about it in the right way - declaring your conflict of interest and putting the page through Articles for creation. To have Draft:Karrie Karahalios reviewed for publication, click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the large grey box at the top of the draft. The review process is highly backlogged, so it may take 4-5 months. If it is declined, then consider asking at Requested articles that an uninvolved editor write a biography of her, identifying for them which criteria of WP:PROF she meets, and supplying sources that prove it. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:45, 8 November 2019 review of submission by Iamsrh

jmt tours pvt ltd is tours and travels destination management company which plans tours,holidays for individuals and organisations it has offices in India, Dubai, Singapore and Malaysia etc, the company established 2009 in India and 2001 in Dubai.it well reputed company with large staff and agents around the world serving the tourists and travelers help in assisting the packages regarding their needs etc, Iamsrh (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iamsrh, Wikipedia only has articles on notable companies. That means coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Also, WIkipedia is not an ad platform. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 14:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:19:58, 8 November 2019 review of draft by MayWiki1


My article was rejected due to lack of resource ('Needs more references with significant in-depth coverage about the subject himself that are not primary sources.") and I've added additional sources but not sure what more is needed?

Thanks

MayWiki1 (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MayWiki1, The issue here is that the existing sources talk more about Barretts company, and very little about Barret. Clearly his company is notable, and has an article. But you need sources that focus on Barrett if he is to have his own article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 14:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:17, 8 November 2019 review of submission by Kul.khare


Kul.khare (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kul.khare, There is only one source, which does not establish notability. You need several reliable and independent sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 14:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:31:12, 8 November 2019 review of submission by Smitpshah17


E-commerce platform is one on the requested articles on Wikipedia. And it is not a link farm to the sites you mentioned, I took the idea and concept from that site. Everyone doesn't know everything, so other sources are necessary for the article. Please review again.

Smitpshah17 (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smitpshah17, Howdy hello! I personally agree with K.e.coffman. There is already an article on e commerce, which is somewhat lacking as is. If you wish, you might compress your article down to a section and add it to the existing article. While it may have been a requested article, not all requested articles are destined to become actual articles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 14:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:29, 8 November 2019 review of submission by Vikash kajal


Vikash kajal (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:19, 8 November 2019 review of submission by Omartaw

I'd like to post this article about DJS (UK) Limited, from what I can see the sources were reliable and independent. Is there something that specifically needs referencing better? Omartaw (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omartaw. The notability guidelines for companies explicitly exclude, as trivial coverage, inclusion in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists. Mentioning such things and non-notable business awards and accolades makes the draft come across as highly promotional and rather desperate. Other cited sources lack significant coverage. The Independent, for example, only mentions PiggyBank in passing as the commissioner of a study.
Most businesses are not notable. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:45:46, 8 November 2019 review of submission by MadShelton



16:45:46, 8 November 2019 review of draft by MadShelton

MadShelton (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC) I added more credible sources.[reply]

@MadShelton: This person is not notable as Wikipedia defines the term. Please read WP:NBIO. shoy (reactions) 19:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:49:49, 8 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by GreenLightDiode


I am looking to see why my article was denied. I know I shouldn't base my argument on other articles but I see other players with their own article who are not as "notable" and haven't had as much press coverage. Is there any way I could get help making this distinction? I'd appreciate the help.

Thank you!

GreenLightDiode (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated when it was denied, Baseball players are considered Notable if they have played in an MLB game. Johnny is still at single A. None of the accomplishments at TCU seem to give Notability on his own. I'm not saying he won't be notable in a few years, but right now, I don't see how he is.Naraht (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:56, 8 November 2019 review of submission by Cezar.vasiescu

Hello there. I've done some changes to the article. Please let me know if I managed to resolve the conflict of interest. And regarding the "not sufficiently notable" what more is to be done?. Thank you very much! Cezar.vasiescu (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero sources, notability is judged by looking at the depth of coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, we have no interest in what the company says about itself.

There is nothing to indicate that it would pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) either. Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:06, 8 November 2019 review of draft by Randy000


This may be a repeat of a submission i made yesterday but forgot to add the 4 tildes to my signature.

re Message: "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Rudy Rotter, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one."

Request: I am unaware of what or where the other submission in my name exists. This Sandbox version is the article i want to use to soon replace the currently existing published "Rudy Rotter" Wikipedia page. Can you please assist me in resolving this duplication and help to make the sandbox article the sole article of focus. Thanks.

Randy000 (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Randy Rotter (randy000)[reply]

Randy000 (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article already exists here Rudy Rotter you can improve it there, you don't need to create a draft for it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


November 9

November 9

I created a page Comfort Page and it got deleted, but it can’t be deleted, it’s for people to talk about things, you can’t delete it. You’re not supposed to be doing anything with it! Leave it alone! Don’t even view it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheatCodes4ever (talk • contribs) 02:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair and CheatCodes4ever: I am not an admin, so I can't see what was in there. Howewer, since you state above it’s for people to talk about things[...] I am concerned that you haven't understood Wikipedia's goals. Wikipedia is a collaborative project to create an Encyclopedia. Of course discussion is needed, but only on topics that cover Wikipedia. See WP:NOT for more info on what Wikipedia is not. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a page inviting others into a discussion, which as you know is outside the goals of Wikipedia. -- Longhair\talk 06:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to create something like a talk page since I don’t go on talk to answer things. I wanted to talk about things. I could use my original page, but it’s not just for me. I want it to be a page for everybody. I do understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, this is something that is viewed by users who want to talk about things so they can get answered if they don’t go on talk.User:CheatCodes4ever, 05:39, 10 November 2019

07:53:26, 9 November 2019 review of draft by TobyBK


I am new to wiki and I just wanted to list a new museum but the link I used to cite from yahoo news was rejected so I used another link which was already approved on the Patpong page. Is there anything else I should do to get my submission through? Many thanks

TobyBK (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TobyBK. Wikipedia covers topics that have attracted significant attention from the world at large and over a period of time. It is unlikely that a museum which opened last month would be able to demonstrate such coverage. Creating a new article is one of the most difficult, frustrating, and time consuming tasks a new editor can attempt. You will find it easier if you spend a while editing existing articles to gain familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you aren't sure where to start, see Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:35:41, 9 November 2019 review of submission by NCHANGNDE


H, please I will like to know why my article is submitted for deletion. what are the prerequisite for an article to be valid. Thanks


NCHANGNDE (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below, though the draft was rejected, not deleted Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:40:43, 9 November 2019 review of submission by NCHANGNDE


Hi, please I will like to have some help on how to make my article notable enough to be published on Wikipedia. This is my first article and I will appreciate your help, thanks.

NCHANGNDE (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi,

My article Submission declined on 6 November 2019 

How to solve this issue..!!

Please give me guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChilakamarthiPrabhakar (talk • contribs) 11:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NCHANGNDE: - the draft was rejected as not being notable. It had a complete lack of reliable, secondary, sources so was automatically unable to show notability
For it to be notable it would need good sources that showed the subject met at least one of the conditions at musician notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:23, 9 November 2019 review of submission by JohnWolcott


JohnWolcott (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created a page for martial artist Rika Ishige here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rika_Ishige

I first want to say thanks for taking the time to look it over.

But I have a few questions:

1. I never said she was a mixed martial artist, I said she was a martial artist.

2. She already has a Thai version of her page here: https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/ริกะ_อิชิเกะ

So why can't I create an English version?

Looking forward to your reply.

Best,

John


Thanks for your help.

@JohnWolcott: - hi there. I'm not a specialist in MMA notability, but it's worth reading the specific comment made by your reviewer. They indicated:
"Please read the guidelines at the link below and show how Ishige meets the requirements - 3 fights in a top tier MMA competition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability#Fighters "

Different wikipedias use different rules for can qualify as an article, so the existence in one wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean they warrant an article in, say, english wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:06:44, 9 November 2019 review of submission by Invisible12345

I'm trying to open a page in Wikipedia for a Sportsmen, who is One of the world ISKA chempion(You can chek it). So, he need a page in this system not only for his popularity, but also for his fans. 

Therefore Im sending you it severel times and I will so glad if you will help me to creating this page(if I'm making any mistakes please help me). Thank you...

Invisible12345 (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

05:08:38, 10 November 2019 review of submission by 27.34.104.217


27.34.104.217 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, I am new here but I have been involved media sector so nice 2009 and I have some references too, please help me to have Wikipedia page.

09:15:43, 10 November 2019 review of draft by 117.242.63.174


how to change the headline of topic 117.242.63.174 (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been accepted with the title corrected to Kazi Kundli, Thanks for helping improve Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:59:20, 10 November 2019 review of submission by 2A02:587:D1A:AC00:AD4F:F880:3B11:4CF1

The founder of the academy is perhaps part of Indias squash history. Also this project the Academy which is his brainchild and pet project is very unique and probably the only one of its kind which is self funded and is also a social engineering project. The rejection hence requires a review. 2A02:587:D1A:AC00:AD4F:F880:3B11:4CF1 (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:55, 10 November 2019 review of draft by Drjaitley


This individual has been a prominent figure in the United States and India in the era when social media or online news articles weren't introduced. But, still, I have finally found an ONLINE news article that shows his entire interview given to The Tribune (https://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000913/cth1.htm , scroll down to find Dr.Jaitley's Interview). Also, through the gallery on Dr.Jaitley's website (https://drjaitley.net/), it's evident to anyone as to who he is. Online evidence/supporting material is limited, but if you'd like for me to attach snapshots of his news coverage and interviews from renowned newspapers, I'm definitely looking forward to it. Looking forward to the appropriate guidance. Drjaitley (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:02, 10 November 2019 review of draft by Drjaitley


You're regarding this as "unsourced" puffery because I don't have any ONLINE sources supporting what has been written. So, kindly suggest ways I should be able to conform to Wikipedia's rules, which can also help me accomplish my goal. Drjaitley (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The puffery includes "widely known""continuously aiding" "over fourteen thousand hours of flying time as a commercial pilot." "continued his day and night efforts to strengthen" " strongly facilitated" "relentlessly encouraged" "outstanding commitment and dedicated leadership" " tireless efforts" "inspirational and role mode" "recognized and appreciated" " promoting his greater form of understanding" none of this is sourced and is all promotional puffery, totally inappropriate in tone for an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:28:06, 10 November 2019 review of draft by Drjaitley


Firstly Sir/Ma'am, this is written by myself and ofcourse if these extra phrases, to Wikipedia, seems in any way "puffery" please feel free to do way with them, because my objective is just to be able to make Dr.Jaitley known to a larger audience through Wikipedia. And, this is unequivocally "puffery" because according to Wikipedia it isn't a reliable source, and it will be until it's "proved" otherwise. And, I have supporting material that indeed proves that all of these are true, but unfortunately, they're not online-based. So, again, I'm asking you Sir/Ma'am, how should I be able to submit them? I look forward to your guidance.

Drjaitley (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:25:39, 10 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Drjaitley


I want to know, in the first place, that if Wikipedia accepts non-online-based sources. How should I submit them? The online sources I have are not reliable and sufficient. I have several news articles covering this individual I'm trying to create a Wikipedia page for. Kindly provide guidance.

Drjaitley (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:37, 10 November 2019 review of submission by Wikiabc123wiki

Hello, I have made the necessary adjustments to the reason why it was rejected primarily; sources. There are very notable and reliable sources now as you can see. The Inan Family has become a big name in Turkey and should have a page dedicated to them. There is no reason why the page should be rejected again, since there are several accurate sources and the page is now ready for publication. Thank you for your help. Wikiabc123wiki (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:35:52, 10 November 2019 review of draft by Electra Roberts


Hello, I have created this page for Yiannis Papadopoulos, and I've been waiting 7 months for a re-review. Since then, I took away any unreliable sources, I used many new sources that can be verified, and I added info to make the page up to date. I believe the page is in great standing, I'm not asking for a faster review, I just need to know if there's sth else to correct regarding the article or anything I can do to make it even better.

Electra Roberts (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:36, 10 November 2019 review of draft by DarcieNicoleII


DarcieNicoleII (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The person I am trying to post an article about is a celebrity. I have provided additional proof that he was in Billboard Magazine on the national music charts and have cited several references where he is credited on albums of other artists and mentioned as key personnel - on their independent Wikipedia pages. I have also provided the fact that he is listed in the EMI/Capitol/Manhattan Records Wikipedia page as an artist who was signed to him. Please publish this article. This person is a celebrity who was part of very historical projects in Urban music in America.

November 11

02:04:02, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Asia Football Alhah


Asia Football Alhah (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Asia Football Alhah:, hello. Firstly, you only need to submit a help request once, instead of 3 times. Please only make a new thread if you don't get a response with 2-3 days.
Your draft doesn't have any reliable sources, so it cannot be accepted. Resubmitting it won't change that. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:04:28, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Asia Football Alhah


Asia Football Alhah (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered above, please don't submit multiple requests Nosebagbear (talk)

02:04:42, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Asia Football Alhah


Asia Football Alhah (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered above, please don't submit multiple requests Nosebagbear (talk)

02:06:53, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Shadow on da Track


Shadow on da Track (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow on da Track: - as the reviewers have said, the draft doesn't have any sources that meet all of: reliable, independent, in-depth and secondary (newspapers, books etc). The linked words (in blue) in the decline notices at the top will take you to explanations of these in more depth. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:57:44, 11 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by TaingrayAngus


I have attempted to create an article on Gizzen Briggs, a local traditional music group based in Tain Royal Academy in Highland, Scotland. The reviewer has pointed out that I should have declared an interest. I am not a member of the group, but I was a colleague of the adults who created and manage it. First question: I have never created an article before and I would like to know if this disqualifies me in this situation.

I was unsure whether the group was sufficiently notable, but I felt that it had been unusually influential in launching the careers of many highly successful young traditional musicians. Indeed, one member of the group mentioned in the article has recently been announced as one of the Saltire Society's "2019 Outstanding Women of Scotland". I used footnotes to register the significance of various people mentioned in my article, but I see now that the footnotes need to show recognition of the significance of Gizzen Briggs and most of mine should be deleted as serving no purpose. Second question: If I could find a record of one of the high profile former members of the group being interviewed and acknowledging the influence of Gizzen Briggs in their careers, would this be the sort of thing required? (I should say that I have not seen such evidence, but I suspect that it may exist.)

The group has had mentions in various newspapers, generally of a local nature. The Ross-shire Journal has contained many reports over the years of concerts the group has given and awards they have received. Third question: Am I right in thinking that local press such as The Ross-shire Journal would not be considered a sufficiently weighty publication to be referenced?

I will continue to look for more convincing evidence of the notability of Gizzen Briggs, but I must recognise the possibility that the group and its achievements are simply not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia.

Meantime, I would be grateful for your clarification on my three questions above. Thank you very much. Angus Gray


TaingrayAngus (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:25, 11 November 2019 review of draft by SoniaNoelia


My page was declined because "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." However, I did use footnotes to cite my sources. I need more information regarding why my page was rejected so I can make the necessary changes. Thank you for your help. SoniaNoelia (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of unsourced content in your draft, for instance none of the awards are sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:12, 11 November 2019 review of draft by Iorek100


Hi - I'm unclear how a proposed page on what amounts to a philosophical/pedagogic principle can be written in a way that does not 'sound like an essay' (which is the reason given for the rejection of this proposed page). The concept of the least dangerous assumption needs adding to wikipedia because its existence, meaning, and implications need documenting in an encyclopedia (i.e. it's a concept that needs logging). For example, in what ways is the page on Geragogy (for example - arbitrary choice of comparison page!) different to what I have drafted, other than that the Geragogy page is mostly in bullet form (which is less essay like)?

I'd like to get this page established somehow, because it's an important thing, so any help you can give would be much appreciated.

thanks!

Andy

Iorek 17:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Iorek100: Howdy hello! I took a look at the article, and there are two main issues: notability, and clarity. For starters, I'm not sure if the term is notable enough to be in an Encyclopedia. Our notability standards for neologisms, which this seems to be, require widespread usage in the media. I'm not seeing evidence of that. Assertions of importance are usually not sufficient for notability, as we generally don't decide how important something is. We outsource that job to reliable sources. The second issue is clarity. The article should clearly state what the thing is. From reading it...I still don't know what it is. Remember that most Wiki readers have no specialized knowledge in a subject, and thus articles must succinctly and in common terms describe a subject. The page doesn't need to be in bullets, but the wording must be clear and concise. I would warn you to not use Geragogy as a comparison page, as it is very low quality and may not even qualify for its own article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:45:06, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Belka Gorlanova


Hello! Can you please help me with more precise comments about what i can/need to change in my article about Olivier Varenne. Because im not sure what kind of mistake i made and a bit lost in direction of changing. Thank you so much!

Belka Gorlanova (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belka Gorlanova, This article has no inline references. You should read WP:REFB, the intro guide to referencing. Claims made in the article need to have inline references. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:45:30, 11 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Wkigenyi


I have collected what I think are enough references but the reviewer says the references do not significant coverage. The references I selected are solely about the subject and they are independent. Comparing with the example I have given ie Andrew Kitaka, what do I need to add to my article to improve it?


Wkigenyi (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:52, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Chardonel

he guy a have a problem where I can't publish an article about me, so I wanna know why they keep declined my article and give me some advice on how to be apart of that.

Chardonel (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected all my references but the reviewer says the references do not significant coverage, what can I do? I need help, please Chardonel (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:06:11, 11 November 2019 review of submission by Shadow on da Track

I submitted my articles three-time and they keep rejecting them, I wanna know what all the mistakes I make and show me how to correct them, thank you

Shadow on da Track (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shadow on da Track. Your fundamental mistake is that you've chosen a topic that is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). See Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers, especially the section "Pick something notable". --Worldbruce (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:16:16, 11 November 2019 review of draft by Kvibbert


I am creating a page for Karen Countryman-Roswurm. I tried to follow the guidelines but after I published it was still earmarked for a few issues. I have a COI that I listed in the talk page after I was notified of that requirement. Another problem is that it said it read like a resume (Which I was actively trying to avoid). I edited the page to remove all primary sources (there were a few, but I had seen other pages that had similar sources so I wasn't sure the leniency on it). The page has been greatly simplified and focuses primarily on the recent notable work of Countryman-Roswurm.

If I publish the article for review, will I receive further feedback if it is not accepted?

Kvibbert (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kvibbert, Once your draft is reviewed, the editor should provide you a reason, and ideally feedback. If they don't elaborate, please leave a message on their talk page asking for more explanation. If they don't reply within a few days, please come here and raise the issue. Please be patient while waiting for a review, the review queue is quite backlogged at the moment. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

02:18:15, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Pavlko

Hello, I am trying to create an article about a philosophical and physics idea about Time, proposed by myself. I only have a single external reference which is a Research Gate link where I proposed originally the idea. My draft was rejected for this reason. Obviously the idea is not known at all, so I cannot add another external reference for it. My main goal is the possibility of discussion of this idea and the draft is written in this mood. Thanks, Pablo Bounous. Pavlko (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavlko. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss an idea you've come up with. You're welcome to do that elsewhere, but an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source, it summarizes what secondary sources have written about a topic. After reliable secondary sources (such as books by professors of philosophy published by academic presses) discuss your idea, then it could be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:39, 12 November 2019 review of draft by Tvega52


Reviewers continuously are declining the my submitted draft for "advertising" type words but have not stated what they mean by this. I have stated the facts of the company objectively from 3rd party sources and have removed all bias. Tvega52 (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvega52: I have tried to salvage it, but on reflection you're best blanking it and focusing on Draft:OANDA instead which is in a better state. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:33, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Juanestebanp94

Is it possible to have someone checking again my article please? i've made some changes and want to know if it's ready to go public.

Thank you in advance.

Juanestebanp94 (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanestebanp94: I've read the draft and the references you've provided. Overall, the draft has the feel of an advertisement. Looking at the references, these are either based on company news releases or are mere mentions of the software. There is no in-depth, independent coverage of the company. Most of what is written is presumably from your personal knowledge of the company and its products, whereas for a Wikipedia article readers can only tell if what has been written is factual if they can verify it using the references you provide. You would need to find references that confirm most of what you've written. All in all, the company doesn't appear to be a suitable topic for inclusion in an enyclopedia right now. If you're looking for new publicity for the company, Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:43:09, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Cb912

Hi! This draft has been recently updated to reflect some changes since it was last submitted. I had requested advice earlier this year from the help desk. I see that a reviewer scope_creepTalk' left comments confirming notability in April. "He seems to pass WP:SIGCOV that is the policy that ensures that the person is widely known."

Can this be re-reviewed? Thank you! Cb912 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cb912, I have put it back in the review queue for you. Please be patient, the review queue is rather long at the moment. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:25, 12 November 2019 review of submission by RWNYC19


Hello, Please could the request to publish a page for Reuven Wimmer be reviewed. This was submitted as Reuven Wimmer currently has a Wikipedia page in Hebrew and wanted to do an English one as well. Is there a way we can do this? Thank you.

RWNYC19 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you can provide some reliable independent sources and who is "we", Wikipedia accounts are for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:35, 12 November 2019 review of submission by Winston16

I have now deleted the source that you were unhappy with from the article Winston16 (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winston16, The issue here is that the subject is likely not notable to be included on WIkipedia. Notability is how we decide who can have an article. Usually that requires at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject signifigant coverage. Think newspapers, media, books, etc. Your sources do not currently meet that standard. If such sources cannot be found, the subject cannot have an article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:14:09, 12 November 2019 review of draft by Claudette De Ville


Dear Madam, dear Sir, I am very disappointed my draft about the work and the life of the artist Pol Fraiture has not been accepted. I am the widow of Pol Fraiture and I wrote the text. It is not a translation and all my sources are reliable. Both what I wrote and the sources can be checked. I first created an article in French on Wikipedia, and it was checked and published. The English page I have submitted is a different text I wrote. I do not see my draft anymore and I do hope it has not been deleted! It took me so long to create it and to add the sources references. Thanks in advance for your answer, Kind regards, Claudette De Ville Claudette De Ville (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Claudette De Ville: The draft was moved from User:De ville claudette/sandbox to Draft:Pol Fraiture. It's still there. You can see the page's history. It has not been reviewed yet, it is in the queue and someone will get to it eventually. Since you have conflict of interest, you need to WP:DISCLOSE it. I am however going to say that the draft will very likely be initially declined because it is not written in a neutral encyclopedic tone. For example, stuff like "passionate artist dedicated to his art" is completely unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I should also warn you that it will be very difficult to review, because all the sources are offline and not in English. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:09, 12 November 2019 review of draft by Ubiquitouslarry


The reviewer states that the references in the article “don't show notability at a sufficient level for a biography on Wikipedia. They show the details of Guo's business dealings but don't demonstrate notability as per the guidelines.”

Guo is not just a business woman. She is also a computer engineer. Guo built the software that powers Scale AI.

If Scale AI was her only claim to fame, I would have created a company article and mentioned her involvement.

But Guo is also a Thiel Fellow, worked at Quorum, was the first female engineer at Snapchat, and has built a slew of popular apps. She currently uses the money she earned with Scale AI to invest in the projects of other engineers. None of the preceeding is integral to Scale AI.

I am trying to get my head around what criteria for notability that I missed.

Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitouslarry I am inclined to disagree with the reviewer here. The . Nordic Business Forum. story about the fellowship, and the Marie Claire story alone are looking like pretty good evidence of notability to me. The basic criterion here is the General Notability guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Sources here seem to be largely reliable, and many of them are independent, so the issue is coverage. Many of the cited sources include only brief mentions of Guo, but that should be ok, and may even be required to verify facts relevant to her, but there need to be several sources that deliver [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage}}. Just how much coverage is significant is something of a judgement call, but a single mention is pretty much never significant coverage. Several paragraphs or more devoted to the subject in a given story is much more likely to be judged to be significant. I have not checked over all the sources in the article yet. If ther are, or could be added, one or two more with coverage comparable to the two I mentioned above, that might be sufficient. MurielMary, would you care to respond to my views as the reviewer who declined this? Captain Eek, please see Help:Citation merging for the bundled citation format used in this draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, Ah, thank you for pointing that out. I have used merged citations before, but had never seen it done that way before. Thanks for letting me know, I rescind any criticism of the ref style. I still think the investments section is unencyclopedic and probably promotional however. But I do agree with DES, she seems like she might be notable, but an indepth look at sources is needed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

Request on 08:02:20, 13 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Efratmag


I would really appreciate your guidance as a new Wikipedia writer, regarding both my submissions: >>“Itamar Medical”: This is a translation of an Hebrew page. The original article contain only Hebrew references. You mentioned that the reason for declining this article is (among other things) the lack of references. The thing is I’m not sure what is the right approach in this case - adding new references although they do not exist in the original article? >>“Peripheral Arterial Tonometry”: I originally submitted the article on September 9. Then, after it was declined, submitted the revisioned article on October 4. I know you mention the process can take 8 weeks or more, but still wanted to verify you received it.

Efratmag (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:05, 13 November 2019 review of draft by Michaelmonet44


Hello. I just published the changes to my draft after receiving feedback and am reaching out for help to make sure that the updates I made meet the expectations. Please advise. Michaelmonet44 (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelmonet44 (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=925948075"