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 117.228.101.79 (talk) at 06:10, 16 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 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]
Hi Iorek100, I disagree with CaptainEek on several points. Firstly the notability of the concept is indisputable, as evidenced by the existence of several hundred high quality academic sources, published over several decades, so it's absolutely not a neologism. (Put the phrase into a google scholar search, all will be revealed.) When evaluating coverage of a subject one must look in the apropriate places; corporate news in financial media, sport in sport magazines, academic subjects in academic journals and textbooks, etc.) The draft's prose is quite dense but I had no real difficulty parsing it. Style of prose, unless it is really nonsensical, is not a valid reason to decline a draft. The readability can be improved by editing, I think an article such as Dignity of risk is a fairly decent example of an "easy read" about a similarly esoteric topic. Having said all this I'm going to accept this draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:24, 15 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]

Chardonel, firstly, please don't write autobiographies.
Secondly, for a subject to have an article here, we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (see wp:42). This is so that the claims made in the article can be verified. You simply don't have significant coverage yet, so we can't have an article about you. See the criteria for musicians at WP:MUSICBIO. The relevant criteria to you are:
- Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
- Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
- Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
- Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
- Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
- Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
- Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
- Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
- Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
- Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
Until you can demonstrate that you meet any one of the criteria, we can't have an article about you - please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:49, 14 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]
CaptainEek, I merged the citations to avoid the visually disruptive citation-trains at the end of sentences. DESiegel, thank you for the citation-merging article. It prompted me to remove the first bullet from each list which makes the reference listings less disconcerting. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek, I agree that the investments section with the descriptions are a bit overkill. My intention was to show she has invested in companies she understands as opposed to unrelated companies that simply make money. Her education led to her career choices which led her to to her investment choices. None of the companies have Wikipedia entries, so I added in short definitions for reference. Maybe a short listing of names and links to their respective sites would be enough.Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 15:44, 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]

09:30:07, 13 November 2019 review of submission by Nilima sen


Nilima sen (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MR DAVID MORENO WIKIPEDIA Dear Sir, I was told to submit more references for which i have mentioned the names of more books written by Abanindra Maitra and the online links, these books have his biography,and i submitted for re review. Thanks for the reply. Regards. Nilima Sen ````

Request on 16:07:04, 13 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Infomaster0002


I am trying to publish an article and it has been rejected for not having enough coverage on the topic. I would like some assistance on specific types of sources you guys look for so I can improve the article. Thank you!

Infomaster0002 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infomaster0002, Howdy hello! We look for sources that are reliable and independent. The form those take is usually news articles in the news media, magazines, or papers. Books and journal entries also are good. Websites sometimes work, but never use the website of a subject's article, or a closely related company/organization. To ensure notability, you usually need 3 sources in the news that also give significant coverage. Hope that helps! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:52, 13 November 2019 review of draft by FStroev


I translated my first article. This is Alexander Dorosinsky, winner of the 2004 Estonian rally. Earlier, I wrote an article in Russian and published it on the Russian Wikipedia. Then, more experienced participants helped fill out and refine the text, and after that I began to translate. Strictly following the instructions, I published a draft and applied for transferring the draft to the main space. Ten days later, no reaction. And I’m a little discouraged, because on the one hand it can be normal, on the other hand, I just couldn’t click on some other necessary buttons and now no one sees my application. It seems to me that the case is obvious (even if the article is based on Russian-language sources). I would be grateful for your help!

FStroev (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FStroev, Howdy hello! Don't despair at the slow response, the average wait time for draft review is quite long at the moment: about 8 weeks. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:06:33, 13 November 2019 review of submission by Zhxhong


Zhxhong (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael M. Saigh (born December 5, 1953 in St. Louis, Missouri) is an American inventor, former stockbroker and business professor from St. Louis, MO.

Early Year Michael Saigh was born in St Louis, Missouri. Saigh was the one of nephews of Fred Saigh who owns the St. Louis Cardinals (1947–53). He attended Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa Peoria, and graduated with a business degree in 1974, at age 21. He got MBA 

and Doctoral degree in Business from Webster University in St Louis, Missouri.

Inventions  Many of Michael's inventions and creations are used daily by millions of citizens around the globe. In the mid 1980s he set out to invent and patent the first electronic book (the early foundation of today’s handheld electronic e-readers, such as the Kindle). His early inventions include video on demand, books on demand, and various technologies protecting and managing digital rights.

In addition, his vast portfolio of inventions and patents include: wireless hospital information technology, automated logistical distribution for the retail industry, innovative alternative energy technologies, new smartphone and cellular protocols, high-tech entertainment applications, and leading edge crime prevention and security networks and related technologies for emergency responders.

Business Life Michael has established many businesses include Equine Smartbit LLC., Liquid Rarity System LLC. He was awarded as Entrepreneur of the year in New Mexico in 2002.

@Zhxhong: This page is for specific help with your draft(s). You simply copy-pasted the contents of your draft here. Do you have a specific question that is not answered by the reason outlined in the rejection and all the linked guideline? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


November 14

02:06:45, 14 November 2019 review of draft by StarFremwell


I wish to add an Infobox on my draft article for a book. I'm not sure how to create one with an image, or what categories should be in it. I also wish for some advice. StarFremwell (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StarFremwell, Firstly, please make sure you have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic first. If you can't find this, then the book can't have a Wikipedia article, as it would be impossible to verify the contents.
To answer your question, Template:Infobox book is used to add an infobox. There are details of the parameters on that page. To add it to an article, you add
{{infobox book |name=example name |author=example author}} and so on to the article.
As an image for the book will be copyrighted, you can only add an image to the infobox once the article is published, under the provisions of fair use - see WP:NFCI for details.
I don't really know the details of categorisation, so I'll let someone else answer that one.
Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:50:04, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Crocatoot

What is wrong with this page and why has it not been approved? Crocatoot (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:40:59, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Olimbek zayniddinov

Please explain that my project does not fit the article Olimbek zayniddinov (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olimbek zayniddinov, Your article was rejected, as there was no content other than a sandbox test message, and some section headings. If you wish to write an article about Samarkand economy and service institute, you should either write an article and submit it to AFC, or ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Education.
However, to have an article, any subject requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If you don't have this, please don't attempt to write an article, as it would not be possible to verify it to Wikipedia's standards. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14 November 2019 review of submission by FairlyFlatFoot

I have been working on a draft for Adrienne Haslet >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adrianne_Haslet<<. I submitted it for review to go live, but the reviewer still believes there is not enough coverage to maker her notable enough for an article. I dont understand this, and disagree. I came across many articles in reliable sources that are completely focused on her, and are not at all passing mentions. Please see my draft and look at the many sources that support the content. If you agree that the article is not yet worthy of submission into Wikipedia, please tell me what more I need to do. And if you think this woman will never be Wiki worthy, then perhaps I should give up? Thanks so much for your help.FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:53, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Olimbek zayniddinov


How do I know if this DRAFT (project: Samarkand Institute of Economics and Service) has been rejected or accepted? Olimbek zayniddinov (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Olimbek zayniddinov: You should expect to wait roughly two months for a review. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:51, 14 November 2019 review of submission by RWNYC19


Hi, I noticed you have reviewed this page and declined it again. I wonder then how we can add an English version to an already existing Hebrew Wikipedia page? Thank you. Please can you give me some more information.

RWNYC19 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RWNYC19: The guidelines and policies that Hebrew Wikipedia has are their own and not necessarily the same as those on English Wikipedia. We can only really advise you about English Wikipedia. You would have to follow their procedures for creating articles. However, it's highly doubtful that they would accept an English version of an article. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:25, 14 November 2019 review of draft by 2600:1702:1410:AA20:853C:9ED7:E2B2:2C4C


Need help submitting draft for review. Each time I try to submit for review, I am redirected to a page that directs me to press the Publish Changes button, but the button is not active.

2600:1702:1410:AA20:853C:9ED7:E2B2:2C4C (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you clicking the blue button which says "Submit your draft for review" ? Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted it on your behalf. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:28, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Wowletmebe

Draft:DK

Please review and confirm if any adjustments are necessary to make this article compliant. I believe I provided sufficient information alongside the appropriate references and the individual in question is notable.

      • I do apologise for the pasted content genuine mistake.

Please review the draft article if you have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowletmebe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captains note: The whole article was copy pasted here, I have undone that, as that not how we do things here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wowletmebe: I have submitted the draft to AfC on your behalf. Please be patient and wait for a review. The process takes an average of 8 weeks at the moment. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please check the additional sources and resubmit this draft for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowletmebe (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:37:20, 14 November 2019 review of draft by TheFallenMoon


While waiting for this draft to come under eventual review, I wanted to know if there is anything I can currently do to improve it. The same applies to Draft:Name and Number EP. Thank you for any help you can supply. TheFallenMoon (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheFallenMoon, Peters 1914 is...way too short. There is basically no information or sources. You need at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. For Name and number, same thing: need sources. You have to prove that both meet the WP:MUSIC notability requirements. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:33, 14 November 2019 review of draft by MemeTrooper

Hello, I had submitted a draft artivle and it was declined due to not having significant coverage with reliable, secondary sources. May I please have help with knowing what a reliable secondary source is so I know what else I have to include? This is the submission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MediBang Thanks.MemeTrooper (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC) MemeTrooper (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:50:02, 14 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tina Rosco


Article draft for creation currently being re-reviewed. The first time I submitted it, it was declined within hours. This time, it has been days. Is this normal? I know it says I may have to wait 8 weeks, I just want to know if the hours vs. days review time is normal. Thanks.

Tina Rosco (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Rosco, Howdy hello! The amount of time before a review is quite random, its somewhat unusual to get feedback within hours, so be thankful. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and there are about 3,000 of them waiting for review. The average wait time is 8 weeks currently, although volunteers are working hard to reduce that time. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Captain Eek! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Rosco (talk • contribs) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

08:16:43, 15 November 2019 review of submission by 2409:4062:19B:1D17:2933:352E:B259:61DD


2409:4062:19B:1D17:2933:352E:B259:61DD (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are WP:NOT a lyrics database. This would not be approved in its current state. Such an article needs reliable sources, and prose in English. As is, it seems purely promotional and will likely be deleted, especially as it says "Find our song", showing a clear conflict of interest. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:12, 15 November 2019 review of draft by 92.21.222.252


92.21.222.252 (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the draft and tell me if the sources meet the notability criteria.

The queue is over eight weeks long. Please be patient. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wrong context I am not trying to skip the queue please advise on my sources and whether they meet the notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowletmebe (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:32, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Aliso4ka2013

Hello! I tried to publish my article 3 times. The main reason why the article has not yet been published is in reliable references. I think I fixed this problem by adding more references showing significant coverage. Could you kindly check the article, please? Do I need to add more references? Are there any options for the article to be reviewed earlier? Thanks in advance!

Aliso4ka2013 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:19, 15 November 2019 review of submission by SM1844


Hello. This is my first time creating a wiki page. I kept resubmitting it after making some changes to see what exactly needed to be changed but it was a little confusing. Could I get more specific advice and examples on what needs to be fixed and how? The neutral tone requirement was my biggest issue-- I tried to be as neutral as possible so if this is still the issue could I get some help with that? Any other critiques are welcome! Thanks so much. SM1844 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


16:53:45, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Interstellarity

I am working on the sections Background and Mixed martial arts career. I found this source and am having trouble expressing this in my own words. Can you help me please? Interstellarity (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Interstellarity (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:44:10, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Jacknickels


Jacknickels (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:45:10, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Jacknickels


Jacknickels (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC) We feel that this page should be submitted into Wikipedia[reply]

Jacknickels, Who is "we"? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:19, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Jacknickels


Jacknickels (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC) We believe as Wisconsin Soccer Experts currently employed by USA soccer Associated, that this wikipedia article Samuel Abreu should be reinstated as a current wikipedia article. Abreu is currently up and coming in the soccer world, and is very well known with over 1 million social media followers. Thank you very much, Jack Nickels USA Soccer Associate[reply]


20:12:50, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Jacknickels


Jacknickels (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Can I get my site back to edit[reply]

22:19:34, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Tedfmyers


Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Please forgive me if I have made any mistakes, as I am new to contributing to wikipedia and may not be aware of all the rules regarding article creation and editing.

My latest submission was rejected on the basis of WP:NCORP. I've reviewed the page on notability for corporations and organizations, and believe that it should pass these guidelines. To back up this claim, I found nine (out of the nineteen references in the latest article version) that pass the guidelines of being significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. These are the references I believe fulfill these categories:

(references 7,8,9,11,13,14,16,17, and 19 in the original article) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Please let me know if you agree with me, or if I have made any mistakes in my reasoning. It should also be noted that I have added a few references since the article was rejected.

Tedfmyers (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

06:10:09, 16 November 2019 review of draft by 117.228.101.79

I have references and citations but i don't know how to do it, i cllicked on links provided by wikipedia but it is too technical, editing is not my thing plus i want my article in an wikipedia manner not like an essay( the reason why it was declined), so i request you to research on my article, i have provided two links or you can google search it, there are sources, the subject "Baba Nagnath Yogeshwar" is worthy of wikipedia page but i am just too illiterate to edit and present it like wikipedia page, so please make the neccessary changes yourself and give consent to the draft, thank you.

117.228.101.79 (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Kim, Jed (February 23, 2017). "Changing carbon from waste into gold". Marketplace. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  2. ^ Soltoff, Ben (October 16, 2019). "Opus 12 is one startup on a mission to convert CO2 into useful products". GreenBiz. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  3. ^ Switalski, Caitie (October 31, 2019). "Not Only For Vessels: Fort Lauderdale Boat Show Connects Environmental Entrepreneurs With Funders". WLRN Public Radio and Television. Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  4. ^ Fekri, Farnia (April 28, 2017). "Kendra Kuhl Is Building a Device That Turns Pollution Into Products". Vice. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  5. ^ Satell, Greg (April 5, 2018). "Why Some of the Most Groundbreaking Technologies Are a Bad Fit for the Silicon Valley Funding Model". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  6. ^ Langholz, Sasha (July 11, 2019). "Berkeley-based team wins prize for carbon dioxide reduction technology". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  7. ^ Schiller, Ben (March 8, 2017). "The First-Ever Roddenberry Prize Awards Companies Pushing Us Toward A Star Trek Future". Fast Company. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  8. ^ Tindera, Michela (Oct 17, 2016). "Ashton Kutcher, Top VCs Pick Winners Of For-Profit Change The World Competition". Forbes. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  9. ^ Service, Robert (September 19, 2019). "Can the world make the chemicals it needs without oil?". Science Magazine. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=926414607"