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 Linda dominic (talk | contribs) at 07:36, 6 December 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 30

03:34:31, 30 November 2019 review of submission by Ndcrevolution

I am requesting a re-review because I have put two more articles as reference as I had been notified that only one article in The Times of India is not sufficient. Thank you. Ndcrevolution (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ndcrevolution, You have only one sentence. That is not sufficient. You need more content. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:58:47, 30 November 2019 review of draft by Flavia567


Flavia567 (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flavia567, You need more sources. It also needs to be written from a neutral point of view. Find at least 3 more sources before asking for more assistance. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:43, 30 November 2019 review of submission by LouiseVincent


LouiseVincent (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LouiseVincent, The person is not notable. You should seek another area of Wikipedia to edit. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


16:00:51, 30 November 2019 review of draft by Bsseifer


I am a Wikipedia newbie. I need guidance on how to change the title of a draft article. Among many suggestions made by DGG was the suggestion to change the title of the draft <ACEMg> to something like <Free radicals in inner ear pathology>. Must I move the article to rename it? Bsseifer (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bsseifer (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bsseifer, A "move" is what we call renaming. Its a bit weird, but we "move" pages because we don't just give them a new title, we also move the entire history of the page to that new title. You should be able to move the page yourself, but if not, let me know and I can do it for you. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ Thought that might be it but didn't want to break anything. Will attempt DYI and revert if that fails. Onward. Bsseifer (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BsseiferTwo comments. First, my compliments on the proper use of the cite journal template in the reference, that isn't easy. Secondly, the biggest problem with the article is the lack of a header paragraph prior to the section basically explaining what this is. The jump into the technical is too great and it doesn't seem to have a good flow for a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure what to suggest as a model page, but you may want to look around for pages on similar topics.Naraht (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Naraht (talk) Wikipedia is the most complex and extensive online text tool I've ever encountered. The tool and its user interface are challenging, but the skills are definitely worth acquiring. What is most impressive is the constructive tone and quality of the feedback from the community. I have great respect for the quality and integrity of the site now. Onward to the edits. Bsseifer (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:58:24, 30 November 2019 review of submission by Willis2755


I am a brand new wikipedia creator and I just want to publish something for public info. Please simply explain what is wrong with my submission. Willis2755 (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willis2755, The average Youtube channel is not notable. We cannot cover this item. Sorry. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

03:47:47, 1 December 2019 review of submission by Quietlaughter

The old page - Home County Folk Fest - is outdated. The name of the festival was changed several years ago. Our festival website should be enough verification for the creation of the new and corrected page. To decline the more accurate page with correct information is disappointing to say the least.

Please rectify this as soon as possible. quietlaughter (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't replace articles when the name changes, we move the article to the new name, which I have now done. Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:25:15, 1 December 2019 review of submission by 76.255.140.50


76.255.140.50 (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After 8 failed submissions, it is pretty clear that this article is not notable and it will not be improved to the level of an encyclopedic article. Please find something else on Wikipedia to edit. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:10, 1 December 2019 review of draft by CapnPhantasm


Dex YP is a digital marketing company that has been around, in one form or another, since 2010. There is currently an article on Wikipedia about them, but it was flagged for being too much like an advertisement.

The company recently changed its name to Thryv. They've asked me to fix the article for them, so I wrote a new article for Thryv in which I made every effort to remove the advertising language and stick to the facts.

My plan was to get this new article published, and then redirect the old Dex YP page to it. However, the article was rejected on 11/15 by SamHolt6. The reason he gave was "[t]his submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)."

I actually did cite several references in my article, including BusinessWire, Marketwatch, Wall Street Journal, and LSA Insider. These articles were written specifically about the company. They didn't just mention it in passing.

I'd really like to get the outdated (and problematic) Dex YP article updated. Please advise.

CapnPhantasm (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CapnPhantasm
  1. The company asking you to edit Wikipedia for them creates a conflict of interest for you. I've left more information about that on your talk page.
  2. Because of your conflict of interest, avoid editing DexYP directly. Instead, propose any changes to it at Talk:DexYP.
  3. When an entity changes its name, don't create a new page (Draft:Thryv). Instead, ask at Talk:DexYP that the existing page be moved to Thryv.
  4. Of the references cited in the draft, Businesswire and Marketwatch are press releases, and LSA Insider is a trade publication. None of those help demonstrate notability. The draft's only source that helps do that is The Wall Street Journal. It isn't enough on its own. You may be able to demonstrate notability by combining it with USA Today and Reuters from the existing article, or you may find that the company is non-notable under the current criteria, and should be deleted from Wikipedia.
  5. The bulk of any article should come from independent sources (e.g. The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Reuters). Wikipedia is not much interested in what the company says about itself on its web site, in press releases, or in regulatory filings.
--Worldbruce (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:37, 1 December 2019 review of submission by TabBytes


Hello moderator, I have added more information about it. I have also edited the title of the article. Please review it. Thanks TabBytes (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have some comments, though not a full review. It still isn't in an appropriate form. Phrases like "An epitome of Creativity" don't belong in a Neutral article about the organization. Linkedin is not an appropriate reference, only one of the references is actually about Solecraft, the first one. I went looking through Wikipedia for a similar organization, and the closest that I found was Global Action Through Fashion. I'm not saying that it should be copied, but more to give you an idea on neutral phrasing and references.Naraht (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:57, 1 December 2019 review of draft by HattiePrice1011


I am confused as to why Wikipedia does not think a band should have it's own Wikipedia page

HattiePrice1011 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HattiePrice1011, Howdy hello! We don't cover just anything on Wikipedia. We only cover things that are notable. To prove that, you need reliable sources. In terms of this article, you need several more sources. You also need to clean it up to meet our standards for an article. Remove all the social links, and make it read like an encyclopedia. For an example of a great article on bands, see The_Beatles. If you improve the article and find sources, it may be accepted. If you cannot find good sources, then the band is simply not notable and cannot have an article (see WP:BAND for the specific requirements). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello, thank you very much for the usefull feedback, do you know roughly how many sources would be acceptable and a link to help with formatting? as i am new to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by HattiePrice1011 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HattiePrice1011 See Help:Referencing for beginners. shoy (reactions) 15:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:20, 1 December 2019 review of draft by Yehoiakin


Yehoiakin (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC) I am Jay P. Newcomb and I am trying to publish and article about myself and my book series. I am the reference and the source. So how do I add in other reference outside of myself for something of about which I am the primary source because I am the author of the works in question?[reply]

Yehoiakin, Well thats the issue here. Wikipedia does not allow original research such as you are suggesting. Only reliable and independent sources, like books, magazines, media outlets, etc. are allowable. For a book series to be notable, ie have its own article, it must have at least 3 reviews (see the whole requirements at WP:NBOOK).
Furthermore, we strongly discourage people writing about themselves or things they are closely connected to, as that represents a conflict of interest. Anyone with a conflict must follow the guidelines at WP:COI. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

06:53:40, 2 December 2019 review of submission by TimBray


First of all, thanks to User:AngusWOOF for suggesting I raise this issue here. I have been editing on and off irregularly for many years, and am the initial creator of two very small lightweight articles, Rose_Harbour,_British_Columbia and East_Van_Cross. But nobody would call me a serious Wikipedian. Recently my book club read Heartland_(nonfiction_book) by Sarah Smarsh - it was a finalist for the National Book Award, reviewed in loads of prestigious publications, and quite controversial. We asked ourselves "who is this woman?" and then the whole book club was shocked that Ms Smarsh didn't have an article. A bit of poking around revealed she had a solid track record as a journalist (NY Times, New Yorker, Guardian) and had been a subject of discussion as a Democratic candidate in the 2020 US Senate election in Kansas. I (perhaps naively) thought this, along with the publication of a widely-reviewed and widely-read book, sounded pretty notable so I pulled together a draft entry which was however rejected. Along with the rejection were some helpful notes about citation errors on the journalist side, I had simply used her publications as citations of that role.

Anyhow, I was pretty shocked that this did not pass the notability bar, particularly in the context where her book did. I'm not sure what my goal in posting this is; maybe just a sanity-check. Tim Bray (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Tim Bray (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TimBray, Too many of the sources are just articles that the subject wrote. Ya need to find some more coverage of her, that is independent of her. She may be notable, but the existing sources are not quite enough. As a side note, if she were to actually run for senate, that would likely catapult her to notability. But on her writing alone, you need to show that she passes WP:NWRITER, or the general notability guidelines. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:17:14, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Prachurapp


Prachurapp (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no content apart from your name? Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:00, 2 December 2019 review of draft by Nikhil1123

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Please help me to create a Wikipedia page, which is showing as subject not qualified. Please let me know the reasons why it is showing like that.Can you please show some examples of subjects.

Nikhil1123 (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil1123, I caution you to not write an article about a subject to which you are related. That represents a conflict of interest, which you would need to disclose. Also, note that if you have been compensated in any way for these edits, such as being an employee of the company, you must disclose that per WP:PAID.
In terms of notability, you need significant news coverage. You need more sources, and you also need to include them inline. See referencing for beginners for a handy guide. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:57:13, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Janne Jacks


This is an informative article corresponding to the category and does not pursue advertising purposes

Janne Jacks (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the subject in three of the references, it fails WP:GNG and is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:49, 2 December 2019 review of draft by Bending genres since birth


How do I delete the draft?

Bending genres since birth (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bending genres since birth, I have put it up for deletion at your request. If you would like it to be not deleted, you may edit the talk page of the draft and say as such. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No no, that's fine. Thank you for your help. Bending genres since birth (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:27, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Matralala

Just need help getting this published. Have had some helpful hints from users, but need help getting over the finish line. Thanks! Matralala (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have reviewed and accepted. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:34, 2 December 2019 review of submission by RobLewis8

There are teams with significantly less coverage who have articles that have been approved. The Niagara Regional Raiders of the CJFL had their article approved and their article has little to no information. I actually put work into this article, and to be quite honest I find the fact that this article hasn't been approved yet so many others have is ridiculous. This hockey team plays in the PWHL, which is the female equivalent to the OHL. My sources are reliable as PointStreak provides accurate statistics for this team, BayToday.com is one of the most reliable news sources in North Bay and they're talking about this team from a city 3 hours north of Barrie, BarrieToday.com is one of the best places to go in Barrie for sports and news coverage and do I really have to explain CTV News? I genuinely hope you reconsider your decisions on this article as I feel that it is sustainable enough to be on Wikipedia. RobLewis8 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the article as well as the comments from Curb Safe Charmer. The issue is entirely Notability, so basioally boils down to (more or less) secondary coverage of the team, for example by the local newspaper or television stations. Unlike individual players, the Notability of Teams is more or less the same as it would be for other organizations in the town. I'm sure it is covered more than the local Civitan though. The fact that three other teams in the same league have pages about them fall into WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST which more or less says that each one stands or falls on its own, and the fact they exist may just boil down to the fact that no one has proposed deleting them. I'm not sure why WP:EVENT was mentioned, but that may have to do with the state of the draft at that point. So my advice is the following. Check in with the people at the Hockey Wikiproject Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, they know the situation better than most and may have even better advice. Have specific facts about the team specifically referenced in the three external media sources that you have covering it. And it may simply fail Notability, I don't know.Naraht (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: Thanks for your comments - we're on the same page, as it were. The reason for the mention of WP:EVENT was that Rob had added a reference to this news article about a young lady that died in a car crash. That the girl was the captain of the Sharks is incidental and does not help establish notability about the club.
Addressing RobLewis8 now - your conviction that the team is notable and should have an encyclopedia article about it speaks to the reason that we discourage WP:COI editors from writing articles about themselves, their family, their friends, their clients, their employers, their teams or their clubs. It makes it that more difficult to be objective. As someone living the other side of the Atlantic I can look at the draft impartially and weigh it up against the criteria that the Wikipedia community has agreed upon by which all articles about organisations must meet (WP:ORG). We encourage new editors to practice editing Wikipedia and learning the numerous guidelines that we work to through making small edits. I think part of the difficulty here is that rather than do that you've dived straight in creating an article about a subject that is close to your heart. You fall into a category of editor that we call Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts - you're conflicted. I welcome you to stick around and contribute to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia), but I recommend you find another way to promote your team.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:21, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Preecesmith


Preecesmith (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preecesmith, We strongly discourage folks from writing autobiographies on Wikipedia. Be cautioned that only folks who have been covered in the media are usually eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. With luck, you'll be famous for something someday, and someone will write a Wikipedia page about you! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:50:52, 2 December 2019 review of draft by Vvong519


I was informed that the page I created reads too much like an advertisement. I would like suggestions on how to improve this to meet Wikipedia's requirements. I have provided a range of independent, reliable, published sources for as much as I can.

Vvong519 (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vvong519, For starters, remove all external links in the body. External links should only go in an external links section, and are usually tightly controllled. Please also see referencing for beginners for how to properly format and use references. The speaking events section should be removed. In general, the article ought be written like an encyclopedia, not a resume. You need more prose, and likely some better sources. Please read the notability guidelines for people about exactly what is needed to show that a subject can have an article. I'm not yet sure if the subject meets those guidelines. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:53, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Rtist4Rtist

We were declined; how then can we submit a page for Ragga Lox, Reggae artiste?

Rtist4Rtist (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rtist4Rtist, Well it was declined because you had no sources. If you can find enough sources that are reliable and independent, you could get them an article. But the article also is written like an ad, and it seems that your account is that of a promoter. You will likely need to change your username. You also must read and follow the guidelines at WP:PAID, which stipulate that any editors which are compensated in any way for thier edits must disclose that fact. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:32:50, 2 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nabatoff


I am trying to publish an article the first time under title "Perspective Geological Correlation"I got a quick answer from Captan Eek. He rejected the article as too technical and lack of cross-references. I reworked the article, published it, and send my comment to the reviewer Captan Eek. After two months I am not sure that my response reached Captan Eek. Please, advice how to check that my message reached the reviewer, and where is the right place to put my message to the reviewer? Thanks


Nabatoff (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabatoff: Your draft is in the queue again. First time, it likely was a quick review because of obvious issues. This time, the reviewer likely needs to spend much more time. It's understandable that Captain Eek may not be familiar with the topic or simply not want to review something in-depth. However, anyone who is a reviewer can review a draft and someone will get to it eventually. There is always a massive draft queue, which is reviewed in no particular order, so I'm afraid sometimes you have to wait a long time. I took a quick look and it looks like you don't have a WP:LEAD for the article. A lot of content doesn't have a citation attached. It's all written more like an academic paper than encyclopedic article. It's likely the draft would be declined again. I think you should check out some other articles (like Category:Featured articles) on Wikipedia to see what to aim for. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nabatoff, Howdy hello! Sorry if I didn't get back to you, the review queue is quite large and I get an awful lot of questions about things I've reviewed, and things sometimes fall through the cracks. Looking at your article again, I have to agree with Hellknowz. It reads more like a scientific paper than an encyclopedia article. See Radiocarbon dating as an example of a featured article (the best we have!) on a very technical subject that is easy to read, still sufficiently detailed, and presented in an encyclopedic fashion. Oddly enough, your article actually suffers from too many images, an unusual issue here. I would say cut them in half and just keep the best. I also think that many more citations are needed. Only 12 papers for an article of this size is unusual. Find more please. Also, do not use bolding to show emphasis. Hellz is also right in that you need a lead. All in all, some work to do, but it should be notable. Please drop a new question on this page if you have any issues as you work on it! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:00:24, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Sponge333


Sponge333 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sponge333, Howdy hello! Wikipedia does not allow autobiographical articles. Only folks who have been covered in the media can have pages. But with luck, you will someday become famous, and someone else will make an article about you! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:37:38, 2 December 2019 review of submission by ShimmyCharlotte


Hi,

Page: Rose Feller - Artist

I had this page rejected for two reason. One was there aren't any references. I'm not sure how to get around this, as the artist herself asked me to set the page up and everything I have written was from a private interview with her.

I have linked everything online about this artist - she is trying to raise her profile which is why she wanted a wikipedia page but you say it was rejected because there's not enough secondary stuff online.

How do I resolve this?

Charlotte

ShimmyCharlotte (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShimmyCharlotte, Ah, well theres the issue. We don't allow original research, such as you have proposed. Only folks who have been covered with secondary sources may have articles. If a subject hasn't been written about in media, books, papers, etc, then there is nothing about their life that is verifiable and that we could write about. We strongly discourage and tightly control the sort of thing that you are seeking to do. Wikipedia is not used to raise people's profile, as we are not an ad platform. If you want this person to still have an article, you must find sources. If sources do not exist, we cannot write about them.
If you have been compensated in any way to make these edits, you must disclose that by following the guideline at WP:PAID. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page Rose Feller - Artist

December 3

04:09:03, 3 December 2019 review of draft by Nawab Afridi


Nawab Afridi (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Afridi, You might wish to ask MJL, the reviewer who looked at your draft last, for feedback. They are very friendly and would almost certainly review it again if you left a note on their talk page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Please guide me if the following profile OK?

06:37:19, 3 December 2019 review of submission by Xayns


Xayns (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i have now added notable references

Xayns, The draft has been deleted so we cannot help you.Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:28:16, 3 December 2019 review of submission by Aheisk


Hello Wikipedia, my submission of an entry on Christopher Lloyd sometime ago was rejected. Christopher Lloyd is a very prominent Australian-Finnish professor with many achievements, including election to the Finnish Academy of Arts and Sciences. Now I have discovered that there is an entry for a young English person – Grace Blakeley – whose achievements are very scant compared with Christopher Lloyd's achievements yet she has an entry and he doesn't. Can you explain this to me please? Thank you. Aheisk.

Aheisk (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, Grace Blakeley is well sourced and passes notability guidelines. 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 08:53:34, 3 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Megha101


Can i share the school establishment document with the support team of Wikipedia as a proof of existence as we don;t have much of presence online since it is a new school. Megha101 (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megha101, That is not sufficient. We need published sources in order for them to be reliable. If published sources do not exist, the subject is not notable. Also, there is no Wikipedia support team that does what you suggest, just volunteer editors who review these articles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:08:56, 3 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Sunnymish


Hi I got rid of the copyrighted material from the article I want to create, and was wondering how to try and get it published again, currently the edited version is in my drafts. Thanks any help would be great.

Sunnymish (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:41:19, 3 December 2019 review of draft by 73.215.83.120


Hello, I am puzzled as to why my new page creation did not pass. Can you please let me know which references are needed? This page is for a company that has split from an existing company - Williams Lea Tag -- which already has an existing Wikipedia page. There is plenty of evidence of the company split, as seen in the references provided. These references are from neutral third parties including PrintWeek, campaignlive.co.uk and Marketing Interactive - none of which are "passing references", as the sources only talk about the company split. Please let me know what more I am supposed to provide.

73.215.83.120 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the comments provided on the draft, in particular WP:NCORP. Mere existence of a company is not enough to prove notability, and the fact that it split from a company with a company with a page already does not matter, because WP:Notability is not inherited. All of your sources are coverage of routine business activities and press releases, which do not contribute to notability. See WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 15:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:25, 3 December 2019 review of submission by Tedfmyers


Hello, I would love to have some feedback on my article. I previously asked for help, but my question was archived before anyone was able to give me any comments. See here for my previous question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_November_15#22:19:34.2C_15_November_2019_review_of_submission_by_Tedfmyers

To summarize my prior question, I believe that the subject of my article passes WP:NCORP due to sufficient number of significant, independent, reliable, and secondary articles cited. Would one of you kind reviewers take a look and give me your opinion on the matter?

Tedfmyers (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedfmyers: Given you're asking for a second review, which means looking through all sources again, could you link here 3 (best) sources that you believe pass WP:GNG and thus WP:CORPDEPTH that are 1) reliable/reuptable 2) secondary/independent 3) significant/in-depth. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: Hi Hellknowz, thanks for the quick response! The three sources I'd choose are Source 7,[1] Source 13,[2] and Source 19.[3] (The Marketplace, Harvard Business Review, and Science Magazine articles). Hope this helps with the review process! Tedfmyers (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kim, Jed (February 23, 2017). "Changing carbon from waste into gold". Marketplace. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ Service, Robert (September 19, 2019). "Can the world make the chemicals it needs without oil?". Science Magazine. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
marketplace source is not in-depth; there are only a couple paragraphs about the company and half is by Kuhl. hbr looks decent; the article isn't directly about the company, but it ends up basically talking for half of it, including company's founding, funding, prototypes, plans. sciencemag is also not in-depth; there are barely two paragraphs about the company and aren't even exclusively about the company. I'm afraid that's one decent source (although I imagine editors may argue even in that one the company isn't the subject of the article, although I would argue that it's on the threshold of significant coverage). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: Thank you for the evaluation, you’re helping me better understand the rules; especially the threshold for significant/in-depth coverage. I agree with you that the subject of an article doesn’t need to be main topic of the source material (as the WP:GNG states) - so the HBR article is a passable source (if not the other two I proposed earlier due to lack of coverage). Here are two different articles I believe are significant enough, and fulfill all other requirements: source 8[1] and source 11[2]. (Greenbiz and Vice articles). Both these articles spend multiple paragraphs discussing the environmental and business impact of the company.

References

  1. ^ Soltoff, Ben (October 16, 2019). "Opus 12 is one startup on a mission to convert CO2 into useful products". GreenBiz. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  2. ^ Fekri, Farnia (April 28, 2017). "Kendra Kuhl Is Building a Device That Turns Pollution Into Products". Vice. Retrieved 15 November 2019.

December 4

04:06:29, 4 December 2019 review of draft by Suhriyani tribe


Suhriyani tribe (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suhriyani tribe, This page already exists in the mainspace as List of Baloch tribes. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:49:09, 4 December 2019 review of draft by IJK193


I have cleaned up the article and I would like an extra hand to check it out. According to Wikipedia, it should be written from a natural point of view, I have addressed this. The article doesn't look promotional in content but written from the natural point of view but I still need an extra hand to check it out.

IJK193 (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJK193, Perhaps you mean a neutral point of view? Regardless, I see the issue as one of notability, i.e. who gets to have an article. I'm not sure what this guy has done to warrant a Wikipedia article, he doesn't appear to meet the musician notability guidelines. Some more sources are needed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:49, 4 December 2019 review of submission by Sonu07091996


Sonu07091996 (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this article will not be published. The company you are writing about does not seem to be notable. Sorry. I recommend you find another area of Wikipedia to edit, and hone your skills there! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guide me what should I do to publish the article, as I am unable to make it Out?

06:59:25, 4 December 2019 review of submission by Ayushchandrakala


Ayushchandrakala (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayushchandrakala, This seems to be an average person, which we do not cover. Wikipedia only has articles for notable people. That usually means that said person has received significant coverage in the media. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:20:42, 4 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Priyanka8971


I need to know why my drafts, articles are being rejected by the wiki, as there are many pages, articles of individual companies and brands, so don't they do the marketing and promote themself over wiki? Example links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_4_Less


Priyanka8971 (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka8971: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written by volunteers, not company representatives. They are not social media pages or profiles that represent a company directly (see WP:NOTPROMO). Such editors are WP:PAID editors with a conflict of interest. The company you are trying to promote here was founded this year and the article has zero reliable sources to prove notability. shoy (reactions) 15:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:42, 4 December 2019 review of draft by Devanshmrc


Devanshmrc (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this draft past six months, striving hard to publish it. OTRS is also recieved. Please help to get it published.

09:41:12, 4 December 2019 review of submission by Andreabartoli


This is my very first article on Wikipedia. I think now I have understood what was the problem. Please allow me to resubmit the edited article. Many thanks.

Andreabartoli (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:54, 4 December 2019 review of submission by Jain13tushar

Hi there, Shubham Mishra is one of the youngest security leaders in India. He is associated with many governments like U.P police, CBI and training many officials in various sectors of cybersecurity. Do consider this article for creation.

Thank You Jain13tushar (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jain13tushar, Have considered. This person is not notable for inclusion, as he does not have enough independent coverage of him. We only write articles about a small number of people, and this dude does not meet our standards. I recommend you focus on another area of Wikipedia to edit, where you may hone your skills. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 12:32:12, 4 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Pageturners


The Wikipedia entry for Cyclingworks Dublin has been rejected, on the basis that it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Surely this isn't correct? Multinationals, universities, unions and firms representing over 400,000 people in a city with a population of 1.5 million have asked the Government to provide safe cycling infrastructure, in a drive that is continuing with new organisations joining - surely this is notable.

Pageturners (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pageturners:, please read WP:NORG which explains that we assess notability by to what extent other reliable, independent publications have already written in depth about the subject. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

== Replying to this (I'm Pageturners) - here are some links about the project. It hasn't had a lot of press coverage, but on the website of the project itself you can see the logos of the 101 companies and organisations that have so far written to the Irish Government seeking safe infrastructure for cyclists in Dublin. A little of the press coverage: The Irish Times last year: "Dublin businesses call for safe cycling infrastructure in the city" https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-businesses-call-for-safer-cycling-infrastructure-in-city-1.3550891 ; the newsletter of Fórsa, the second-largest union in the country, representing civil servants: " Fórsa backs cycle network plan" http://forsatradeunion.newsweaver.com/designtest/14fjh4llsk8?a=3&p=54228001&t=30058761 ; Orwell Wheelers, Dublin's largest cycling club (Cyclingworks Dublin was started shortly after one of the club's members was killed on a training run) "Cycling Works Dublin Initiative: https://www.orwellwheelers.org/forum/8-miscellaneous-club-chatter/6845-cycling-works-dublin-initiative ; Dublin Chamber of Commerce: "Dublin Firms Join Forces to Demand Better Cycling Infrastructure" https://www.dublinchamber.ie/media/news/july-2018/dublin-firms-join-forces-to-demand-better-cycling ; Trinity College Dublin (the country's oldest and most prestigious university, founded by the English queen Elizabeth I) "Trinity supports campaign for improved cycling infrastructure" http://trinitynews.ie/2018/05/trinity-supports-campaign-for-improved-cycling-infrastructure/

I hope this sample is enough. Pageturners (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14:46:41, 4 December 2019 review of submission by MarcoLaudato


Hello :)

I have amended the article according to the reviewers' criticisms. In particular, I have added two secondary sources (from European Mathematical Society) and I have removed the Mission Statement section. Moreover, all the external links have been removed from the body of the article.

Please, let me know if something else needs to be done!

Kind regards, Marco MarcoLaudato (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarcoLaudato, This institution does not appear to be notable. I.e. there are not enough sources that cover the subject with significant coverage. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14:53:22, 4 December 2019 review of draft by Jtorpy


Jtorpy (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your feedback on the most recently submitted draft. I am wondering as to which statements (a couple examples would be helpful, not necessarily every case) qualify as "individual statement[s] of importance of judgment" to be removed might be? Much of the information in the article is most readily available via internal sources, but knowing which remaining aspects are problematic would help target the search for external sources

17:04:34, 4 December 2019 review of submission by Jordifernanjo


I'm studying a web develope course in english and we have been asked to post an article in wikipedia or other wiki sites. I have choose the this topic as it's a game im playing rigth now. I have base the article in the information of the developer page and some articles as well as my own experience. I have been asked to provide some links but as im using my own experience and developers information, I don't reallly know what to provide. Jordifernanjo (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on independent reliable sources, we have no interest in what the developer says, or in what you or I know about the topic. So the draft cannot be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:57, 4 December 2019 review of draft by Josef Hoffman

How to create an article ?

Josef Hoffman (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Hoffman, Howdy hello! You will need to submit the article for review through the Articles for Creation process. You can do that by clicking the blue submit box on your draft. But I recommend you don't do that yet, as your article is not yet sufficient. It has no sources, and will likely be failed promptly. You need at least 3 reliable and independent sources in the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:11, 4 December 2019 review of draft by Amgad Mohb Amin Lewaia


Amgad Mohb Amin Lewaia 18:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

1:1

مساحة الارقام = 1 + 1 = 2

طول ضلع الارقام = 1 ÷ 2 = 0.5

0.5 : 0.5

مساحة الارقام = 0.5 + 0.5 = 1

طول ضلع الارقام = 0.5 ÷ 1 = 0.5


طول ضلع الارقام للارقام المتشابهة يساوي النصف

This is just nonsense. Ask in English or we can't help you. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:34, 4 December 2019 review of draft by AleLagos77


I would like to have my article for creation reviewed again. I made the requested changes and I think now it is good to be published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:George_Hammer_III

Best Regards,

AleLagos77 (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AleLagos77, See my comments on the draft. In essence, this article is still overly promotional, and I see no special reason why this dude should have an article, i.e. they do not meet any part of the biography notability guidelines. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:00, 4 December 2019 review of draft by Vickymarco01


I don't know how to make good references. Especially the little number that appears on a word and clicking on it you can directly go to the link or notes at the end of the page. Vickymarco01 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vickymarco01, Please see referencing for beginners. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

09:37:25, 5 December 2019 review of submission by Smc institute


Smc institute (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft rejected, it is blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:23, 5 December 2019 review of draft by Cheznous88


Is there an update for this page please?

Cheznous88 (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:39, 5 December 2019 review of submission by Ashleylutaylor

The drafted Forester Life Wikipedia entry was rejected. A new entry has been made on this account which has been rejected due to the previous drafted version. Can the previous drafted entry be deleted and for the version submitted by this account be reviewed please. Ashleylutaylor (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction it has been rejected because the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:19:43, 5 December 2019 review of submission by Linda dominic

13:19:43, 5 December 2019 review of submission by {{SUBST:REVISIONUSER}


Linda dominic (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no sources and no indication of how he passes WP:GNG which is why it was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:41, 5 December 2019 review of submission by Maceone


Misfit soto is an artist that is gaining momentum in los angeles hip hop music hes released 3 albums this year, i see other artists that nobody cares about on here. Why was misfit soto rejected?

Maceone (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists, your draft has two sources, his own website and a Facebook page, articles require there to be multiple in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources such as newspapers or magazine articles. Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:34, 5 December 2019 review of submission by 95.205.101.145

why da fac i know clutch pop clutch go throttle bam drifting in 69moh


95.205.101.145 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, and we welcome neutral and well written encyclopedic content. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:27:05, 5 December 2019 review of draft by Cheznous88


The wikipedia page of Abass Dodoo has followed the exact same format as his fellow band members I.e Ginger Baker, Pee Wee Ellis and Alec Dankworth. Abass Dodoo is even referenced on those published Wikipedia pages. It does not make sense that those three pages are accepted and published but Abass Dodoo's page is not being published. Even though it is the exact same format, style and content.

Can the inconsistency be explained and if it can not then the page needs to be published.

Cheznous88 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheznous88, It is in the review queue. Please be patient for someone to review it. Also, be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


December 6

01:50:46, 6 December 2019 review of draft by Waveygrapes1001


I want this to go through to main page. Waveygrapes1001 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waveygrapes1001, Two words of content does not an article make. You need prose, you need references. You need to actually have content before it can be published into the main space. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:20:25, 6 December 2019 review of draft by Rajanm99


I request more editors to review and verify the facts and publish in article space.

Rajanm99 (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajanm99, Your initial reviewer was correct. Heed their words and improve your article, then resubmit it. You have only one source that is not independent. You need at least 3 reliable and independent sources, and currently have zero. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:51:03, 6 December 2019 review of submission by Jpncan

I have added some references in order to pass the check, so please review again. Jpncan (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jpncan, He still does not appear to be notable. Please see the notability guidelines for academics. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:59:00, 6 December 2019 review of submission by Sanjaysingh4334


Sanjaysingh4334 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


07:36:36, 6 December 2019 review of submission by Linda dominic


Linda dominic (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=929507627"