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 Dileshwar Singh Patil (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 10 February 2020 (→‎04:55:24, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Dileshwar Singh Patil: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


February 4

00:59:05, 4 February 2020 review of submission by 24.179.124.27


24.179.124.27 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most YouTubers aren't notable I'm afraid. Unless the media has taken interest in them, they usually don't warrant a page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:28:29, 4 February 2020 review of draft by 47.219.19.95


I was given reasons the draft was rejected (i.e. costs converted to today's dollars, removed pictures of current property, removed list of events) but it still got rejected. All I'm doing is recording the history of a structure that no longer exists. IF someone wishes to rewrite the article by all means do it. I'm not a formal writer so my style is how I write. I'm not trying to "sell" anything. Please advise.

47.219.19.95 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the draft. If you are the primary author of the draft, remember to sign in to edit, it facilitates communication. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:20:03, 4 February 2020 review of draft by Xsider

My page checked and user give some tasks to change information. I update page, can someone check this? Xsider (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:29, 4 February 2020 review of submission by Jonashgs


Hello

I added third-party sources now - the psysical papers we wrote to keep scores for the tournament.

They are located in the tournament planners office

Kind regards

Jonashgs (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonashgs, it still isn't verifiable, as there is no practical way for any user to access the papers. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 12:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response

But the sheets are physical, like a paper and not online.

So what do I do?

Kind regards

12:10:34, 4 February 2020 review of submission by 95.251.55.231

Sigismundthalberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Draft:Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Competition

95.251.55.231 (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the president of the Sigismund Thalberg international Study Centre The Sigismund Thalberg International Study Centre was founded in Naples in June 1996 by Principessa di Strongoli Francesca Ferrara Pignatelli, grandniece of the great Austrian pianist, and by me. The Study Center organizes a series of initiatives aiming at increasing the knowledge of the figure and the music of Thalberg. In October 1996 it organized the 1st International Congress entirely dedicated to Thalberg. The Study Center organizes too the Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Prize since 1998. Over the past 22 years the Prize has been won by some pianists who have subsequently won other prestigious awards like Sofia Gulyak first prize at Thalberg Competition and then first prize at the Leeds International Piano Competition or Michail Lifits third prize at Thalberg Competition and then first prize at the Busoni Competition in Bolzano and many others. We have done a page for Wikipedia - Draft: Sigismund Thalberg International Piano Competition - but it has been refused for several reasons, some of which are not true; for example "This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia". We are talking about a Piano Competition that has been held for 22 years and which is dedicated to one of the greatest pianists who lived in the 19th century. What can we do to get this entry accepted on Wikipedia? Thank you Sigismundthalberg

12:59:31, 4 February 2020 review of draft by 2406:3003:204D:CF:56E1:ADFF:FEC4:9C37


hi, my article got rejected. may i know 1. how to contact the person who rejected it to get more info (if possible) 2. what does this mean, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This 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 for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." 2406:3003:204D:CF:56E1:ADFF:FEC4:9C37 (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user that declined your draft is named in the red box at the top of your draft, if you click the "talk" next to their name, it will take you to their user talk page where you can communicate with them. The passage you put simply means what it says- your draft does not have independent reliable sources to support its content. Wikipedia is not for posting a resume or list of accomplishments, it is for summarizing what reliable sources say about the subject. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi may i know why it got rejected? can i get more details? thank you

2406:3003:204D:CF:56E1:ADFF:FEC4:9C37 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create additional sections of this page, simply edit the existing section. I've answer your question above, and told you how you can communicate with the editor that actually declined your draft. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:08, 4 February 2020 review of submission by CleanBeautyDefined


HI there, we would like to know why our page was rejected and what we can do to change it in order to publish.


CleanBeautyDefined It was declined because the draft is just you telling about what I presume is your company's products as a blatant advertisement. That's not what Wikipedia is for- Wikipedia exists to summarize what independent reliable sources say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. I'll add that you will likely need to change your username, please do so at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to respond to your response, so I will try here. Without our link to how we define clean beauty by our company (which we are happy to take out), clean beauty is now very much in the zeitgeist and a burgeoning section of the beauty industry that lacks definitive description. Brands more and more across the board are using the phrase clean beauty as equivalent with non toxic skincare that doesn't have any association with a particular brand. And in our view it begs to be defined, and if not by us, it will be soon by someone else. There are also pages for 'organic,' 'holistic', 'green' etc... which are unregulated terms, but again, very much in the zeitgeist and used across the board in the beauty industry.,

CleanBeautyDefined (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CleanBeautyDefined I guess I was confused in that I thought you were writing about a specific company's products. Still, if you are in the beauty product industry, you should review conflict of interest. Your draft merely explains the term and does not summarize what independent sources have said; you would need to show with coverage in independent reliable sources that this term is in widespread use, see WP:NEOLOGISM. (place any response below this comment) 331dot (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so may we re-edit and resubmit to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CleanBeautyDefined (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may edit and submit it again(not necessarily to me). I would advise you to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. Again, if you work in the beauty products industry, you need to comply with WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:10, 4 February 2020 review of submission by KTA2019


KTA2019 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KTA2019, Howdy hello! We don't write about everything, and I'm afraid this company doesn't make the cut. Our standard is [WP:NCORP|notability]], shown by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, and this organization does not meet that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to publish a Wikipedia page for Kerry Taylor Auctions but have had my draft rejected twice due to my citations. I'm a bit stuck and would appreciate some guidance please as to what I need to include.

16:38:11, 4 February 2020 review of submission by 2604:2000:15C0:4011:1D27:28CD:B7E0:3B16


2604:2000:15C0:4011:1D27:28CD:B7E0:3B16 (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is highly promotional and has been rejected. We do not exist to promote our subjects. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:18:13, 4 February 2020 review of draft by WPisarnik


My page - Draft:UICR Professional Driver World Championship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UICR_Professional_Driver_World_Championship - was twice declined, why, I did not breach any copyrights, yes I wrote it in MS-Word first and then copied it into Wikipedia 'Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere'

How can I get the copy I have in MS-Word into my page?

I had the country flags next to each Country name and this flags I got from Wikipedia is this reach of copyrights?

Please help LG Walter

WPisarnik (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no independent sources and an inappropriate list of contact email addresses it looks promotional I can't see any copyright issues. Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help

18:59:30, 4 February 2020 review of submission by Sukoner


Sudip Koner 18:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question about your draft? The only content so far is "Sudip Koner (born 1st July, 1990)". Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sukoner
Your draft currently only consists of a name and a date of birth. There isn't an article here for us to publish.
However, please don't write an article for us to publish. Writing an autobiography in compliance with all Wikipedia standards is practically impossible, especially for new users. Also, take into account Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, even if you could isolate your writing from yourself, and only summarise what the sources say.
~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:48, 4 February 2020 review of submission by Authorvednishad


Authorvednishad (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why my article I LOST MY SOUL is deleted? i need to know why the wikipedia can not be created for ved nishad?

a publish author, poet and well known critics, can not create a pge in wikipedia?

Courtesy link: Unless it also was deleted from another location without notification, user is referring to User:123.252.231.175/sandbox, which was speedily deleted after I had tagged it per WP:CSD#G11. I do not have time at the moment for a detailed reply, but user appears to be attempting to promote himself and his own self-published novel. --Finngall talk 01:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:19:50, 4 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 2001:8F8:1629:9A54:9CEB:DC2D:8DD4:B116



2001:8F8:1629:9A54:9CEB:DC2D:8DD4:B116 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page has numerous issues. For one, it duplicates itself. For two, it has no sources or inline citations. It is also incredibly bare bones. Please do some more research and add more content. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

02:37:54, 5 February 2020 review of draft by 68.103.78.155

I Created This Article 2 Weeks Ago and it need's to be in article space soon Because it has one reference and it needs to be a article now. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the rush. The event won't happen until September. It will be reviewed before then. Also, one reference is not usually sufficient, we require multiple. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:52:21, 5 February 2020 review of draft by Lawforalllawforone


Hello,

I'd like to ensure that edits made following the editor's feedback are consistent with Wikipedia guidelines for living person bios. I have made sure to eliminate any seemingly promotional content, but would also like to know if there are still any items / language that could compromise its approval on re-review - specifically in relation to the brief mentions of his other cases, which are notable in respect to subject matter, media coverage, and scope of impact on legislation, but perhaps not as noticeable as the national and high-profile litigation mentioned elsewhere. I was re-assured by the editor's feedback that the individual is notable, so this question is meant to help me double check that the language meets terms, and whether I should address anything else if needed.

Thank you! Lawforalllawforone (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:50:32, 5 February 2020 review of submission by Salim M Alhajri

Hi Dears, I tried to add article about Majlis Al Dawla (State Council) in Sultanate Of Oman but it rejected by user called ( Bkissin ). He said the article already exists in Wikipedia and can find it and improve it at Council of Oman instead. I don't know how he decided that. There are so many differences between State Council and Council of Oman For example: Council of Oman is a bicameral parliament, made up of the members of the State Council and the Consultation Council. So Majlis Al Dawla is a part of Council of Oman and it have his own privacy.

How can i get approval for my article and puplish it??

Salim M Alhajri (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:21:24, 5 February 2020 review of submission by IndianWikipedian123


IndianWikipedian123 (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant hoax and a waste of everyone's time, please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:58:43, 5 February 2020 review of draft by Sum244


Sum244 (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sum244, This is a 16 year old. Almost no 16 year olds are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. The only one I can think of is Greta Thunberg, who is literally world famous. We don't write about everyone. Please understand, and focus on editing existing pages for the time being. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:21, 5 February 2020 review of submission by RonCommons

His youtube channel had 100,000 subscribers... Is that notable enough? RonCommons (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He had 100,000+ subscribers on his youtube channel. He made paid personal appearances... Not notable? RonCommons (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RonCommons, Very few YouTubers are notable. Even channels with over a million subs routinely don't have Wikipedia pages. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:19, 5 February 2020 review of submission by Digitliberty2019


Digitliberty2019 (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Theroadislong,

I want to ask you if you can support me for creating a Biography of Genc Meraku, he is a leading person in Kosovo for Marketing and have made changes in Kosovo history, I will send all supporting documents and necessary materials and references.

Can you help me?

There is no evidence that Genc Meraku is notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:55, 5 February 2020 review of submission by TampaWriter

The draft BROOKS REHABILITATION was reviewed on Dec. 17 and rejected because of insufficient references and citations. One Dec. 18, I added sufficient references and citations and resubmitted the article for review. I reached out twice to the original reviewer via my Talk page but have not heard back. I understand the review process can take months and am perfectly willing to wait my turn. I just wonder if there is a way to receive an update on where this draft stands currently, or if there might be someone who can check the revisions I made to determine if it is an acceptable entry now. Thank you for any assistance! Sincerely, TampaWriter

TampaWriter (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TampaWriter The current backlog is approximately 4 months. Draft:Brooks Rehabilitation has been in the pool to be reviewed for 6 weeks. Roughly 2,100 submissions have been waiting longer. You can track the draft's age relative to the rest of the pool by monitoring how close it is to the top of Category:Pending AfC submissions (with some minor caveats, drafts are listed from oldest to newest). Drafts are often, although not always, reviewed by a different reviewer each time.
Articles about organizations and companies are among the most problematic on Wikipedia, so much so that a moratorium on new ones has been floated. That's too radical an idea to be adopted at this time, but there are other signs of a shift in emphasis away from creating new articles to improving existing ones. Almost all articles (98+%) are assessed as less than "good" by the community, so there is much room for improvement. As a former journalist, your skills could do more good editing existing articles than drafting new ones. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:28, 5 February 2020 review of submission by Felele247


I will like to know why the above draft name is declined

Felele247 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pink box at the top tells you why " submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article" Your draft has only one source, we require at least three reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:38:52, 5 February 2020 review of submission by FWF2019

I would like to know why the request for the Fifth Wheel Freight Wikipedia page has been denied and what I can do to increase the probability of it being accepted next time. FWF2019 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWF2019, It appears to be purely promotional, and likely not notable. We don't write about all companies, and this company does not appear to meet our standards. To fix that you need high quality sources that cover the company. Finding and adding good sources might help. But if the company isn't notable, nothing can fix that.
Also, your username is still promotional, it needs to be changed to something like "Todd at FWF" to clarify that it isn't shared use or a company account. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:57:02, 5 February 2020 review of submission by Dj dan bleacher


Dj dan bleacher (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dj dan bleacher: Do you have a question of some sort? The red banner at the top of the draft explains the rejection concern. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:03:06, 5 February 2020 review of submission by Sakimtsev


The article is in reference to two enterprizes that were spearheaded by Jack Singleton, who was one of the first initiators of the International Foundation for Telemetering that promoted regulatory standards for frequency allocation. Among many of his activities, he gave birth to two unique companies, Matrix System and then Universal Switching that are main contributors to critical Satcom Communication equipment. Mr. Singleton died but I would like to honor him and to link his life to these two companies.

How can you help? Sakimtsev (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend that you read WP:CITE, and find and add some needed citations on existing pages, before revisiting your draft. DougHill (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 6

03:20:19, 6 February 2020 review of submission by Gsr0812


Hello, I would like for advice in how to properly submit this article so it is not rejected. I've read several wikipedia pages about how to properly send an article however I can't quite grasp on why it is not notable enough.

thanks,

Gsr0812 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:55:22, 6 February 2020 review of submission by Slas2020

The wikipedia written is based on facts and it is not an advertisement as it has no collections or products that is promotional based. it is just stating what the company is doing and the products that it does in a generic term. Similar to the local brand Aspial Coproration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspial_Corporation). The reference are also not from the company's source but from external sources, hence it should not be claimed as an advertisement. In additional , it also includes the parent company's information which is necessary to explain how it begin.

Slas2020 (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slas2020:, hi there. Firstly, I wouldn't advise trying to support the existence of one article with another currently existing one - it may have come in before our modern vetting set-up, and not actually meet current standards. See "Other stuff exists" for a good explanation of this.
However, that notwithstanding, the draft is promotionally written, with content such as As the leading jeweller in Singapore, the Group continuously caters to the customers with intricate jewellery and meaningful mementoes which are made for different tastes and demographics through its two brands: SK Jewellery – the masstige jeweller with a belief that everyone can shine within attainable means and accessible locations, and Love & Co. – the premium bespoke bridal jeweller celebrates the different stages of a couple's love journey.. There are plenty of ways to be promotional without just taking content from the company own website, such as if the sources used aren't reliable/independent, or by general word phrasing, as the example above shows. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:11:40, 6 February 2020 review of submission by Rhubarbgin

Thank you for the quick feedback on the review of this article. I have noted the comments, and taken on board the advice regarding the review extracts. However, I am rather confused about the subject not meeting notability requirements. This is a serious, well established and well-regarded and reviewed author. The citations show this as the reviews are from well-established, well-know sources (see the internal Wikipedia links - New York Times, Washington Post, Times Literary Supplement, London Review of Books, Harper's, The Atlantic, Prospect, etc) - very recognisable names in the literary and art world. The names of many of the reviewers are also well-know and have Wikipedia pages - eg Joan Brady who won the Whitbread prize. So I'm confused as to what more is required to prove that the subject is notable. I'd be very grateful for guidance on this and any other areas which need improvement. With thanks. Rhubarbgin (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Rhubarbgin, I don't have time for an in-depth look but I would suggest adding new or existing references to the lead that have significant coverage and are independent reliable sources. Going though the first few links: [1] Just shows they wrote a book; [2] Ditto; [3] A brief mention in a large list; [4] & [5] incorrect links to book listings; [6] and [7] do not even appear to mention subject; [8] name drop only; [9] and [10] book listings. The lead needs refs for the claims - 10 sources in and all I know is yes they are an author who has written things. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:00:51, 6 February 2020 review of submission by JadeDavies


JadeDavies (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in the sports industry since i am 12 what do i need to do to have my articles published on wikipedia ? what am i ding wrong? thankyou

JadeDavies It appears you are attempting to write about yourself, this is highly discouraged on Wikipedia, please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves, as this is not social media. This is an encyclopedia, which summarizes what independent reliable sources say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a a notable person. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you need to essentially forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources say about you(like the news). If there are no independent sources about you(you offer none in your draft), them you would not merit an article at this time. If you do later merit one, you shouldn't be the one to write it. You are free to use social media to tell the world about yourself(as you seem to do already). 331dot (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:58, 6 February 2020 review of submission by December1233

December1233 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Please can I request a re review on this article. The comment left was that it is 'essentially promotional' however only no-biased language has been used to create this biography. If you feel this is not the case, please can I be given some advice as to where the faults are within the article. December1233 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December1233 It's promotional because it does little more than tell about him, and is supported with sources that are mostly interviews with him or brief mentions; Wikipedia articles must do more than merely tell about the subject. They must summarize what independent reliable sources, sources completely unaffiliated with him, have chosen to significantly cover about him that show how he meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Independent reliable sources does not include interviews with him, press releases, routine announcements, brief mentions, or other primary sources. I would concur in the judgement of the reviewer. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to get a better idea of what is being looked for in article content.
I am curious to know what motivated you to write about this person. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:28:57, 6 February 2020 review of submission by Vikas9gupta


Hello, there are many similar pages published on Wikipedia Category:Law_firms_of_India:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_firms_of_India

Vikas9gupta (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas9gupta, firstly, please read wp:other stuff exists, a rather important essay. We aren't a common law system, and previous decisions aren't binding on future ones - our standards have become less lax as time as gone on.
For an article, you need to have recieved significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. You currently haven't demonstrated this. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:47:33, 6 February 2020 review of draft by Kgeary007


Kgeary007 (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not remotely clear how you pass the notability guidelines, most of us don't!. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:11:49, 6 February 2020 review of submission by Mitchelltingey


I would like to know why this was declined. The only purpose of including "press releases" was to corroborate claims made about Dr. Moshirfar, per Wikipedia requirements. The main point of the article is that Dr. Moshirfar is a pioneer and a respected researcher in the field of ophthalmology. I would like to know what changes need to be made in order to reflect this and be approved for publication.

Thank you Mitchelltingey (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchelltingey, Firstly, and most importantly, we are an encyclopedia. We don't care how great a person is, we care about if they have received enough coverage in reliable sources to create an article from.
Secondly, please read the notability criteria for academics. If your subject meets any of these criteria, please add it to the article, with references. People who meet these criteria are presumed to be notable enough.
Thirdly, the article is written in a tone that is too promotional. The point of an encyclopedia article is to educate on a subject, not to try to sell how much of a pioneer and respected researcher they are. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 7

02:08:28, 7 February 2020 review of submission by Bzcons44


We have gone out of our way so that the article is purely factual - not an advertisement!

We followed similar wording to that of Wikipedia's articles on IC Markets, an Australian-based online retail forex, Saxo Bank, a Danish investment bank specializing in online trading and investment; and IG Group, a UK-based company providing trading in financial derivatives.

The topic is sufficiently notable considering there that are many Wikipedia articles already published on the topic.

The article is not an advertisement and if it is deemed it is, then so are the three mentioned above! How come they are published? It doesn't make sense.


Bzcons44 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bzcons44, Who is "we"? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'We' are people that are interested in Forex.

Bzcons44 Well for starters, accounts are single use only. Also, if you have any sort of monetary relationship with HF markets, you must disclose that fact by following WP:PAID.
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. The IC Markets article is pretty bad. The Saxo bank article is not bad, but yours is nothing like it.\
While the article may be factual, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Our coverage requires neutrality. That is, the wording, tone, and sourcing, must not be biased for or against the subject. At the moment, it paints the subject in an overwhelmingly good light, and is in essence free advertising.
The real issue here however is that the subject just isn't notable. We don't write about all companies, and this one seems to be run of the mill. I reccomend you work on editing existing articles some, to get a feel for our process, before working on making articles from scratch. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:06:04, 7 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Happypillsjr



I am requesting assistance with this article because it fails WP:MUSICIAN but wondering there's any suggestion to approve it.


Happypillsjr ✉ 03:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happypillsjr, sadly, Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability might apply.
If there is significant coverage you haven't included in the article, you can add it, but if it doesn't exist your only option is to wait until they've done more stuff, hence had more coverage to base an article on. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 12:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:17:18, 7 February 2020 review of draft by Cre8tiveIQ


Hello, I've found more references online but they are youtube interviews. How do I go about referencing them and do they qualify as reliable sources? Cre8tiveIQ (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cre8tiveIQ, Interviews do not count towards notability, and should be used only sparingly. YouTube is not a reliable source, unless its copies of a news broadcast from a regular reliable source, such as the BBC. Even then, it really shouldn't be used. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8tiveIQ (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:33:46, 7 February 2020 review of draft by Annemmtv


Hi, requesting help for an article I had submitted for review. The content is on OTT platform "ManoramaMAX". The article was submitted for review twice and was rejected twice, both times because it sounded like an advert. Kindly requesting another review & help on how to improve the content. Anne VT 05:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 07:13:09, 7 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Diosganar


I really want to know why my article is rejected

Diosganar (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diosganar, The article has been deleted, so can only be seen by admins.
It was deleted because it was deemed unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote businesses. Articles should be written neutrally based on what reliable sources have previously written about the subject - if there aren't enough reliable sources to write an article, then the business isn't notable enough. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 10:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and given your user page states the business was founded in 2019, it almost certainly hasn't received enough coverage to base an article on. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 10:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:30, 7 February 2020 review of submission by Thuthignr


Thuthignr (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:08:02, 7 February 2020 review of submission by Zoya888


I'm confused about why she's not considered notable enough. I'm also stumped on sources. While yes, I do cite Vox as primary source material (in more of a bibliographical sense), I tried very hard to look for other people writing about her to describe her life, her work, and her impact on the field. I brought in sources from NPR, academia, and other newspapers.

What aspect of these sources are still dinging this article? I'm happy to bring in others, but don't want to keep making the same mistakes. A wizardly librarian (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:30, 7 February 2020 review of submission by Eslimarketing

  • Username missing!
    • No draft specified!

Esli_Pollet_Water_Group

Hello. I was trying to enter company info in Turkish, but got rejected and I don't know why. Could any one tell me how to submit correctly? Many thanks.

Eslimarketing (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eslimarketing First, you will need to change your username immediately. Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest to request a username change. Usernames cannot be that of a business per the username policy. You must also read and comply with the paid editing policy, a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. You should also read about conflict of interest. Your draft was declined because you did not demonstrate with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that your company meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:17, 7 February 2020 review of draft by WriteIncunabula


Hello, I'm creating a page for an artist, and have uploaded some photos from flickr. Several of the photos are still there, but I noticed two of them appear to have been removed. I re-posted one, but the other won't go up via the Flickr to commons bot. A message flickers briefly on screen that I think reads the photo is already up. But it's too quick to be sure, and I can't find the image anywhere.

Also, I'm awaiting editor feedback, but am looking for any tips to make the page better. I've taken complete transcripts down from interviews and made sure to source every fact statement, but there are several interesting details I've left out for the sake of just sticking to basic facts and maintaining objectivity. I don't want the page to be "flowery" or sound as though it were promotional in any way, but I also don't want to exclude facts of interest. Any advice would be most welcome. Thanks!

WriteIncunabula (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you are creating a 'page' for an artist, do you represent the artist? 331dot (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:41:24, 7 February 2020 review of submission by IamMattDavies

I thought that it would be a notable topic to include (similar to that of Parliamentary train) and it has over references which are, of course, from reliable, published sources.

I disagree that the term is a neologism because it has varied use (especially since All the Stations).

Finally, it is not about the website, but about the term in general and the stations that ARE least used. IamMattDavies (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IamMattDavies, I would personally remove the mentions of the least used stations website, except maybe an external link. There seems to be too much focus on what they say, when they aren't a reliable source.
I would also move it to something like least used railway stations in the United Kingdom or something similar.
But overall, it is probably a notable enough topic.
Thanks, ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also, you might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:44, 7 February 2020 review of submission by StevePoulsen


I am attempting to create a new article. As this is my first one and time, I am struggling a bit to understand some of the requirements, and could use some clarification. The first submission was declined because the references did not show significant coverage, in reliable, secondary, sources that are independent. This actually made sense, as I had only linked to the subject's own website. So today, I decided to dig in a bit farther and find external information sources. To that end, I reworked some of the languages, and added new references to other sites, primarily news coverage sites, and then resubmitted.

It was shortly rejected again. For the same reason, and not adequately citing reliable sources. As best I can tell this means that unless the information can be referenced to an independent source, it will not be considered. Is this is correct? If the only location for some of this information, is the subjects own site, can that information not be included?

Any other information that would get the article publishable would be appreciated. I have a list of similar conventions that I want to do articles for as well but I want to get one thought he process first before I try others.


StevePoulsen (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StevePoulsen From examining your draft, it seems that you are writing about your own event. That means you have a conflict of interest you must formally declare; if you receive any compensation whatsoever(not just cash money) for your work with this event, you must declare as a paid editor as well. In looking at the sources, one (and part of another) is an interview with you, which is not an independent source. The rest are just very brief mentions or citing the mere existence of something(like the comics). Wikipedia requires significant, independent coverage from sources that have chosen on their own to write about your event. If such sources do not exist, it would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:59:24, 7 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Audreyne


Hello!

I am currently trying to create a page for musician Daniel Aged (of Wikipedia-page-having group Inc. No World) but have had both drafts thus far rejected. I have included links about both the group and Aged as an individual so I am curious as to what might legitimize my page more.

I would sincerely appreciate any and all guidance that could possibly get the page published and up to Wikipedia's standards!

Best, Audrey


Audreyne (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article (not just a "page") you are trying to create does not show that the person has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That coverage must go beyond brief mentions or routine announcements. In addition, it's not clear that the person meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable musician. Lastly, you seem to be saying that this person is notable because they have worked with other notable people- however, notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:10:23, 7 February 2020 review of draft by Nandasiri Gunaratne


I started this article with the intention that the others will also send some sources and references. I noticed there was another person update this document. But with no references. please let me know one sentences that i have not written in neutral format. Then taking that as an example i will correct the rest of the article. I requested that from the previous editor too. Still waiting for his response. Please assist me since this is my first article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Nandasiri Gunaratne (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:12:55, 7 February 2020 review of submission by Vikulgupta1703


Hi I have done more change and added board of directors in my page. Is that looks ok now. I did changed the subject also. Please let me know what changes we need. Thanks in advance.

Vikulgupta1703 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for being an advertisement, deleted for being a copyright infringement, and  On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Vikulgupta1703#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

08:17:27, 8 February 2020 review of draft by JogiAsad


This university was announced, then foundation stone was laid, and at that time I had started a draft for that university, and someone probably reviewer suggested to resubmit when the university starts functioning. but still I don't see any newsreference about it whether its functioning or still in process.JogiAsad (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JogiAsad (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JogiAsad, If few or no references discuss the subject, then it is not notable.CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:44, 8 February 2020 review of submission by 2409:4042:2010:1460:FCD0:AEFC:969A:2408


2409:4042:2010:1460:FCD0:AEFC:969A:2408 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:42, 8 February 2020 review of submission by 2409:4043:717:2E40:92F3:AEBC:A936:934C


2409:4043:717:2E40:92F3:AEBC:A936:934C (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite promotional in tone. Our articles present our subjects nuetrally, without embellishing. Your wording makes it sound like a promotional piece. If you have more specific questions, please ask them.CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:30:45, 8 February 2020 review of draft by Reewrites


My article keeps getting rejected. This is my first article, and I am trying to write a page about a musician. He has several newspaper articles as references. Could you kindly let me know why the article is getting rejected?

Reewrites (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reewrites You have been given some answers to your questions in your draft itself, at the top. In short, it is not clear that this musician meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. The sources offered do not appear to have the significant coverage required- brief mentions, routine announcements(such as the announcement of the release of a single), and so on are not acceptable for establishing notability. If you haven't already, please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:03:20, 8 February 2020 review of draft by Katerinapartlova


Katerinapartlova (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do I do when certain references are simply unavailable online?

References do not need to be online, BUT you do need to declare your clear conflict of interest on your user page, before you make any further edits. Theroadislong (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:13, 8 February 2020 review of submission by Erin miller2020


Erin miller2020 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erin miller2020 As you have been told in the draft itself, it is an advertisement for what I assume is a product that you are associated with in some way. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for some required formal disclosures you must make if that's the case. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:55:54, 8 February 2020 review of submission by Jonashgs


Hello

I added our published sources.

Our sources are all offline and on physical paper.

Do I need to bring them online to get verified, or what do I have to do?

Please let me know, because usually physical papers are reliable sources - right?

Please help

Jonashgs (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

05:13:54, 9 February 2020 review of draft by Azurerae


This author has an IMDB id and one of her books made into a movie. Still not considered notable? --Azurerae (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can write your own IMDb profile, so that shows no notability whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what about the fact that her book was made into a movie? --Azurerae (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a notable film (no article) and you have a press release as a source which isn't considered reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The movie comes out on the 14th of this month. Thanks for the info. So, what is a reliable source for a movie then? --Azurerae (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, sources like PR Newswire and SoapCentral.com aren't acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azurerae (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:34, 9 February 2020 review of draft by Hyacknot

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->

It's been quite a while since this page was submitted for review. It's been worked on by wiki contributers as well and everything seems to be in order both in format as well as details. The page is necessary to serve as a bio and increase credibility of Arjun Chatterjee as a film director. Sincerely request that this be moved to the main article page soon. Thank you very much.

Hyacknot (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacknot Reviews are conducted by volunteers, who do what they can when they can- in no particular order. There isn't really any way to speed things up, as there are thousands of draft awaiting review. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:52, 9 February 2020 review of submission by Flokiittbi


Flokiittbi (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flokiittbi: Sorry, but the company is not notable and there's nothing we can do at this time. The article is a PR piece. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:11, 9 February 2020 review of submission by Sidgujjar1000


Sidgujjar1000 (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:22, 9 February 2020 review of submission by Sukoner


Sudip Koner 16:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

A quick search on Google would show that, like most of us you are probably not notable enough for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:37, 9 February 2020 review of submission by EduCow

I recently created an article regarding an extinct species called Centrobunus braueri. I got a message saying that the article wasn't adequately supported by reliable sources. I used the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) website for this, which is basically the most reliable and quite honestly, the only source that I can use since this is a not well-known species, but is notable enough to be found on the Wikipedia article IUCN Red List of extinct species IUCN Red List of extinct species Should I re-submit the article for review, or should I try to find a second reliable source?EduCow (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)EduCow EduCow (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use ICUN as a source though, you added it as an external link, please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi EduCow although it was on the ICUN website that is definitely a reliable source, that source does not cover all the information in the article. I looked myself for other sources but came up blank other than lots of mentions in the group of species declared extinct at the same time. If you can find another source or more that would be great. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone thinks the ICUN listing is enough happy to see it pass. KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked for further sources but came up blank. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:32, 9 February 2020 review of draft by Nature987765


Nature987765 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My draft has been rejected twice. I understand and accept why it was not accepted the first time because I was wrong to put that she was a ‘model’. She is a socialite, an activist in raising awareness about epilepsy and works in fashion PR. I don’t understand why it was rejected the second time and the reason given was that it was not in a formal enough tone. If anyone wishes to check my draft, he or she will see that I have separated the sections accurately and I have provided plenty of different and reliable sources. I’m confused as to why it was rejected and I’m not sure what I can do to make sure the article does get accepted. If anyone can help me, I would be grateful.--Nature987765 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nature987765: For one thing, you are citing a lot of facts about a person from the person themselves. That is never a reliable source. I am not sure the person is even notable. Are there any in-depth sources where it isn't just her being interviewed? It all looks like run-of-them mill celebrity gossip and tabloid material and nothing encyclopedic. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your reply. Well, some of the agencies she has worked for have provided a brief biography about her. If you look on Getty Images, you will see she has appeared at many different events (parties, openings, etc) with some very famous people. She is the ambassador of a charity which helps promote awareness about epilepsy. She is from a very wealthy family and is a known socialite, she associates with many other socialites (I have linked to a few on the draft). There are many articles which contain a lot less information and fewer sources, so I don’t understand why Fleming’s article isn’t enough to be accepted.

What do you suggest I should do? I have sourced different agencies she has either worked for or still works for and I have provided different sources from the BBC to interviews about her activism about epilepsy.--Nature987765 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC) There are independent articles which have been written about her, such as: “Hum Fleming, the woman who can’t remember anything that happened six months ago” - Helen Rumblelow (The Times).--Nature987765 (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:22:35, 9 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by John BG Johnson



John BG Johnson (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there anybody that can assist me to finish this article? THANK YOU.

Your draft has been rejected "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." I suggest you try editing some of the many thousand existing articles, which require improvement. Theroadislong (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:24, 9 February 2020 review of submission by 69.165.140.203

I am requesting assistance because the article is about a match-3 game by Playrix 69.165.140.203 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your subject is not notable. There is nothing you can do about this. To have an article, you need significant coverage in reliable sources. You don't have this. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 10

00:24:15, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Sowamshe


I have added a line to my own web site from which I quoted several lines that are on the Wiki entry to clarify that I release any copyright provisions for this page only: http://sowamsheritagearea.org/wp/

None of the other lines that appear on Earwig's Copyvio Detector were copied from those sites; they are all original writing strictly by me.

This should clarify the copyright problems that were previously cited and allow the entry to be posted.

Sowamshe (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


00:45:49, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Sowamshe


Now that I think I've resolved the copyright of my own writing issue, I'd like to know why this entry is "contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia". It's a basic entry about an historic location that is cited frequently and that has no easily-found reference. I have researched information about this topic from hundreds of sources, the major ones of which are included in the references. My own extensive web site needs a Wiki reference as to many other Wiki sites that refer to "Sowams" but give not reference to it. We are in the process of building support for a National Sowams Heritage Area and would like to be able to define Sowams on Wikipedia. Doesn't that make sense?

Sowamshe (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify who "we" is please? Wikipedia accounts are strictly for single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:04:14, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Johnpaterno


Hi, i am requesting to review this article. Jonn Poker is indeed notable on social media. If googled his name you can see blog articles, social media links and more about him. One of the reason i am trying to get this article published is because of the disambiguate information that is between Jonn Poker and the word Poker itself. When searched on google, you can find other links to things that not necessarily connect with him but most importantly Jonn Poker gets linked to people such as JOHN CYNN who are poker players. This is not fair and people searching for "Jonn Poker" should find more content about him and not other people. I am therefore requesting a second look to the subject in question with the hopes that i could convince you guys to accept this article. Johnpaterno (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in what Google searches turn up, your draft has been rejected because the subject is not notable, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube are not reliable sources.

04:55:24, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Dileshwar Singh Patil


Hi,  User:Creffett edited the article Draft:Big Boy Toyz per this revision, placing COI and Notability tag while I had fully disclosed WP:PAID and surprisingly has recently also been rejected as being not notable, when it passes WP:NCORP. I believe I'm being treated harshly and ufairly here... Not to mention the other editor User:Lapablo as well, who has been ignoring my pingings per this discussion with regards to the other article Draft:Daniel Etim Effiong in terms of disclosure. I'm coming on here to hear from other editors who are more experienced and not bias about WP:PAID (pinging @331dot: as he/she is one of the admins active on the Help Desk) Dileshwar Singh Patil (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. The author refused to make disclosure of WP:PAID violation after several warnings and attempt of moving page to mainspace without allowing go through AFC process. Disclosure was made just recently on the 8th of February among 2 other articles which author has created. Lapablo (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lapablo, there's still YOUR undisclosed payment tag on Draft:Daniel Etim Effiong. I don't think I'm the one who's supposed to remove it since you are the one who had initially placed it there (and I think the right procedure would be for you to be the one who removes it) - After all I've disclosed :( Regards Dileshwar Singh Patil (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:57, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Malvineous

This article has been rejected because there aren't enough secondary sources and despite including some drawbacks and limitations in the article, apparently it reads like an ad. Unfortunately because the article covers a proprietary protocol, there isn't much around in the way of secondary sources as it seems to have only recently been made public. It's also very difficult to change the tone when you are basically just describing the capabilities right off the protocol spec.

I have been working to try to understand this protocol as it's used by a device I own, and I want to be able to control it with open source software (of which there is none). I was surprised that Wikipedia had no mention of the protocol given that apparently it's used by many thousands of devices in the professional audio world. I thought I would be able to fill that gap by trying to document what the protocol is and actually does, but now I'm being told that it's not notable and apparently Wikipedia would prefer to have no information about it at all? I must confess I don't really understand why no information is preferable to knowing what something actually is, especially when at the start of this exercise it took me quite a while to dig through all the press releases and marketing fluff to work out what this thing actually does and does not do.

Would someone be able to offer some advice as to whether this sort of article even stands a chance of being included? I've already spent a lot of time digging through the spec sheets so I could put the most relevant info into the article, but if it's just going to get canned regardless then it's better that I don't waste any more time on it. Looking at pages like Midas XL8 and GSIF I don't really understand why they are allowed in but this one with more detail and more references isn't? What do those pages have that I haven't put in this one?

I'm happy to take specific constructive criticism on board, but being told "oh it sounds a bit like an ad" is much too vague to be helpful.

Malvineous (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malvineous If there are few independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this protocol, it would not merit an article on Wikipedia at this time. No amount of editing can change that. It is considered to be an "ad" because it does little more than describe the product and its features- Wikipedia articles must do more than that- summarizing what independent reliable sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:38:54, 10 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 134.0.196.182


Dears in Wikipedias, im trying to upload an article about Majlis Al Dawla in Sultanate of Oman but your team reject it and the reason was the article already exists in Wikipedia by name Council of Oman (as they said), i would like to inform you that are so any different between them Council of Oman contain both of Majlis Al Dawla (State Council) and Shora Council So Majlis Al Dawla has own privacy and im trying to upload an article which contain detailed information about it.

Please help me to do that to publish cultural information about Majlis Al Dawla to the people.

Best Regards Salim

134.0.196.182 (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:21, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Nicola.Weissner

Hello, I'm requesting assistance, as my draft was declined and I was invited to discuss about it here by User:DGG. Could you pleaase tell my, why the article got declined and what I can do to improve quality? Thank you very much! Nicola.Weissner (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Nicola.Weissner (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola.Weissner I would first ask if you are associated with Hemmersbach in some way; if so, you will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement if you are an employee or otherwise paid).
Your draft was declined because its citations are either primary sources or brief mentions of this organization. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in order to establish that the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:57, 10 February 2020 review of draft by Gamorosia


I have in line citations but this article was declined. Do I need to add footnotes and if so how do I do that? I have read the referencing guidelines and don't see that functionality in my page.

Gamorosia (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamorosia, we need both. The citation in the text just points to the full information, which should be in the footnote at the end. At the moment, there isn't enough information for us to find the reference.
We typically use templates to do this for us - see user:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners, or if you want to use Harvard referencing Template:Harvard citation documentation. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:27, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Sowamshe

Why does Robert McClenon say that Draft:Sowams is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia? The entry is a simple description of a 17th century place name that appears in other Wiki pages (Warren, Rhode Island). The name has historic significance and is cited in primary and secondary sources about Plymouth Colony. I don't understand his objection. Sowamshe (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Sowamshe (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=940104442"