Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Talk page
Showcase Assessment Participants Reviewing instructions Help desk Backlog drives
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
  • For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
  • Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
  • Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page.
Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


August 20[edit]

Request on 11:42:10, 20 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Gianmcap[edit]

Greetings and thank you for the help,

I have tried to add this entry twice and i am told by the reviewer that the person is not notable enough and that my citations are not adequate. I dont really understand why since the entry is about a person who is a Knight of the Order of St George, is CEO of a Billion dollar company and recently married the Princess of Jordan who is the sister of the King of Jordan. Additionally he is a registered Lobbyist in Ontario.

I have cited sources such as the Jordan Times, Companies House in the UK and the Order of St George.

Please could you help me to understand what I am doing wrong in getting this approved? I had shown it to people on the chat and they didnt point out any issues with it so i thought that this time it was ok. I just had it refused again and I would like to ensure i can fix it to the level that will be accepted by Wikipedia.

Thanks again Gian

Gianmcap (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gianmcap, welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk. Notability has a highly specialized meaning on Wikipedia. Essentially it comes down to "has the subject received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? What the person is, what they have done, and who they have done it with are not directly relevant, although those things may have influenced whether independent reliable sources have written about them.
Of the cited sources, Defence Unlimited is not independent. The Order of St George (this particular one, by the way, is not a well-known or significant award or honor), University of Toronto, Companies House, and The Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries don't mention him. (You may be missing the point of inline citations. When the draft states "he gained a B.Comm – Accounting from the University of Toronto", you need a reference that says as much. A reference that merely shows the University of Toronto exists is useless.) Companies House (beta) is a directory listing, not significant coverage. The Royal Forums does not have the characteristics of a reliable source. Finally, The Jordan Times is a passing mention, a mere two sentences.
Searching Google Books, Google newspapers,,, Google scholar, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and The New York Times for "Ed Banayoti" produced zero results. Searching Google and Google News returned a few results, but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Perhaps searching by a variation of his name, or searching in additional places, would be more successful, but it looks like you've chosen a topic that cannot meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. No amount of editing can overcome that.

16:21:42, 20 August 2016 review of submission by DHeidtman[edit]

DHeidtman (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC) My article was declined citing that it read more like advertising than an article. I would like to resubmit with a neutral voice and am looking for advice. Appreciate any help!

Slicksosa (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC) My article was declined citing that it read more like advertising thwan an article. I would like to resubmit with a neutral voice and am looking for advice. Appreciate any help!

Hi DHeidtman/Slicksosa. Your draft is looking in much better shape now. Just stick to the facts. Remember, Wikipedia is here simply to tell our readers what a company does and what it's known for, not to promote or aggrandise it in any way. Joe Roe (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Joe Thanks for your feedback. Please note that Slicksosa in not connected to me and I am unclear as to why Slicksosa repeated my question. Anyway... unfortunately, an editor declined the article citing lack of Notability. I thought my references were independent and reliable?DHeidtman (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@DHeidtman:. I've suggested on the draft how it might be improved. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Worldbruce, thanks for your helpful feedback and most appreciate the references! DHeidtman (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 21[edit]

14:11:48, 21 August 2016 review of submission by 2601:187:8102:95D0:C8C4:8361:B479:F71B[edit]

Hi Topher,

You declined my submission, based on that it was about a single "news event," however, the actual span of time between the disappearance, the subsequent murders, and the digging up of the bones was 26 years. Also, currently, further attempts to uncover Marie's remains have been made recently by NamUs, but are being deliberately blocked by the Sheriff's department. There were articles regarding her disappearance in 1977, then articles regarding Ramon Rogers' murders in 1996. There were articles from California, as well as from Idaho, and there are articles from Kansas.

I would appreciate any help in understanding why the submission was denied, and how I might improve it.

Thank you very much! 2601:187:8102:95D0:C8C4:8361:B479:F71B (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the AfC help desk. I didn't review your draft, but hopefully I can be of some help anyway. For our purposes an "event" is not defined by the span of time but refers to the fact that Wikipedia is not a news outlet, so we don't automatically cover newsworthy events – only ones that have a lasting notability. However, I believe User;Topher385 referred you to the wrong guideline: WP:EVENT explains our notability guidelines for events. In short, you will need to show that the murders had either lasting significance (i.e. they have continued to be discussed long after the events themselves unfolded) or a widespread impact (i.e. its effects reverberated beyond the local area and it was reported in national or international media). If they were just part of the routine news cycle, they are probably not notable. You will need to prove this by adding citations to multiple reliable sources (major newspapers etc.) that discussed the events in depth. Joe Roe (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:49:12, 21 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Yom-tov12[edit]

Hello, I wrote the article Kamada (pharmaceutical company) and it doesn't approved by you. i wonder what kind of information is still needed foe an international company lie Kamada in order to create an article. is there any problem with the sources or with the details? I'll appreciate your help. Yom-tov12 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Yom-tov12. As stated in the review, the problem with your draft was not in the information you provided but the question of whether this company is notable enough for inclusion at all. Most subjects do not deserve their own encylopaedia article. Wikipedia's threshold for whether we should have an article is called notability. You can read our full notability guidelines for companies, but the short version is that we need to see significant coverage of the company in reliable sources that are independent of the company itself, to show that it is notable. Your article only references three sources and only two of those are both reliable and independent, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. You will need to try and find more sources before submitting it for review again. Joe Roe (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

August 22[edit]

08:58:05, 22 August 2016 review of submission by[edit]

Hi, the page failed GNG but not quite sure why.

I can point to equivalent pages for the other leading Spanish football clubs (FC Barcelona Juvenil A, Atlético Madrid (youth), Sevilla FC (youth), Valencia CF (youth), Villarreal CF (youth) and Real Madrid C.F. (youth), Real Madrid Juvenil B, Real Madrid Juvenil C - the last 3 are all for the same club!) as evidence of the sufficient notability of teams in this category. The other clubs also have separate pages for their reserve entities (Athletic Bilbao B, Sevilla Atlético etc) showing a precedent for youth and reserve teams being split in this way on Wikipedia rather than the youth rosters being added to the reserve pages. In terms of interest in the club itself, Athletic Bilbao is obviously less high-profile than Real Madrid and Barcelona but on a similar level to Atletico Madrid, Sevilla and Valencia, and certainly more than Villarreal. Moreover their reliance on players from their youth academy rather than bringing in transfers from other clubs makes theirs one of the most noteworthy in Spain.

I can also link directly to external pages for the competitions entered by the team as sources, but wherever possible I have already linked to the Wiki articles which I would have thought was a preferable method since the information on these existing pages is already verified (presumably?).

Any other suggestions on how this can be improved for acceptance are much appreciated!

PS this is the second tme i have submitted this, it appeared to attach to someone else's request previously so apologies all round for that, hopefully better now...! (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@ That is odd. There is clearly a precedent for having Spanish La Liga youth clubs on Wikipedia, which the reviewer might have missed. Perhaps User:CatcherStorm could shed some light on this? jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

09:36:28, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Taronga013[edit]

Taronga013 (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

SICPA submission[edit]

12:24:18, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Iainplunkett

In July, I put together a draft for a company called SICPA. I have been asked to do this by the company and I am paid for my time. I realise that there are very stringent conflict of interest criteria and it was my intention to put the article in sandbox and ask others to comment prior to submission. However, unless I was doing something very wrong (extremely possible) the only way I could save my draft was to automatically submit the piece.

Unsurprisingly it was rejected. The primary reason given was that I had not followed the paid contributor policy properly. This is true but, in my defense, I hadn't actually wanted to submit the article at the point I did. I have since had other comments about the article's suitability which I have tried to incorporate in a rewrite.

I would like to ask exactly what I should do to comply with the paid contributor process before I resubmit. I have stated an interest in my user profile but I know I haven't put the proper templates where they need to go but, to be honest, I got a little confused as to where I was placing things! It says to put the contributor template on the talk page of the draft article but I couldn't see how to do that. Sorry.

Any help and guidance you can given me would be gratefully received. Iainplunkett (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The draft was not submitted when you first saved it, it was submitted when you added the {{AfC submission}} template along with an explicit request for other editors to review it. I am struggling to see how this could be a mistaken submission.
In order to comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use you must make a paid editing disclosure in at least one of three ways: on your user page (which you have done), on the article's talk page (which User:Worldbruce did for you), and in the edit summary for any edit you make to an affected article (which I don't believe you have done). All this information is at WP:PAID.
However, complying with Wikimedia's terms of use (a bare-minimum legal requirement) is not the same as complying with the Wikipedia community's policies and guidelines on paid editing. There is a strong consensus that editors with a COI, especially paid editors, should not be directly involved with editing articles at all. To comply with the community consensus, you should cease editing immediately, go back to this company, give them back their money, and tell them that Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle and that they cannot buy their way into an encyclopaedia. Joe Roe (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Welcome, Iainplunkett. Like Joe says, Wikipedia very strongly discourages paid editing. I presume one reason that it doesn't forbid it is that if it did, some people would do it anyway without disclosure. Barring significant changes to Wikipedia, it would be difficult to prevent them from doing so. So allowing paid editing, provided that the proper disclosures are made and all policies are observed (especially WP:NPOV and WP:V) is the pragmatic approach. You are in compliance with the disclosure requirements for paid editing. To be sure to remain so, simply briefly mention, in the edit summary of any edit you make to the page, and in any discussion thread you participate in regarding the page, something like "see paid editing dislosure on Draft talk:SICPA Holdings SA."
Since my comments on the draft last month, I see you've found additional sources and taken some of my other advice. If the draft is as good as you think you can make it, go ahead and resubmit it. If the new sources pan out, the topic should clear the bar of notability. Volunteers may not rush to help you get it accepted, but the draft will be reviewed (eventually) on its merits, with particular attention to WP:COIRESPONSE. It may be edited mercilessly, just roll with it. Let the community decide what should stay, what should go, and what should be added. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi WorldBruce, many thanks on this. I have trued to follow your guidance as much as I could. I understand, as Joe says, that Wikipedia discourages paid editors which is why I'm am trying to do everything possible to ensure the entry is factual and not a 'promotional vehicle'. One of the reasons that the company wants to create a UK page is that it has pages put up in other countries by people who have used Wikipedia to attack the company and all it wants is a fair representation. I am very happy for others to edit the page as long as the information they add is not false. Again many thanks for your help and patience.Iainplunkett (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

15:18:46, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Nsirrah[edit]

Hi all, I'm seeking other opinions on this draft. The reasoning of the reviewer seems circular; "It's [denied] because there's still nothing actually convincing for establishing his own substance and independent notability, there's no inherited notability from other people or groups."

But what more could establish notability for a businessperson? The draft is about an entrepreneur who started a company, and there are both biographies and major independent sources covering the entrepreneur, his actions, and his company independently. These sources imply AND say outright why the subject is very notable in the fashion world. Further, the events, companies, and programming the the subject has co-founded have been covered even more extensively. Major celebrities (like Kanye West, Scott Campbell, and Sarah Jessica Parker) have gone on record saying outright that the subject is notable in the fashion world. Obviously celebrity sources aren't independent, but the press covering these statements are.

  1. wikipedia-en-help has already told me that they see no reason for the article to be declined, but that I should add more sources and resubmit. It was immediately declined by the reviewer again -- quicker than the reviewer could have actually looked at and considered all the new sources.

Would love to hear the consensus about this draft and the topic matter. I'm looking to better learn the ropes here; In earnest, thank you!

Nsirrah (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Note Draft has been approved. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

15:51:15, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Tpalum24[edit]

I was just wondering on what constitutes independent notability and if someone could point me in the direction of where this draft lacks such notability. I understand that a company profile and press releases do not determine this status. I used those sources to gather information on the topic. However, I thought using the Frost & Sullivan, NASA, and Water Conditioning and Purification Magazine sources would satisfy the conditions for independent notability. If someone could aid me in explaining where these sources lack in satisfying the primary criteria for notability it would be appreciated as I am a new user.

Tpalum24 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

23:50:04, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Njnorland[edit]

I have submitted this page 2 times and have been declined because they say the person is not notable. When I look at the guidelines for Musicians and Ensembles, she fits these 2 criteria: (2)Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. (She was listed on Billboard). (10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (She was on several major television shows including Johnny Carson and Mike Douglas)

I would appreciate any suggestions you can offer to convince the reviewers that this is not notable. Thank you, Njnorland (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I've accepted the draft, apologies for the oversight. Joe Roe (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 23[edit]

12:57:54, 23 August 2016 review of submission by Janhunter[edit]

Janhunter (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering why my description of the Public Sector Consortium was declined? I described what it does in very brief, concise terms with no 'accolades' or embellishments. I added two testimonials which I can remove if needed. Please explain, thanks! Jan

The draft has no references. It does contain 'accolades' or testimonials, which appear to be most of the draft. It also doesn't contain enough background information. The lede sentence should say among other things where the consortium is located (what state, for instance). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

13:20:44, 23 August 2016 review of submission by Amitpe[edit]

I submitted an article about Sekindo a month ago, and no one reviewed it so far, is there something missing that I should add? are my references OK? I read the notability instructions it looks like they are notable.

I'm considering moving this to the article space myself, but I'm afraid an admin will delete the article, what should I do?

Thanks, Amit

Amitpe (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I declined it as containing peacock language. Please review the draft for any other promotional language. Tone rather than notability is the issue. (Do you have an association with the vendor?) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

22:01:39, 23 August 2016 review of submission by EditSC[edit]

Posting this question June 30 question again, in case it was missed:

Can you help me understand the notability concern with this subject? In comparison with published Wikipedia articles about related technologies (e.g., OpenWebGlobe, Marble (software), MapJack, CitySurf Globe, Bing Maps), this article seems to have more sources, including chapters in reputably published books, presentations from top conferences in the field, and news articles from a variety of sources.

This topic is also referenced on a number of other published Wikipedia pages (Virtual globe, OpenLayers, List of WebGL frameworks, Bhuvan, YoubeQ, GPlates, Analytical Graphics, List of geographic information systems software), some of which are about applications that use Cesium as their core technology. I plan to add incoming links from these articles to the Cesium article once it's accepted.

I'm not sure what steps to take next in improving the article. Thanks in advance for your help!

Hi EditSC. Unfortunately the existence and/or quality of other articles has no bearing on your draft. Sometimes sub-standard articles slip through, so we can only judge each submission on its own merits.
Your draft has lots of references but few of them are what we consider reliable sources. You should remove all the references to blogs, GitHub, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc. as these are all self-published sources and are not acceptable. You can keep the references to the software's website and publications authored by its developers, but these can only be used to verify information in the article. They don't establish the subject's notability because they were written by people associated with it. To demonstrate notability, we need evidence that the software has been discussed (at some length) in independent and reliable sources like a newspaper or a peer-reviewed academic publication (by somebody else, not the developers). I don't see any of those in your draft. Joe Roe (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Joe Roe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSC (talkcontribs) 04:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

August 24[edit]

04:18:50, 24 August 2016 review of submission by Agungkodok[edit]

Hi Daniel Kenneth,

My article for Bakrie & Brothers ( was declined with the description: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Bakrie & Brothers instead."

However, Bakrie & Brothers hasn't existed yet in Wikipedia, when I typed in the title, it redirects me to Bakrie Group ( Just wanted to clarify, Bakrie & Brothers is a subsidiary focusing only on Manufacturing & Infrastructure under the Bakrie Group, which compromises of a large variety of businesses (Incl. Oil & Gas, Property, Mining, Telecommunications, etc).

Please re-review this my submission for this article. If there are any extra information required for this article to be published, please let me know.

Thank you very much for your time Daniel. Best, AgungKodok

Hi AgungKodok. A subsidiary of a larger company is highly unlikely to be notable enough for its own article, and we prefer not to split our coverage of closely related subjects across different articles unless absolutely necessary. You should instead expand our article on Bakrie Group. If you do so, the redirect can be altered so it sends people directly to the section dealing on Bakrie & Brothers. Joe Roe (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

09:15:16, 24 August 2016 review of submission by Dr. Dabby[edit]

Hi, this is Dr. Dabby. I had written and submitted this article. Quite recently, this article was reviewed - and rejected.

I have tried to write this thing in a neutral tone. And have given quite a number of independent, reliable resources.

I even left a message on the talk page of the moderator.

So can anybody give a check to this draft and point out the specifics for which it has been not accepted.

Best regards, Dr. Dabby (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Dr. Dabby (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Dabby, the draft is "on hold" until the copyright issue is resolved, once that's done we will take another look at it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Request on 13:20:03, 24 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by DCM18395[edit]

Hello, I require help regarding the submission a wikipedia page on an intellectual property firm I have been researching. The article is getting declined due to lack of noteability however I have referenced BBC news, the Scotsman on several occasions, most of which are independent of the company. Why is this not considered notable?

DCM18395 (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi DCM18395. Apologies for the delay in getting to your question. You are correct that the coverage in the Scotsman shows notability. The draft was written in an overly promotional way (for example, long lists of the services a company sells are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article) which may have obscured that fact. In any case, I have accepted the article. Joe Roe (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

17:42:57, 24 August 2016 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC) help please. This article is always deleted and i dont know why.Username Footballasia Alagie Ousman Jeng

Because we already agreed in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alagie Ousman Jeng that Jeng is not notable enough to justify an article about him in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

August 25[edit]

Request on 13:48:57, 25 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lordfarquaad[edit]

I uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons that I own (I took the photo of the subject) and would like to put in the public domain. I thought I did that when I uploaded it (put it under the right license) but then I added it to an AfC I'm working on, it was rejected because the reviewer said the image was a copyright violation. The image is here:

Can you let me know what I'm doing wrong to make it still under copyright? It does appear elsewhere online, but under my permission.

Lordfarquaad (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lordfarquaad I have restored the infobox with the image as I don't see any copyright problem. Perhaps David.moreno72 can help clarify the issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

15:33:15, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Aliciam13[edit]

!helper How do I make my references inline?

Hi Aliciam13. There is a tutorial at referencing for beginners should help. Joe Roe (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

16:35:53, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Mocana[edit]

I appreciate the feedback and time into reviewing this article for approval, but do feel that with more specifics. I did take to heart the feedback initially that this article came off too promotional and through extensive research I've been able to build out an article that I feel is far less biased in tone (or coming across as a promotion) and focuses much better on the accomplishments and leadership roles that Toby Gannett has.

Are there specific sections of concern that automatically disqualify this article?

Additionally for a photo, I can try to find another source but since this individually probably uploaded their own Headshot to LinkedIn shouldn't he have the original copyright, not LinkedIn?

Any detailed and specific help from the community would be much much appreciated!

Hello Mocana. I am afraid there are a number of problems with this draft:
  1. Although you have made some progress, it is still highly promotional. This is an encyclopaedia, not a resume. You should be reporting the plain facts of Gannett's life and their lasting, historical significance (if any) as discussed in reliable sources – not his "accomplishments and leadership roles". Most egregiously, a large part of the article is devoted to his ancestry, which is totally irrelevant and serves only to aggrandise his "pedigree".
  2. As noted by the last reviewer, File:Thomas “Toby” Brattle Gannett.jpg is probably a copyright violation. The copyright to the photo belongs to the photographer, not Gannett or LinkedIn, so unless you took it, you have no right to claim it as your "own work" and release it into the public domain (as you asserted when you uploaded it).
  3. Most of all, you have given no credible indication that Gannett is notable. Wikipedia only publishes biographies of notable people, that is, people are part of the "enduring historical record in his or her specific field", which for our purposes means that they have already received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. You have only included one such reference in your draft ([1]), which is not nearly enough to establish notability. I have done some quick research and cannot find any indication that Gannett is any more noteworthy than the average businessman, which means he probably is not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article.
Sorry to be discouraging—I may be wrong, and you can continue to work on the draft if you wish—but many hundreds of articles like this are rejected for inclusion every day. Joe Roe (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

18:05:58, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Ysimpson[edit]

I am having a difficult time getting the page YSimpson/sandbox approved for publication on Wikipedia. This is the third time the page has bee deleted. I have been following the guidelines for a political page for a living person and trying to use language not to promote but to inform people about who she is and what she has been doing. I know another draft of the page is pending, I think, for consideration, but I am hoping to find out what needs to be done to get the page approved and published. Please help. Thanks1 Ysimpson (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your username is Ysimpson and you are writing about Yvette Simpson – are you writing an article about yourself? Doing so is strongly discouraged under Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. We are an encyclopaedia, not a social networking service. Joe Roe (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

19:42:27, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Hocmyfitegre[edit]

I have spent the last couple hours trying to put in proper citations and references. I would like it if someone familiar with wikipedia guidelines could take another look and offer me helpful constructive objectives so that I may complete this article, for this notable Writer, Screenwriter, and Business owner. Thank you very much.

Hocmyfitegre (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hocmyfitegre. Can you clarify what article you are talking about? You have created two drafts on Andrew Delaplaine: Draft:Andrew Delaplaine and Draft:Andrew Delaplaine (1). But more recently you bypassed the Articles for Creation process altogether and created Andrew Delaplaine directly. The latter is fully published, so in that sense it is already as "complete" as any Wikipedia article can be (although it may very well be deleted since Delaplaine appears to be of dubious notability). Joe Roe (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

20:45:07, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Tyvoss[edit]


This is the second re-review that I have requested. I have added many sources of notability and cited them since the last review. When I go into live chat to discuss it with the reviewer, I am told that he still isn't sure if it's actually a notable organization in a notable industry. I believe that I have gone above and beyond showing the impact of EASA in the industry that they serve and their over 2,000 member companies (and the thousands of employees under those companies that are all members).

I feel like I could add 50 sources and it would still get declined by the reviewer. As much as I appreciate any and all guidance, getting answers like "You should not resubmit" and "Focus on the best" are not helpful in any way.

I am requesting a re-review by the help desk or, at the very least, clarification on what it takes to define "notability", because I believe I have established that.

Thank you,

Sorttou (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

August 26[edit]