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


January 13[edit]

04:30:24, 13 January 2018 review of submission by FuriousSeaHero[edit]

I was recently rejected for publishing this page and was told that it was because of my lack of references. I'm wondering exactly WHAT in my page needs to be referenced. FuriousSeaHero (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:FuriousSeaHero - Anything stated as a fact should be referenced to a reliable source. Read Your First Article. Also read the corporate notability guideline, which sets the standard for whether a company is notable. If the company isn't notable in the sense of having written about by reliable third parties, such as business magazines or gaming magazines, then the references won't help. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
You have the same initials as the company. Do you have a conflict of interest such as working for the company? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
He's the owner; does that count? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

10:15:04, 13 January 2018 review of submission by Planet seed[edit]

Thank you very much for a quick review! I just submitted my first article for review and it was declined. I am trying to translate Japanese article into English one and I would like to know what I need. I really appreciate your help.

Planet seed (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

10:35:02, 13 January 2018 review of submission by Planet seed[edit]

I just submitted my first article for review and it was declined. I am trying to translate my Japanese article to English one. I appreciate your help. Thank you!

Planet seed (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Planet seed:, thanks for joining Wikipedia. Different language wikipedias have different levels of inclusion criteria, so the Japanese Wikipedia isn't as stringent on having references proving that the subject is notible. You also mentioned that this was your japanese article? Wikipedia strongly disproves of autobiographies, and would ask you to read the conflict of interests policy, and for you to announce if you are connected with the subject. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for replying! I apologize for the confusion about a page I am working on. I am not the person on this article. What I meant was that I wrote an original Japanese article. I will try to work on references and submit for review later again! Thank you!

Planet seed (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:36:11, 13 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jackexu10[edit]

Jackexu10 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 17:52:47, 13 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Foiled circuitous wanderer[edit]

There is something I don't understand about references as footnotes. I can put them in easily enough, but then if I want to REPEAT let us say reference number 3 again later in the article, I can't see how to do it. The system automatically gives it a new number (not 3!)

Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Foiled circuitous wanderer:, see WP:REFNAME. JTP (talkcontribs) 18:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

23:35:48, 13 January 2018 review of draft by Lisa.M44[edit]

Lisa.M44 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

23:39:37, 13 January 2018 review of submission by Lisa.M44[edit]

Thank you! I'd like to know if I input the reference links properly on the Shari Puorto Band page. along with the External links list...? Thank you for your help. Lisa

Lisa.M44 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lisa.M44. The short answer is no, the citations on User:Lisa.M44 are not correctly formatted. WP:REFB explains how to do citations. But that's the least of the draft's problems:
--Worldbruce (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

03:31:19, 14 January 2018 review of submission by Mrwillwong[edit]

Mrwillwong (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Mrwillwong:, did you have a question? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lee...thanks for getting back to me. Just submitted my first article but it was declined. I will need your help helping it be Wiki-ready. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwillwong (talkcontribs) 17:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, @Mrwillwong:, first, I'd like you to read the Conflict of interests policy on Wikipedia, regarding creating and editing articles you have a personal investment in. Your username is the same as what you are attempting to create, so this leads me to believe you are the subject, or you work closely with Will Wong. I have left a message on your talk page; asking you to change your username to comply with this.
As for the article, the response was that because the references were unreadable, the draft couldn't possibly be accepted. You don't need to include references inside[] tags, as they do that as standard. I have reverted these on your behalf. I would also recommend looking how to use template:cite web, as this allows people to see where a reference is from, as well as other information is a lot easier. I have done one so you can check.
However, even with formatting, the references given do not let the subject pass WP:GNG, which means that you need reliable secondary, independent sources to talk about Mr Will Wong, and in depth, which means he is an important topic that should be covered on Wikipedia. Not everything should, such as WP:NOT. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 05:30:16, 14 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Kalyani Madhale[edit]

Hello Sir/ Madam, I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for my college. I have followed some colleges Wikipedia pages like College of Engineering, Pune. I have put nearly same kind of content on our Wikipedia page. also, i have tried to write in the neutral point of view. still, the page has been declined. can you tell which lines do not come from the neutral point of view. also which lines come under promotion. I have made changes many times but I do not understand these two things. Kindly help with suggestions.

Kalyani Madhale (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kalyani Madhale. When modeling a new article on an existing one, chose one of Wikipedia's best. Helpful suggestions regarding what to include and how to organize it can be found in Wikipedia:College and university article advice. Arguably the most important section is "History", which is entirely missing from the draft. I also find Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines useful, particularly the sections on what to include and what not to include. It doesn't apply directly to tertiary educational institutions, but one can draw analogies, and it's an important reminder that just because something is verifiably true doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia.
Finally, make sure the citations actually support the content where cited. The Biochemical Medicine paper from 1975, for example, can't possibly prove where RIT ranked in a 2017 survey by Times Engineering (also, is Times Engineering a major ranking by a national/international publication?) --Worldbruce (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

07:34:59, 14 January 2018 review of submission by P.dolin[edit]

I'd like some help referencing a page I tried to create:

Is it possible someone would be able to give examples of what I need to change?

ThanksP.dolin (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

P.dolin (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi P.dolin. I've commented at length on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

16:10:49, 14 January 2018 review of submission by Saisri Pavithraa[edit]

Saisri Pavithraa (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

16:10:49, 14 January 2018 review of submission by Saisri Pavithraa

How many more citations should I add? I've added almost whatever is acceptable in wiki

Hi Saisri Pavithraa. A larger number of citations isn't likely to help. The seven citations to mainstream news sources (The New Indian Express, The News Minute, and The Hindu) are reliable, but are not significant coverage. They mention Kumar only briefly and repeat the most basic of facts about him.
The draft makes a very weak claim of notability - a business executive, head of a foundation, and speaker. This sounds unremarkable. To riff on what another speaker said, the country produces a larger crop of these than rice. Is this person so worthy of note that they belong in an encyclopedia with the likes of Ratan Tata, R. K. Narayan, and Kareena Kapoor? If you can find in-depth, arms-length, reliable sources that demonstrate that he does, you'll also need to address the tone and content of the draft, which seem aimed to praise and promote him. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

06:30:21, 15 January 2018 review of submission by Yaelfishel[edit]

I created this Wiki page to inform others about Carambola Media and not to advertise for Carambola Media. I included info that I felt was necessary for others to completely understand what Carambola Media is and other important details relating to the company. I modeled the page off of previous companies that I saw in Wikipedia and feel that I used a very similar format. I would greatly appreciate it if you can guide me through the process and explain to me how I can improve my article so that it will be published.

Thank you, Moshe Yaelfishel (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As the declining editor, happy to pick this up, but it'll be later today. If someone else looks at it in the meantime, the author may appreciate a second opinion. KJP1 (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yaelfishel: - I'm hoping KJP1 does still give some feedback on the article, as I'm sure he's the number one person to talk to. There are actually a few issues with the draft, and whilst advertising language is a definite problem, it can be fixed. The wording of the article doesn't feel very Neutral, especially the products section, with "The interactive units create new revenue streams for publishers and a fun, interactive experience for the users" being highly suggestive language. The draft doesn't have many Wikilinks, which should be placed in the text, and link to articles on those subjects. Without knowledge of Video Advertising; I had litterally no idea what the company did from it's lead section. On top of this, something that isn't advertising is the sentence:
"In its inception, Carambola partnered with AOL to launch their in-video product in the U.S. in 2013, introducing, what AOL called, "the world's first automated video enrichment platform."[1]

This is ok wording, however the citation used doesn't mention the quotation at all. Generally, with any quote, we need a reference to say that it was said, otherwise we are putting words in people's mouths. I've only had a brief glance at the article, and I hope my insights are helpful, but KJP1 may well update this with his thoughts as well. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yaelfishel - Sorry for the delay in getting back. I endorse all that the above editor has said, my specific concerns are as follows:
  • - There are three sources - this isn't a great number to provide "significant coverage" but they are independent, third-party sources, which is good, but:
  • They all date from 2013, so are in the region of five years old. Is there nothing on the company from 2013 to 2018? The absence of any coverage after the funding rounds suggests to me that the company's not Notable.
  • The first source is used in the lead, to support the AOL quote. But it doesn't. AOL is not mentioned in the source, and the quote doesn't appear. A reference supporting a quote needs to do just that. Yours doesn't, which is concerning. Where does the quote come from?
  • The other two sources support the funding claims but that's it. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) This says "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" OK, you've got two, but all they cover are two bouts of seed funding in 2013.
  • What's not sourced? - this is the heart of my concerns. You have the following statements, "the world's first automated video enrichment platform". It may be a claim to Notability but it's not sourced, as we've seen above. "high user engagement", "a unique, editorial user experience", "the most relevant, engaging content and the best yielding programmatic advertising", "new revenue streams", "a fun, interactive experience". In each instance, the language is promotional, and, in my judgement, is clear advertising, without any supporting sourcing. In short, nothing at all about the article is sourced, except the seed-funding details, and the tone of all the content that is not sourced is promotional. In my book, that is advertising. Have a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This says, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." I think your unsourced content fails to meet this requirement.
  • Conflict of interest - I see this is the only article on Wikipedia you've ever contributed to. Can I ask, do you have a connection to the company? If you do, you need to declare the conflict, and you're not the best person to write about it.
I hope this is helpful in setting out my concerns. If you disagree, you can resubmit. It may be that another editor will take a different view. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

10:33:10, 15 January 2018 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Worldbruce, If the person isn't so famous, how can he be given awards or get mentions in the Hindu? If you(Wikipedia) it always rely on citations and their value, bring in tamil people and listen to SUJITH's lectures. Whatever I've typed in the article, are true facts and The valuable information about him aren't registered because, they're only in videos and, Wikipedia has to trust people who create and not just rely on citation citation citation! Right?!

Hi @ I'm actually not sure which article you are referring to, but it may this revision of your user talk. Even if an article is on another version of Wikipedia (Say the Hindi Wikipedia), it doesn't mean that it will pass the notability guidelines of the English site. Please read WP:GNG. Also, note that it's rare for YouTube, Twitter to be reliable references; and definately not in this case.
If I've been mistaken, and it was another page you had created, let me know. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Lee correctly sussed out the topic the questioner is talking about. It has also been submitted by Saisri Pavithraa as Draft:Sujith Kumar.
One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is ... living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." If you wish to be an effective contributor, there's no getting around "citation citation citation!"
Notable is not the same as famous. If receiving an award is covered by independent, reliable sources, as, for example, receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is, then that coverage helps demonstrate notability. Awards that are covered only by the awarding organization and recipients do nothing to show notability. The draft cites no sources for Kumar's awards.
The Hindu mentions many people who are not notable, in other words not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. They are a newspaper, Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia's notability criteria require more than a brief mention of a person, they require significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. The draft has been declined twice for failing to show that Kumar is notable. I'm trying to help you understand why so that you don't waste time making changes that won't lead to acceptance of the draft.
The Articles for Creation process brings novice editors together with experienced Wikipedians to ensure that new contributions comply with certain basic policies and guidelines. You don't have to follow our advice, but ignoring it could lead to your contribution being deleted, as User:Saisri Pavithraa was, for being unambiguous advertising. You don't have to like Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but if you don't you may be happier publishing in alternative outlets that have different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

16:49:06, 15 January 2018 review of submission by RosePouton[edit]

Hi there, I submitted an article a couple of months back about a local celebrity who I believe qualifies as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. She already features in one article on wikipedia about "The Voice" Season 5 but I feel she now needs her own page. The page has been reviewed and the person reviewing it rejected it on the grounds she is not notable enough. However I've read the guidelines again and I cannot see the issue. Would you be able to help me please?

The Page is Chloe Castro. I have included articles about her in the Telegraph, The Chronicle and The Northern Echo. There are more I can include if necessary, I just chose the most relevant citations.

Thank you very much.


RosePouton (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi RosePouton. Many of the publishers cited by Draft:Chloe Castro are reliable. The Daily Mail is not (see WP:DAILYMAIL) so I have removed it. The Daily Express should be used with great caution (see WP:PUS). I recommend replacing it if you can find a more trustworthy source. The Cheat Sheet and Conversations About Her are obscure. They may be reliable, but better known sources might be more persuasive.
WP:MUSICBIO excludes, for the purposes of notability, "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves", which is what the 103.4 Sun FM source is ("Chloe popped into the Sun FM studios to tell us more about what she has been up to"). Self-promotion is not the route to an encyclopedia article. The guideline also says singers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." Almost all the sources are about her participation in The Voice. Does 160 words in Conversations About Her show that she's notable independent of The Voice? Most experienced editors will say no.
The other problem is that the draft doesn't have much to say about her, and if the single she's giving away doesn't lead to a professional career, there may never be enough encyclopedic content to justify a stand alone article. Under the circumstances I think it's best to continue covering her in the context of The Voice UK (series 5) rather than in a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 17:22:43, 15 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Poojamehndiratta[edit]

I got the following response from Wikipedia: This submission appears to be taken from Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

The article I submitted to Wikipedia was also sent to Baljinder Sekha for approval. He sent it to the Punjab Star News too to be used as news. I have the letter from Punjab Star Editor stating that the article was provided by Baljinder Sekha.

I don't have the copyrights for the article I wrote. Please guide.

Poojamehndiratta (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Poojamehndiratta - What is your question? If you are saying that you have permission to use the copyrighted story for Wikipedia, then please read Wikipedia's more detailed explanation that permission is not enough, because we need a very specific and extreme type of copyleft permission to release the copyrighted material to all in the world. So you will have to rewrite the story in your own words if you want to submit it to Wikipedia (and it will also have to pass notability and other guidelines}. If you are saying that you do not have copyright permission and so you want to know what to do, you may either do nothing more (because your original submission has already been deleted) and leave it alone, or you may rewrite it in your own words and submit it, in which case it will still have to be notable and otherwise pass our standards. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Poojamehndiratta:, regarding now deleted Draft:Baljinder Sekha, you can't just copy and paste content from the web to wikipedia. Matthew_hk tc 14:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

20:07:30, 15 January 2018 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

04:33:39, 16 January 2018 review of submission by GP1914[edit]

User:GP1914/sandbox/David_Dowsey I do not know how to cite this page. Can you help? GP1914 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, first you need to get some decent references. Of the six you have; 1 is to a car auction website, 2 gets me a virus warning, 3 gives me an unsafe site warning, 4 and 5 are ok, and 6 takes me to the J H Cutler page. As far as I can see only 4 and 5 actually support claims made in the article text, which is what references are supposed to do. For example, where you say "He was a founding Advisory Board member for Motorclassica", I'd expect to see a reference which supported that claim. What you've done is put in an embedded link (which we don't use) that doesn't support the claim.
Once you have got the references you need, have a look at Help:Referencing for beginners, as the reviewing editor advised. This gives you comprehensive advice on how to cite. I've done the Bonhams' two in the draft, as examples. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

09:30:05, 16 January 2018 review of submission by[edit]

Hello, I hope I have mentioned all the required references. Pleae verify the page and cite me any alterations required. (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

16:17:04, 16 January 2018 review of submission by GlenChet[edit]

I'm not sure what else I can do to adequately source the article. The reviewer says the references don't adequately show the subject's notability, and that more "significant" coverage is required. SCH is a bonafide company run by media personality Stacy Herbert from the Kesier Report. Her Linkedin backs this up, and sites verify the company's incorporation, and is where the raised venture capital funding in 2015. True, there is no new news about SCH from reliable, secondary sources, but I disagree this should be required to approve the article. Please advise.

GlenChet (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, GlenChet, that "news" that you mentioned is required to approve the article. Notability is shown in the form of independent, reliable sources. If you have any further questions, please reply below. JTP (talkcontribs) 16:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There is the Coindesk article, but no "new" news. I also just added a reference from Bitcoin Magazine. The newest news is the recent company filings from December 2017 which are documented on Why those official, downloadable records from a government agency are less reliable than a news source is puzzling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenChet (talkcontribs) 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Request on 07:52:29, 17 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Tarek Nour[edit]

Tarek Nour (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Tarek Nour: This appears to not be a Wikipedia article, see WP:NOT Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Tarek Nour - There are several possible interpretations of what you are trying to do, but none of them will get your draft into Wikipedia. It may be intended to be some sort of joke (but Wikipedia is not a humor repository), or a social media profile (but Wikipedia is not a social medium), or actually an effort at an autobiography (but it isn't a serious autobiography, and autobiographies are strongly discouraged). Please stop resubmitting it. It is likely to be tagged for deletion, and you might even be blocked for wasting the time of the reviewers and for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia project. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

11:35:22, 17 January 2018 review of submission by Rudard[edit]

Hi. I included many footnotes with links to news clippings on, which has a pay wall. The articles are no longer available elsewhere. One commenter told me that it's okay to do that but another said I should only link "clippings," which I do but they are behind the paywall. Is that okay? Rudard (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Rudard:, see It's arguably better to cite to websites that anyone can view (simply, due to the nature of those reading), but it is not mandatory. You can simply cite to the offline sources, but it is always better to give as good a resource as you can. As per the link above, there are those that can verify citations for accuracy; so please do cite to the clippings if possible. I hope that's helpful. If you have another quiery, I would ask at the above link's talk page for information. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Rudard: In the context of, "clippings" are a special open access method of bypassing's paywall, so that all readers can read the entire article you are citing. You are not using this feature. We can't force you to use it, but it would be a really good idea if you did. There's a good writeup about it on the old signup page, Signups have since moved to here. If you aren't an active enough Wikipedia contributor for the Wikipedia Library to give you free access, you can ask at WP:RX that someone who does have access clip the articles for you. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

13:56:13, 17 January 2018 review of submission by[edit]

What does it mean that are references are good, but "need to be inclined?" How should we appropriately edit our references for our page to get published on Wikipedia? Thanks! (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP user. I think the reviewer meant "inlined", rather than inclined. So, you need to placed the references in the text. I also have an issue with this request, in that you say "our page". Are you working for Smarter Analyst? If you, you will need to see WP:COI, and state that you are involved with this company. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The real issue with the 'references' is that these are all just links to articles that mention Smarter Analyst. The references that a Wikipedia article must have are ones that show that other publications have written in depth about the subject of the article. As it stands, your draft just serves to promote your company, and I have flagged it for speedy deletion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

15:54:32, 17 January 2018 review of draft by Kinkz27[edit]

Kinkz27 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kinkz27: this help desk is usually used by people who have submitted a draft and had it declined. You can submit your draft by clicking the "Submit your draft for review" that appears above it. Looking at the current state of the draft, it doesn't include any references, so you should add some before you submit. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners as a good starting point. 17:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

18:01:50, 17 January 2018 review of submission by[edit]

Why is it not accepted as the English language version of the German puplished article? see

See also discussion under

He has his own published CDs and LPs.

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek shows him here:
The CD is showed here: and cover + booklet under
The LPs were published via Metronome in Hamburg, a noted publisher, see:
Two german public TV live performances may you find here: and
German WP has cleared relevance.
Do you need more information?

Thanks for help! (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion vary between different language versions of Wikipedia. Articles that may be acceptable in the German encyclopedia are not necessarily accepted in the English language version. For the criteria that applies here, please see WP:MUSICBIO. If you feel he meets one or more of those criteria then please either explain here or modify the draft to better reflect this. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 18:57:11, 17 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Mhoskins1234[edit]

I created an article about Ivan Raiklin that was not accepted because of the following: Candidates are not generally notable as per WP:NPOL. However, the candidate is mentioned in the wikipidea link,,_2018#cite_note-5. Since the other declared candidates all have Wikipedia articles this creates an unfair advantage for the other candidates. How can this be remedied?

Mhoskins1234 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mhoskins1234: the distinction between Raiklin and the other candidates is that the others have notability independent of having stood for this election. Getting nominated isn't in itself a basis of notability. If Raiklin is successfully elected then he will be a valid subject for a biography. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
It is true that the fact that the other candidates are better known than Raiklin gives them an advantage. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. It isn't up to Wikipedia to rectify an existing advantage. Raiklin won't be nominated solely because he has a Wikipedia article and the other candidates also have Wikipedia articles if he isn't otherwise well known. If Raiklin gets significant coverage in the Richmond Times-Dispatch or Virginian-Pilot or Washington Post, that will pass general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

20:45:37, 17 January 2018 review of submission by Jjab4566[edit]

I have two (2) Photographs of Dr. Jablecki from Scientific Newsletters I would like to add to the article. Please advise as to how I may do so. Jjab4566 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I add photo's to the Article? Also, I do not see a "Save Page" Button. Just "Publish Changes". Jjab4566 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jjab4566. If the draft is accepted, then under the fair use provisions of copyright law you may add a photo for which you do not hold the copyright, provided that the image meets all ten of the criteria for the use of non-free content (see WP:NFCCP). Fair use does not apply while the page is a draft, so don't do anything yet. I have updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/preload to use the most recent name for the "Save page" button, "Publish changes". --Worldbruce (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

22:38:39, 17 January 2018 review of submission by LaCroizy[edit]

All I want to do is provide information about the music used in this film. There aren't too many publications about the soundtrack. That being said, the film uses classic Christmas tracks, and tracks sung by some of the prominent actors in the movie. How can I ensure that this content doesn't get removed? LaCroizy (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The draft may refer to Draft:Pottersville (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack). Matthew_hk tc 14:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

00:30:24, 18 January 2018 review of submission by Neutronious[edit]

Not sure what has to be inline referenced. Thought I had footnotes correct. Thanks! Neutronious (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Neutronious:, you need to call the reference within the text. So, when a claim is made, you need a reference that clarifies the statement you have made. See WP:REFNAME. If you name your references, you can place them into the text. There are stricter rules around Living People Biographies (Or WP:BLPs), which means you need to have inline citations as standard. If you would like some help doing this, let me know. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What Lee said. Since I've already typed it up, here's another way of expressing it:
In the context of this draft, WP:MINREF says inline citations are required for any statement that has been challenged, and for any contentious material about Gunther. The reviewer didn't specify a particular statement they're challenging or that they find contentious. So you could wikilawyer about whether you've met the minimum standard, but most editors voluntarily exceed the minimum standard. Inline citations are widely believed to lead to better articles and they avoid the problem of some editor removing content in the future simply because they can't find the source of it among a thicket of sources. The draft is only 250 words, so it would probably be easier to just add inline citations for everything than it would be to argue about it.
Break it down bit by bit. Which source says in effect that he had a long career (before 2005) creating action sequences for a huge list of films? Move the ref for that source from where it's lumped together in the references section to immediately after the statement in the body. Then which source can be paraphrased as "his first directing was for a roster of MTV shows ..."? Reposition that ref. Continue until everything in the draft cites a source and all the references have been used at least once. WP:REFNAME explains a common and useful technique for using the same source more than once. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

04:55:26, 18 January 2018 review of submission by Vizianagaram[edit]

Hi, This is my first article and I submitted it for review. it came back rejected with the comments Comment: Supplement the content of Lede and Early Life with inline citations so that I can know when he was born and what exactly was his early life etc. Dial911 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

What I understood from the comment was, I need to include inline citation for the part Early Life or get some more content for that part. Please clarify my if I misunderstood the comment and guide me to rectify my errors in publishing the content.


Vizianagaram (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Vizianagaram. Yes, you got that exactly right. JTP (talkcontribs) 15:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

16:47:50, 18 January 2018 review of submission by AbeAbeModiin[edit]


Thank you so much for taking my request! I'm simply not sure why my entry was rejected. It appears from the comments that the tone came off as biased/advertorial and the references didn't seem like they were valid. I went out of my way not to editorialize, and the references are all from 3rd parties, major news publications, and major industry publications. Can someone please point to specific examples of where I went wrong? First time at this, so apologies for the confusion; and I want to make this work! And thank you so much for all your hard work making Wikipedia rock :)



AbeAbeModiin (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)AbeAbeModiin

AbeAbeModiin (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This has been asked and answered at User talk:John from Idegon#16:24:01, 18 January 2018 review of submission by AbeAbeModiin --Worldbruce (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 19:04:20, 18 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by[edit] (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a question? The page is in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

21:51:35, 18 January 2018 review of submission by Trainerguy[edit]

The reviewer commented that the article reads more like advertising than a wiki article, and I'm trying to understand what parts are the problem. I'm a heavy user of Wikipedia so I'm pretty familiar with the encyclopedic style it uses, so I've tried to write it in a similar style - keeping it balanced and focusing on elements that are directly referenced from third party sources.

In preparing the article, I reviewed several other published articles in similar areas for comparison, including, Microsoft_Outlook, Facebook_Messenger, FirstClass, Edsby, and Drivewyze, among others. Many of these articles have history sections like I've included, several have "main features" sections as well, and some have barely any third party references, so there's obviously something I'm missing.

If you could provide some feedback in that area, and maybe an example of how some of it should be rewritten, I'd be most appreciative. I'm happy to rewrite it such it fits your guidelines, I just want to be clear on what needs to change.


Trainerguy (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

04:19:08, 19 January 2018 review of submission by ABC Di[edit]

The reviewer rejected the sources: I am wondering why the sources are not reliable as most of them are external sources, meaning that they have not been made by the subject of the article. I have compared this article to many other wikipedia articles about NGOs and such organizations, and they all rely on the NGOs own sources or similar sources. So I don't understand why the sources for this SHARP article are considered unreliable. Thank you for your help ABC Di (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

07:59:07, 19 January 2018 review of submission by Hellosmarty[edit]

Hellosmarty (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to create an article of actor Television and Film’s famous personality shahab khan. So ho can i make it.

Start by reading the answer you received to the same question at the Teahouse (and also note that people connected with Khan have been trying to promote him on Wikipedia for some time, which is why the title is protected from creation). --bonadea contributions talk 08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

09:22:23, 19 January 2018 review of submission by Hellinadustcart[edit]

When making a listing about a membership organisation should you do a link to the external page on their website or do it as a reference? Thank you

Hellinadustcart (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 10:24:13, 19 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Baztlanar[edit]

Hi, I just had an article submission denied on the grounds that it looked more like an essay where I put forward my own claims than an objective account and summary of reliable sources. In the article I do not present my own opinons (I don't even have much opinions on the topic), I rather try to present what different researchers are saying on the topic and it is my intention to do so in a fair and balanced way. If some sections are too long and detailed I would be happy to remove them but I'm not sure how to improve the article according to the feedback as I don't do any primary research and do not put forward any of my own opinions.

I'd be super grateful for any comments.

Thank you!

Baztlanar (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:14:38, 19 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by[edit]

I put 3 References to make the article senesable but it should not be that it has failed I Need help with it now. (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC) (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP user, there are obviously a lot of television articles in this style - see 2018 in British television and 2018 in American television, and obviously an article for the future would have less listings. However, you would need to prove the article meets WP:GNG, and that the article wasn't simply WP:TOOSOON. Future articles on this topic (including this one), were deleted back in 2012 for this reason [1]. However, as it is closer to the time, it may well have enough reasoning for the article to exist, but it would need reliable coverage from third party sources. Currently the article has three sources, and only really one is a good source for this. I'd say the reviewer was right in saying it was WP:TOOSOON. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)