Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 26 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 28 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


January 27[edit]

Request on 03:17:24, 27 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Aprdeepak[edit]


@Aprdeepak: I have moved your draft to Draft:Theni Eswar (4) since a different user submitted three drafts on this person previously. What is your question for us? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:23:50, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Malewis8805[edit]

Why has my submission been declined? All information is factual and has documented evidence. I have seen Wikipedia pages with lesser content. I don't understand. Malewis8805 (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Malewis8805: - as far as I can tell this is the page you are talking about?
If so, it's being deleted because you ceased working on it - we don't perpetually hold non-active documents. If a draft goes 6 months without an edit, it automatically deletes, though if you want it back you can just click on the link and get it back, as I see you did in a past version. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:52:24, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Anonvmp[edit]



Firstly I wrote the article on arabic I thought it’ the arabic side then it has been refused so I transalted it and also refused!!


Anonvmp (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonvmp: - this draft fails several areas, badly, that would prohibit it from being an article. You need to read writing your first article, which will give you some information on sourcing. Sources to demonstrate notability need to be in-depth, reliable, independent (no bias, not interviews etc),and secondary. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:22:49, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Elphas Mashamba2[edit]


Elphas Mashamba2 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NBIO. Not enough sources. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:17:29, 27 January 2019 review of draft by Sportsfan018[edit]


Sportsfan018 (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to publish an article about a comic strip or its author who is already mentioned in multiple article on Wikipedia. I submitted the drafts for both and they were both rejected for not notability/not enough primary sources. the Wikipedia article mentioned the author is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_webcomic_awards he won a National cartoonist Reuben award but the reviewer rejected the article/source as a category award. the draft pages are Buni and Ryan pagelow. he also mentioned that the reference for the author's book (the publisher's site of the book) does not count because it is not independent. can you please help clarify these obstacles to publishing? I would think since the author is listed as an award winner on other Wikipedia pages, it is already notable to have his own page? I am a bit frustrated here and just want to recognize the author and the comic since it already won awards. thank you

Hello @Sportsfan018: the main issue is your citations are to the awards site, and to the subject's publisher. What we need to see is uninvolved people talking about Pagelow, like writeups about his work by culture journalists, mentions in newspapers, etc. Winning the award is great, but since it's not the Nobel Prize the award itself isn't automatic qualification. Please take a good look at WP:Notability (people) to see what kind of coverage of him we need, and keep up the good work WP:Citing sources! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:58, 27 January 2019 review of submission by IZinePro[edit]


IZinePro 09:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@IZinePro: - there is nowhere near enough content and ImDB is not a suitable source for demonstrating notability. Please read writing your first article before progressing further with writing an article from scratch Nosebagbear (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:14, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Washoo ram wr[edit]


Washoo ram wr (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Washoo ram wr: - Wikipedia doesn't exist for self-promotion - that type of content needs to go on social media Nosebagbear (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:20:13, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Mbenyik[edit]


Dear Wikipedia Team,

I am approaching you regarding the Wikipedia article „György Droppa”, which is full of false or misleading information. I have checked the references and sources of this article thoroughly and, after having consulted with the person concerned several times, I decided to collect the referred sources and other publications available to refute the beforementioned article. The refutation of the original text of the Wikipedia article on György Droppa is large and many times over the usual Wikipedia text size. I have tried to modify (edit) the article "György Droppa" but I was unsuccesful doing so.

Regretfully upto this very moment no reaction in merit has come from you. For this reason I request you to look into this matter and reply as soon as possible how I could refute, correct or delete the Wikipedia article on „György Droppa” in a proper way.


Awaiting your early reply,

Best regards, Mbenyik Mbenyik (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Mbenyik (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbenyik: - so firstly, you can't create another article with a different perspective on an already-existing topic, see point of view forking, that would prohibit any chance of making an article neutral.
The first place to take a dispute on an article's content is the article's talk page. Raise your concerns, listen to the reasoning of the reverter - all key initial steps to take before escalating.
A key thing to remember is that Wikipedia requires sourcing for controversial statements. In the case of a living person, generalised sources (e.g. just putting a source at the bottom) isn't sufficient - they have to be mapped to controversial statements (all the numbered citations you see).
Your large edit didn't have this, so regardless of accuracy or inaccuracy, it's not surprising it was reverted. I suggest reading inline sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:08, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Naveengrande[edit]


Naveengrande (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:03:11, 27 January 2019 review of submission by RockPhotoGirl[edit]


RockPhotoGirl (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I did a bio page for a music recording artist who I am assisting.

The structure of the page and the content contained therein are no different than any other artist bio pages that you have published already.

All of his information is relevant including his awards, his albums, his performances, single releases, he's #1 on Country Music Stations right now plus he has music videos out and his music is available on all platforms.

So why was my submission rejected?

15:12:10, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Junaidkoil[edit]


Junaidkoil (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Junaidkoil: - amongst other things, this draft has no sources, and thus is automatically unsuited for article status. I suggest reading my first article for some advice here. referencing for beginners can advise on the "how aspect". If there aren't any suitable sources, then this content isn't, yet, suitable for Wikipedia Nosebagbear (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:14, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Rtigue50[edit]


Rtigue50 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


what needs fixed?

Hi Rtigue50. Wikipedia:Your first article describes the general process. It's very difficult to get an encyclopedia article about a business accepted. The biggest hurdle is proving that the company is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. By rejecting the draft, the reviewer is essentially saying that no matter what you do, a draft on that topic will not be accepted.
Creating a new article is one of the most challenging, time consuming, and frustrating things a new editor can attempt. There are a million easier and more beneficial ways to improve Wikipedia by editing existing articles. I've left a basket of links on your talk page that may help you regroup. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:20, 27 January 2019 review of draft by Jeffcoll2222[edit]


Jeffcoll2222 (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do this?? 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 on the notability of people). 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.

Hi Jeffcoll2222. The message in the big pink box at the top of the draft (and in the big yellow box on your talk page) contains numerous links that explain the "how". A more fundamental question is, "Should you do this?" Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Writing one never ends well. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:08:14, 27 January 2019 review of submission by FALCONBEAST101[edit]


FALCONBEAST101 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC) why is my web page declined[reply]

@FALCONBEAST101: - this clearly isn't suited to be a Wikipedia article. It is functionally a 1-line advertisement to yourself. Wikipedia articles don't advertise and provide neutral explanations of topics. Social media would be more suited to your content. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:29:41, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Rtigue50[edit]


what do I need for this article to be published? Rtigue50 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Please don't submit a duplicate help request unless no-one has commented on the original within 48 hours. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:02, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Iamsouravrana[edit]


Iamsouravrana (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:19, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Eth132489[edit]

I am requesting assistance on how to verify my sources. Eth132489 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:28, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Professor talbot[edit]


Hi,

Will you please send me an update on how I can improve my article so that it can be published. I don't see any reason whatsoever as to why it would be rejected.

Thank you. Prof. T Professor talbot (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor talbot: - several reasons are particularly evident. The easiest to identify is the sourcing issue. Corporate notability rules are tougher than for other articles, meaning the sourcing quality must be better. This means multiple (preferably at least 3 sources) that are: in-depth, reliable, independent (this rules out interviews and pseudo-interviews), and secondary .
The first source isn't in-depth, and the other (sources 2&3 are the same) is mostly put together by words from the CEO, making it a non-independent source.
It is also quite an advertorial article - remember an article can be advertorial while still being accurate. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:59, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Peter.LC77[edit]


To whom it may concern,

I am requesting a re-review of my draft as I have added additional information on the career of Peter Cardillo as well as additional sources/references to support the new information.

I would very much appreciate this re-review.

Thank you. Peter.LC77 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter.LC77: - for a re-review for a corrected draft, you'll need to resubmit it, in the same way you submitted it to begin with. It'll then re-enter the system and reviewed in the normal style. Thanks for taking comments on board, I wish you luck with the review Nosebagbear (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:45, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Koala2020[edit]


Hi, First major article I (attempt to) publish on the English Wikipedia. A little at a loss as to what would be considered worthwhile evidence of this person's notability. I'm linking to the honorary citizen certificate that was awarded to Mr. Barnett. I will link to it from within the article if necessary. Please let me know if there are any other resources that can be used to demonstrate notability. http://sarabogen.com/Barnett/Ariel%20-%20Honorary%20Citizen%20certificate,%20Paula,%20Kansas.jpg Much appreciated. Koala2020 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koala2020 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Koala2020: the primary issue is that you have provided no sourcing for the statements made in the article. That information surely came from somewhere, so you must cite the sources you use.
No, please do not upload the certificate, that would be a WP:Primary source. We don't need you to make a case for why he is important, we need you to cite other people saying that he is significant.


Please note the above summary of the Notability guideline, and you can also read WP:Notability (people) to get a better idea of the benchmark to meet. But the primary issue is you must cite your sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_January_27&oldid=881376724"