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 TCVCJ (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 8 June 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
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


June 2

Request on 06:23:19, 2 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by PAT6592

Article referred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farm_Forestry_Toolbox#Farm_Forestry_Toolbox User PAT6592

Reference is made in the reviewer comments that 'the submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability' and the 'Golden Rule'. I think I understand the requirement re the Golden Rule, and hence the section in the Article on Citation of papers where the Farm Forestry Toolbox has been used.

The Toolbox of programs is used daily by a pool of users within Australia and increasing overseas. Wikipedia does provide a excellent medium for users - current and potential to learn about the Toolbox.

Given that currently no other reliable sources, independent of the topic are available, perhaps the best place for the article in in a specific Wiki.

I think the the appropriate Category is Forest Modelling, Subcategory - Forest Models. Could please advice if this is possible and what needs to be done to have the article included in this subcategory.

PAT6592 (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PAT6592: Hi, and welcome to the Help Desk. I think there might be some confusion as to the comment made about adding the article to another wiki. I read that comment as suggesting that the article be submitted to an entirely different wiki, apart from Wikipedia. Also, articles are categorized only once they've been accepted. (You can read about categories at WP:CAT.) So the article must demonstrate the notability of the subject before it can be accepted and categorized into the categories you've proposed. Notability essentially requires that you find significant coverage of the subject in a variety of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks, /wia /talk 21:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:28, 2 June 2015 review of submission by Faiz mahmood

hello this faiz mahmood i am requesting you for assistance for my draft declination . Faiz mahmood (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Faiz mahmood:  Done I have submitted the draft for review. Next time, you can do so yourself by adding {{subst:submit}} to the article. A reviewer will be along in the future to examine your draft and offer feedback. Thanks, /wia /talk 21:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there are two drafts at play! Once you've created an article, you don't have to make a second version of it. Just keep working on the original and resubmit by adding {{subst:submit}} when you've addressed the reviewer's concerns with the draft.
The current issue with Draft:Dr Maira-uddin Ahmed is that the references are not reliable sources. Take a look at WP:RS for some information about reliable sources—they should be reputable sources of information, and usually they have some sort of editorial policy or other content-screening mechanism to ensure that the material they publish is itself reliable. /wia /talk 22:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:59, 2 June 2015 review of submission by Wordsfidi

Hi there -- I had a couple questions about how to best deal with two subjects in my MindMeld draft:

  • The company's name is Expect Labs, but there are imminent plans of going by MindMeld instead (the name of the product). There aren't any published sources talking about this, however.
  • If you look through the press coverage, you may see mentions of a MindMeld iPad app. This app was a demo and has been discontinued.

Should these points be dealt with more explicitly in the text of the draft? Any advice greatly appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:MindMeld

17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)(Wordsfidi : talk )(COI)

@Wordsfidi: Hello! Information added to Wikipedia articles has to be verifiable, so if there's not yet any published source that documents this proposed name change, it's not yet suitable to add to the draft. However, it seems that the product already goes by the name MindMeld, being owned by Expect Labs. So in this case, I think you could just reword the relevant part of your draft to state that MindMeld is a platform owned by Expect Labs.
As for the content in your article, you are certainly welcome to mention the iPad app and any other platforms that MindMeld works on, as long as that information is not given undue weight. Thanks, /wia /talk 21:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Many thanks for the response.(Wordsfidi : talk )(COI) 22:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:10, 2 June 2015 review of submission by Lynn R. McGee

Lynn R. McGee (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I understand that I need to include more verifiable references in the article I submitted. I am wondering if someone could point out some glaring examples of places that need to be referenced.

As far as the general comment that the subject is not noteworthy, I'm confused, because there are nine CUNY college presidents on Wikipedia and their accomplishments seem not unlike those of the president of BMCC.

Also, I have questions about the submission process. Is there a limit as to how many times I can edit and re-submit an article?

Thank you to the reviewing team

Lynn R. McGee (talk)

@Lynn R. McGee: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. Your draft, User:Lynn R. McGee/sandbox, currently only has one reference, and it does not mention Antonio Pérez. What you will need to do is find and add a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss this person in significant detail. This can be found in journal articles, magazines, A/V media, websites and a host of other places. A good rule of thumb is that, since this article is about a living person, any claims that are likely to be challenged, or any contentious statements about the subject (whether positive, negative or neutral) should be supported with an inline citation. For example, in the "Biography" section, you should find some references that support the claims about Perez' childhood, education and family. Continue likewise throughout the rest of the article.
As for the "what about this other article?" point, it doesn't hold much water on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has been around for a while, and some articles have slipped through the "cracks", as it were, and might not meet all of Wikipedia's standards as well as they should. If we started comparing new articles to some of those older articles with problems, Wikipedia's standards would decrease and the value of the content would plummet. Also, a note about notability: it's not the same thing as noteworthiness or fame. Notability refers instead to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. That's what must be found and shown in order to demonstrate notability.
Lastly, theres no limit to the number of times you edit and resubmit an article. I'll note, however, that if your article is declined at first, there's not much use resubmitting it until the issues flagged by the reviewer have been addressed. Happy editing, and feel free to stop by if you have any other Articles for Creation-related questions. Thanks, /wia /talk 21:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:37, 2 June 2015 review of submission by Swreynolds

20:30:37, 2 June 2015 review of submission by Swreynolds

I am really confused as to why my page isn't being created? Both Red Condor and St. Bernard pages are NOW FACTUALLY INCORRECT. We have since renamed the company and have new leadership and new products. Please give me insight as to why my page isn't being created and how I can create it. Thanks!

Swreynolds (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Swreynolds: Hello, which article are you referring to? The EdgeWave article is created and exists in the mainspace. Thanks, /wia /talk 21:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:00:22, 2 June 2015 review of submission by Tnguyen4321

The reason for my submission to be denied is "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Battle of Ia Drang instead." First of all, no it does not. You won't find it in Wikipedia if you search for "The Pleime Campaign". Secondly, you can find it as a background at Battle of Ia Drang, yes, but you cannot improve it and make it to become an article on "The Pleime Campaign" on its own merit, separated from the article "Battle of Ia Drang". You need to create the article "The Pleime Campaign". It does not exist yet in Wikipedia. My request is to allow it to be created and allow other wikipedians to improve it. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahecht has kindly created this redirect, such that now, when you search for "The Pleime Campaign" in Wikipedia, you are taken to the existing article Battle of Ia Drang, which also now contains some or all of the content you added. If you still feel there are strong reasons for there to be a separate article, you could join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Draft help please, where views expressed thus far indicate that a separate article is not necessary. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:28:42, 2 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nefertura

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


Hi everyone!

I believe I don't fully understand this "not enough inline citations" stuff. Wikiisawesome told me:

″There are not enough inline citations in the draft. When you do so, take care that you are using reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Of the three links listed in your references section, two are from the subject himself (meaning they are not independent) and the third only mentions him in passing. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, wia (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)″

I asked these questions in wia's talk page but since it says user may respond to talk page messages or e-mails more slowly than usual, I wanted to ask you guys also for help.

So I have a few questions regarding this:

This person in the article is a musician (conductor). I thought that most reliable info must be in his official website and social media accounts. But Wikiisawesome said that it is not objective. I'm not sure if I can find published material about a musician (conductor). What kinds of source can I use for reference? Can I use references like news from websites, past facebook events etc.? Can I use these references (news from websites, past facebook events etc.) written in Turkish for this English article?

It is my understanding that he engaged with Russian, French, Italian, Spanish, Brazilian orchestras and maybe there are sources in these languages but I don't understand these languages, so there is a little chance that I can use any source written in these languages. What can I do about this?

Thank you so much for your time and help.

Nefertura (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nefertura: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk! I've posted a reply to your question on my talk page. Thanks, /wia /talk 01:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

01:16:14, 3 June 2015 review of submission by Thewizardsgirl


I have a question about reviewing and posting articles. Recently I wrote and submitted to AfC the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_J._Sussman

I received a comment when it was moved from draft to article that contained the following statement "You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer."

Is there a way that I can use the reviewing tools and move my own articles from draft to article?

I have just started using my research and writing for wikipedia topics of interest - and I LOVE IT! I need a mentor on how to be more useful to Wikipedia as a reviewer - but I still want to expedite the writing I will continue to do.

Thanks for the feedback -

Thewizardsgirl (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)ThewizardsgirlThewizardsgirl (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thewizardsgirl (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewizardsgirl: I've posted a reply to your question on your talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02:13:24, 3 June 2015 review of submission by BeenAroundAWhile

Two articles titled Fletchers Solutions were previously deleted. Under contract, I wrote an entirely new version and posted it live. To my surprise, it was Speedily deleted as "unambiguous advertising." I appealed and requested that it instead be sent to Articles for deletion so that it could be discussed by the WP:Community. That was not done. Because of some of the discussion at Speedy, I wrote a briefer version of the article, which I am submitting here, also as a paid edit. To my knowledge, there still has been no discussion anywhere as to whether this business organization is Notable or not. Of course I believe it is, or I would not have accepted the contract. I am submitting the new article here because I know that previously uninvolved members of the Community can assist in creating a standard Wikipedia article about this entity, one that will be a creditable addition to the encyclopaedia.

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: You haven't actually submitted the draft for review yet. To do so, place {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I will wait a while. I still have some work to do on it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:48:24, 3 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Marckq88


Hello - my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Now_Health_International

Got declined a few months ago - and i edited it now and it looks much better. I cant find the resubmit button anywhere now. How can i re-publish?


Marckq88 (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marckq88:  Done In the future, you can resubmit an article yourself by editing it to add {{subst:submit}}. /wia /talk 10:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:51:22, 3 June 2015 review of submission by Walking High Point

I understand that you need to verify my references so I would like to know if you would like for me to make photocopies of them and either e-mail them to you or I could print them out and snail mail them to you. All of the articles are legit I just don't know how to get them to you so you can see them. I don't have a web page to upload them to. Please let me know what I can do. Thank you. Walking High Point (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walking High Point (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Walking High Point: We don't need to see photocopies of your references, we just need enough information so that we could find them ourselves. This means that for a magazine or newspaper article that isn't online we would need the name of the magazine, the date published, the title, the author's name if available, the volume or issue number if available, and the page number if available. Of course, if the article is online at the newspaper or magazine's website, a link is the easiest way, but there's nothing wrong with offline sources. The most recent rejection of your article had nothing to do with sources, it had to do with the tone it was written in. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Walking High Point: Your offer is appreciated. I've added to the draft a comment saying that you're willing to supply copies by email; a reviewer may take you up on that when they get to your draft.
If you're confident you've now achieved the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia article, there are a couple other improvements that, although in no way required to get the draft accepted, you could make while you wait for the next review. 1) The draft has only recently been broken into sections. Review Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Writing better articles, and ensure the lead and body fulfill their proper roles. 2) See how a quote has been added to the last Los Angeles Times citation? This technique can be especially useful when sources are only available offline. It helps readers understand precisely what portion of the preceding statement the source supports, and may help reviewers decide which sources to examine in detail. Consider adding quotes in this manner for the most remarkable claims. Worldbruce (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, my article is in encyclopedia format. If you need to verify any of the references from the High Point Enterprise, and you don't want me to e-mail them to you, you can contact "The Carolina Room" at the High Point Library and they will be glad to photocopy any article for you. They have all copies of The High Point Enterprise on film and they will be glad to make you a copy. Thank you, Walking High Point (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:42:31, 3 June 2015 review of submission by 42.201.247.243

42.201.247.243 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Sir my request is declined of my wikipedia page cany anyone guide me what to do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kamal_Fudda_Entertainment

@42.201.247.243: Please read the text in the grey and pink box at the top of your draft, which explains that you need to provide citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. If you cannot find such coverage of the company, then it is too soon for them to have an article on Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:01:25, 3 June 2015 review of submission by Russannrocks


Hi! I am the webmaster at www.petermyer.com - I have created the words on the site. I am trying to establish this fine artist in Wikipedia pages. The website www.petermyer.com states at the bottom of the page: All art exclusively owned and copyright of ©Peter Myer ... 2013 Website construction by RussTProductions RussTProductions is my official unofficial web name, but I also use Russannrocks, and other names. I have tried using cite quotations now and hope they will work and the page will successfully be reviewed.

Do I need to change the copyright on that webpage to some other name?

I am also beginning to link his other verifiable links to university and artists retail history. Please advise...

Russannrocks (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Russannrocks: You would need to change the copyright statement to indicate that the text is licensed under a compatible free license (see WP:Donating copyrighted material for more info). However, because you created petermyer.com to promote Peter Myer, the text is written in a promotional tone which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Your article is unlikely to be approved without being substantially rewritten to not sound promotional. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:38, 3 June 2015 review of submission by Nicole Quinn

Hi There, I've improved the page substantially, adding numerous references.

Nicole Quinn (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is currently awaiting its next review. Unfortunately there is a large backlog of submissions awaiting review at the moment, so it could possibly take a few weeks. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

02:44:18, 4 June 2015 review of submission by 2604:2000:A031:6500:54F5:C39E:7F8D:D14D

Why is it taking so long for the draft to get improved, thank you in advance

2604:2000:A031:6500:54F5:C39E:7F8D:D14D (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@2604:2000:A031:6500:54F5:C39E:7F8D:D14D: One of my favorite restaurants often has a line out the door and around the block. They've posted signs showing the approximate wait time from different points. Your draft is taking a long time to be reviewed because it's standing in a very very long line, and there are only a handful of volunteers serving at the front. Your draft is still about 10 days from the front of the line.
If, when it gets there, it can't be accepted, it will be sent back to you for improvement, after which it will start over at the end of the line. So use this time to improve the draft as much as you can. The Financial Times is generally a solid source, but it only mentions the subject is in a photo-crawl caption. Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, discussion forum threads, and blog posts (by someone who does not appear to be a professional journalist) are rarely considered reliable sources. Find independent reliable secondary sources. Worldbruce (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03:28:41, 4 June 2015 review of submission by 108.85.144.163

Hi. I am having difficulty with referencing. I have external links as reference and want to post them but can't seem to get it right. I will continue to read up on it but was wondering if I was missing something. I have looked on other pages and the code to try and decipher how to do it on mine but Im not getting it right somehow. Any helpful hints would be very welcome. SusannahWhitehead

108.85.144.163 (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@108.85.144.163: You almost had the technical part; I added the opening <ref> tag to fix the formatting of the first one for you. Basically start with <ref>{{cite web |url=put-the-url-here |title=put-the-title-here}}</ref> everywhere you want a citation, and you'll see the little blue bracketed number appear in the text and a corresponding reference appear in the references section. Read Template:Cite web for information on other useful parameters you could add, and on citation templates for other kinds of sources, like books.
Don't worry too much about the formatting, it's much more important to understand what statements in the text should have citations, and to find independent reliable sources to cite. Worldbruce (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:32:53, 4 June 2015 review of submission by Okekezi Kamalu


Okekezi Kamalu (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Okekezi Kamalu: Your draft was submitted one day ago, and the review process make take more than three weeks. What is your question? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:24:24, 4 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by NeoLife1958

Hi,

I have taken over this project from the last person who was working on this submission. I thought I had made the edits required by you all (removing peacock language) and written from a neutral viewpoint. If you can provide specific examples of what needs to be changed, removed, or edited within the page, that would be helpful to give me some better direction.

Thanks.

NeoLife1958 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't dealt with the comments at the top of the Draft. So for example you were told on 1 April that the "Early Life" section is completely unreferenced, and over two months later, it still is! Including several statements liable to challenge. There are still external links scattered through the Draft, these either need to be turned into inline citations, or moved to the External Links section.
In the lead you have "world-renowned", "eminent", "one of the most influential", and "among others". We don't put phraseology like that even in the lead of the Albert Einstein article, so why should we have it in an article about Furst?
I also don't think that "a prolific chain of human clinical evidence displayed and continues to display the health protection benefits of several company products" is actually meaningful, or if it is, it has no place in the lead of a biography.
The following are not encyclopedic phrasing:
  • the happy couple
  • in loving memory
  • its mission
There's much more throughout the Draft, including still two uses of "revolution...", which are only justifiable if they are supported by an inline citation to an independent reliable source that specifically says that the work was revolutionary. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

Request on 01:02:00, 5 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mojohi10

We are trying to develop a Wikipedia page for Dr Shane Moran. I am unsure as to why the page is repeatedly denied. Dr Shane Moran is a prominent figure in Sydney, Australia, particularly in business circles. He is the head of multiple philanthropic and arts societies. Could you please provide some relevant and specific advice on improving the page to get it up onto Wikipedia.

Mojohi10 (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mojohi10 - The problem fundamentally stems from your purpose; if you were here "trying to write a Wikipedia article about Dr Shane Moran" you might find it a much easier experience. The sources you have cited are mostly about various organisations and projects, but to sustain a biography of a living person the sources must actually be about the person, not merely mention him as "an involved person" in the actual topic of the source material.
By the way, your use of "we" is a problem, Wikipedia editor accounts may never be shared by multiple people, each individual contributor must edit under a separate identity - "Mojohi10" must be the username of only one person, not a group. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:05:21, 5 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Khyati G

What is the problem in submitting the article because it is the informative article about the product and I have written in that way.

Khyati G (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Khyati G: We don't judge articles on how informative they are, we judge them based on whether they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In your case, you would need to demonstrate that your company meets the standards of WP:CORP. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:40, 5 June 2015 review of submission by Grenetta mckinstry

Grenetta mckinstry (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Grenetta mckinstry: It looks like your question was answered at User_talk:FoCuSandLeArN#Grenetta_McKinstry. Is there something else we can help you with? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:59:50, 5 June 2015 review of submission by Rafinilamel

rafinilamel (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafinilamel: Please read the text in the pink and grey box at the top of your draft. You need to demonstrate that Kairalivartha.com meets the standards of WP:WEBSITE. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:33:09, 5 June 2015 review of submission by Speech 33


Hello,

This draft was created by moving it from my sandbox. I have just noticed that the history of edits of my sandbox was moved too. However, I have used my sandbox to create and experiment with other drafts before this one. So, the history shows edits that are completely unrelated to the present draft, which might seem strange. I wonder if there is some way to fix that issue, for example, delete some part of the edit history, or some other alternative.

Thanks!

dCutler 20:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@DCutler: Old edits can be deleted from the history, but this is typically only done when legal or privacy issues crop up (see WP:REVDEL). What would be more appropriate in this case would be a history split, but while that technically can be done, it is a tedious process and normally isn't undertaken unless there is a very good reason. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht: Thank you for your reply. If fixing the edit history is not easy, then never mind, it is not a big issue anyway. dCutler 01:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DCutler: If you plan on creating a number of new articles you can avoid this issue in future by creating a separate new sandbox for each article you draft, or even simpler by creating it directly in Draft space, e.g. Draft:New article title. You do that by first creating a link somewhere in your user space then click on it to start the page. (Take a look at my sandbox where I have listed links to the drafts I am working on.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67: Thank you, I will do that. DCutler 11:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

Request on 18:12:47, 6 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mgunter23


I am pretty new to contributing, but have a concern related to my attempts to include the topic of Levolution in Wikipedia. Levolution is a new but very important, and certainly notable, scientific concept related directly to Evolution. It is not well known currently.

The entry has evidently been judged as non-Notable. However, I can find links all over the web to some meaning of it, and that is part of the problem. Notably, the scientific subject is covered by a book that has been published by Archway, an arm of Simon and Schuster. The book is for sale on Amazon, sampled on Google Scholar. There is a website about it at levolution.com. I think it is notable in these ways. Actually I think it is much more than notable. The entry for this subject would be Levolution (science)for disambiguation purposes.

Disambiguation is a big problem here.

Levolution is also a music album from an Australian musician.

Levolution is also the name of a feature set in the electronic game Battlefield 4. The game company EA markets with its graphics so if you google "Levolution," that is virtually all you get. The scientific concept, Levolution, needs to exist in the Wikipedia world, and the need is particularly great because in online media it is totally smothered by the images of warring game characters.

This is not about selling books, or anything commercial. It is about the notable scientific concepts of Levolution, which happen to be central to cosmology.

For Wikipedia to judge it negatively as not "notable" does not seem correct. Published works of cutting edge science are notable by most definitions. If accepted, it also needs dismbiguation due to the other meanings.

Mike Gunter

Mgunter23 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Mgunter23 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgunter23: Are you asking why Draft:Levolution (disambiguation) was declined on 21 October 2014? I'm confident that it wasn't because the reviewer found the concept difficult to search for. Wikipedia's General notability guideline tells us that a topic is presumed to be suitable for an article if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources." If the draft was declined as not "notable", then it's because the draft didn't demonstrate, by citing sources, that the subject met this inclusion criteria.
You mention a website and an associated book, by which I presume you mean: Gunter, Michael P. (2014). Levolution: Cosmic Order by Means of Thermodynamic Natural Selection. Bloomington, IN: Archway. ISBN 978-1480810082. Archway is a self-publishing company. Wikipedia generally does not consider self-published sources reliable. The same goes for the website. If those are the sum total of the sources, then the subject is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia at this time.
If the concept has traction, multiple other people will write about it independently in reliable sources and it will become notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum for "getting the word out." Worldbruce (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

15:14:18, 7 June 2015 review of submission by Walking High Point

Walking High Point (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC) I am writing an article about John Harrison Finger - Mr. Walk America and I would like to add a picture to my article. I have a black and white photo of Mr. Finger's first walk and I would like to know how I can add it to my article (just in case it gets accepted). Walking High Point (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Walking High Point: For a photo taken in the U.S. in 1949, I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Public domain to understand whether the photo may be used in Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can I find out if there is a copyright? I have a copy of the original photo that was used for the newspaper article in 1949 in the High Point Enterprise for the article about John Harrison Finger doing the first walk for the March of Dimes. In the newspaper it doesn't say anything about it being the property of anybody and it doesn't say who the photographer was. The picture was given to John Harrison Finger by the High Point Enterprise. Walking High Point (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph in a newspaper is usually copyrighted by that newspaper unless specified otherwise in the caption. Things published between 1923 through 1963 are difficult to classify from a copyright perspective: If the copyright was renewed after 28 years then the photo is still under copyright (most likely to the High Point Enterprise), otherwise it is in the public domain. However, unless we have evidence that the copyright wasn't renewed we have to assume that it was, meaning that it generally cannot be used on Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

Request on 04:01:23, 8 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by PS Prasad Warrier


PS Prasad Warrier (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PS Prasad Warrier: Your draft was declined because you haven't cited any sources that show that the person is notable. Please see WP:BIO and WP:CITE. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:58, 8 June 2015 review of submission by 169.159.81.211


169.159.81.211 (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This page keeps getting rejections. Please may I know what the issue is? Thanks

Temi.

@169.159.81.211 and Atedo Peterside: Because this is the biography of a living person, you need sources to back up the things you are saying about this person. For example, the "Business career" section only has one citation in the middle, but all substantial statements of fact should be backed up by citations. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:21:19, 8 June 2015 review of submission by Panks23

Panks23 (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was creating a page for a company called Redington gulf, which is one of the largest IT supply chain company in UAE. I have been told that article has to be declined - from articles for creation.

I would like to know why this article is subjected to this decision. Please enlighten.

@Panks23: You accidentally deleted the pink box on the draft that explained why it had been declined and what you needed to do to fix it. I restored it for you. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:05:41, 8 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Rauisuchian

Is there a way to remove a draft from Articles for Creation, to then move/create it the generic way? I didn't realize that AfC was mainly for articles about organizations and individuals until I had already submitted. Rauisuchian (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:14, 8 June 2015 review of submission by Devilsbane

I've submitted this page a couple times and it keeps getting rejected based on notability, even though I have added a number of independent sources about the band from newspapers, magazines, and radio stations. The first person who rejected it I contacted to talk about what needs to be done and was told they don't do article reviews anymore, so I resubmitted. After a month of waiting it was reviewed and rejected again and after requesting details from that users never received a reply. I feel that I have the sources to establish notoriety, but I must be missing something. Any help you can provide me to make it better would be fantastic. Thank you

Devilsbane (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:25, 8 June 2015 review of submission by TCVCJ

  • TCVCJ (talk · contribs) (TB)
    • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    • I have at least six more articles that I wish to submit, but I would like to know for sure if either of the two I've already submitted are going to be approved before I do the others. Will somebody check them for me, please? I did drafts on both; corresponded with two different reviewers; was turned down for various reasons; tried to correct/improve as instructed and am still waiting for a final answer! Both the articles I submitted concern non-profits and are marketed as tourism venues in Tazewell County VA. One reviewer left reviewing right after she first started working with me - perhaps I was too hard to work with as a newcomer - don't really know....but I'd sure like to get hooked up with someone else like her - she answered questions almost immediately and that was wonderful! Please help me!TCVCJ (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TCVCJ (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=666078257"