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 Micko.west (talk | contribs) at 08:46, 26 June 2016. 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 13

00:35:42, 13 June 2016 review of submission by RobertNwad

RobertNwad 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please why was my article rejected. I asked the editor to help me edit it. I want to know the reason and can you help me to edit it.

RobertNwad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertNwad (talk • contribs) 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertNwad: Held at a single worldcat library, the book: Nwadiaru, Robert (2015). Nigeria: A Failed State. Tate Pub. ISBN 1-63268-927-8. does not appear to be notable. It has not yet attracted significant notice by the world at large, so it is not a suitable topic for a stand alone encyclopedia article. No amount of editing will fix that. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:39:22, 13 June 2016 review of submission by ElysiaJaneB


I am trying to write a wiki page about Bruce Croxon. I am told that my sources are not sufficient but am wondering which specifically are unacceptable. I do notice that i am referencing other wiki articles and perhaps these may be the issue? Otherwise i am unsure as to why the sources i provided are not admissible.

ElysiaJaneB (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElysiaJaneB. You are correct, Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference. That leaves two sources that address the topic directly. They're both written by the same author and published by the same publisher, so they count as a single source for the purposes of notability. Multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources are required. Off hand, I couldn't find another. There's a piece in the Globe and Mail, but it's an interview almost entirely in his words. Wikipedia is looking for what other people say about him, not so much for what he says about himself - readers can go to his website for the latter. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:12:10, 13 June 2016 review of submission by 203.106.156.12

While the aforementioned draft is in Wikivisual, I cannot edit the draft. So, how can improve the article? Why isit moved to wikivisual? 203.106.156.12 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:02:38, 13 June 2016 review of submission by 182.74.48.86

HI Team, I am unable to understand the format requirement. Kindly help me the same.

17:30:11, 13 June 2016 review of submission by CPBearfoot

Although I have tried to use a range of sources, including national newspaper The Independent, the BBC and expert books on folk customs, the reviewer feels that I am relying on a regional news paper too much. My questions really relate around whether it is better to find alternative sources but which may have similar circulation figures. For example there is an article in a German newspaper which I haven't cited because I only have the information as a cutting rather than a weblink and I know that this means it would be difficult for anyone else to check.

I would very much like to get this to published standard and would appreciate input on what else might be needed. In the meantime, I have additional information (the subjects of the proposed entry have also been featured in National Geographic and I wanted to record this) but wasn't sure whether I should stop editing until I had resolved the issue.

Many thanks CPBearfoot (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CPBearfoot (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPBearfoot. I've commented more extensively at the draft. Sources need not be online. If the German newspaper article contains meaningful coverage and you can describe it completely enough that a reader could find it in an archive (minimum: publication date, title (in original language), newspaper; if known: author, translation of title, place of publication, agency, page number), then by all means include it. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:51:40, 13 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Shyamw1


Shyamw1 (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please take a look at my draft in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shyamw1/sandbox) and let me know if my references need to be fixed? I tried to follow the directions for reference for beginners as well as the generous help given to me by Wikipedia Chat helpers but I think I may need to edit some more. Didn't look perfectly all right to me. Thank you very much.Shyamw1 (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1[reply]

18:53:33, 13 June 2016 review of submission by ZintkalaNuni

I do not understand what still needs to be changed in order to publish this article. Please tell me what to change, and I will. Thank you.

ZintkalaNuni (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZintkalaNuni, there are whole paragraphs that don't have any references, thus no way for a reader to verify where that information came from. The text also contains a lot of unattributed opinion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Roger. I will make the changes. However, I inadvertently hit the save button for this draft, before I was finished, and I am sad to realize that this particular iteration of this article is not the draft I have made the most changes to. I will find that draft, and work on changing the unattributed opinion to verifiable statements. Thank you so much for the advise. ZintkalaNuni (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:41:55, 13 June 2016 review of submission by 52.30.29.110


I feel that I am getting somewhere with this article, but I am clearly still failing. I am really surprised that IMDB is not allowed, as I did not believe that it is a user site. I have found more articles online, and a couple of books, but I want to be sure that I am going in the right direction before I add more references.

Are the below acceptable?

https://audioboom.com/boos/38494-andy-pandini-talks-about-his-new-play-the-mass-suicide-club

http://www.motmodel.com/Detail.aspx?model_id=3879

http://realdealtheatre.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=6434481

http://www.hollywood.com/celebrities/andy-pandini-58307192/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2014/03/10/how_does_hollywood_typecast_for_a_movie.html

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/harolds-going-stiff-film-review-609062

http://whatculture.com/film/whatever-happened-to-pete-blaggit-the-british-indie-hit-comes-to-dvd

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TZorAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Andy+Pandini%22&dq=%22Andy+Pandini%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKvuW8j6PNAhWlJ8AKHciGCBMQ6AEIJDAB

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V1-QBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=%22Andy+Pandini%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKvuW8j6PNAhWlJ8AKHciGCBMQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Andy%20Pandini%22&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KoTcBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT267&dq=%22Andy+Pandini%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKvuW8j6PNAhWlJ8AKHciGCBMQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=%22Andy%20Pandini%22&f=false

Thank you

Aoife


52.30.29.110 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:02, 13 June 2016 review of submission by Richard F Morris



Dear Ringbang, I am very grateful for your very prompt and kind reply. I shall look into this, to see what I can do better to adhere to your advice and Wikipedia requirements. I shall also add additional bibliographical links. Best wishes, Richard Morris


June 15

03:42:31, 15 June 2016 review of submission by 27.48.166.48

27.48.166.48 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:40:11, 15 June 2016 review of submission by Ninakrucker


Ninakrucker (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have submitted the English page for the company Wincasa. However, I would need assistance in creating a table as shown in the German version of the wikipedia page for Wincasa on the right handside: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wincasa

Would someone be able to help me out? Unfortunately, I couldn't find any explanation on how to create such a table.


Many thanks in advance and kind regards, Deborah

Ninakrucker (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ninakrucker. The table you want is a template called an infobox. The one for companies is documented at Template:Infobox company. Even though a corresponding article exists on the German-language Wikipedia (where standards or their enforcement may be different), the draft will not be approved here because it cites a single source, the company website. To satisfy the corporate notability inclusion criteria, there must be in-depth coverage of the firm in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the company. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ninakrucker. To show you how it's done, I have added an infobox for you and added some references. I would suggest that you look for some more sources. To establish what Wikipedia calls notability, you need reliable sources independent of the company. Company sources, such as published certified company accounts may be permissible for some (other) information. Formatting references can be a bit intimidating at first, so feel free to ask for assistance. It would also be helpful if you could reword the text a bit to make it more neutral. The first sentence, for instance, presents an uncorroborated claim by the company, and the word "leading" can mean a lot of things. --Boson (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:32, 15 June 2016 review of submission by Kylesalsa

I have been trying to publish this page for months and can not see any reason why it would or has been declined? Please let me know what I am doing wrong or what is needed to have this done asap!

Kylesalsa (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kylesalsa. People who come to Wikipedia with the goal of adding a specific article often make the mistake of believing their topic belongs in an encyclopedia, or that they are entitled to add an article about anything they want. Most businesses do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion, and should not be the subject of an article. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY enlightening. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


June 16

00:04:26, 16 June 2016 review of submission by Tracy Symonds-Keogh


I have an article Brendan Dassey which I am trying to ensure fits the brief fully. I have been asked to source secondary and tertiary sources would love a little guidance on exactly what that means and do I replace current sources with secondary and tertiary?

Many thanks

Tracy Symonds-Keogh (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tracy Symonds-Keogh. This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. After a draft has been accepted, it is outside our scope. If you follow the links in the maintenance template at the top of Brendan Dassey, you'll find good explanations of primary/secondary/tertiary sources. Essentially, Sheriff's Department and court documents are primary, newspapers and magazines are secondary. If, after studying those links, you still have questions, please consider asking at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Editors there will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps! --Worldbruce (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:04, 16 June 2016 review of submission by Akash Dahariya

Akash Dahariya (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit an article for article for creation.Akash Dahariya (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific question? Is your question about the mechanics of Articles for Creation, or about a specific article? You don't appear to have submitted a draft article recently. Your recent history seems to consist of editing existing articles, which is reasonable but doesn't have to do with Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:21, 16 June 2016 review of submission by Yellowmug7

I've added some more references but was wondering what other additions I could make to the page to make it more suitable to be published? Thank you! Yellowmug7 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yellowmug7. The draft's lede makes no claim to importance, indicates nothing that sets the school apart from hundreds of thousands like it. There is very little chance of an article about a school for children up to age 11 being accepted (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Some do slip through without meeting the notability guidelines, but they are eventually noticed and removed. The most common exception is when a school's architecture is notable (a Grade I listed building, for example). --Worldbruce (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:13:28, 16 June 2016 review of submission by 198.179.93.210

Following up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2016_May_20#16:01:05.2C_20_May_2016_review_of_submission_by_24.218.139.80 how are reviews done once notability is ensured and the article has been edited, as was done 3 weeks ago? Would welcome advice on next steps. Thanks and best regards


198.179.93.210 (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Draft:Péter Farkas (writer) you will see a big blue "Resubmit" button in the top pink box. When you click that button, the draft will go back in the pool to be reviewed again. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:04:57, 16 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Testagaia

hello I'm desperate. My article has been declined 5 times. The last message "I don't see the notability in this company either." Please note that this company Celiveo earlier knows as Jetmobile has been created in 1994. Please help validate this article. Thank you,

Testagaia (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems. One, you have not provided any reliable sources to document that this is a notable company. Two, your draft is absolutely and shamelessly promotional, advertising "solutions" from this company. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been speedy-deleted as unambiguous advertising. Here are a few thoughts for other posters to this page, or to other posters asking for help with AFC. First, if you say something to the effect that, after repeated declines, you are "desperate", some of us may think that you are desperate to get your "company page" into Wikipedia so that you can be paid for it (and Wikipedia doesn't have "company pages", only encyclopedic articles). Second, if your submission is declined more than once, you should probably ask for help after a second (or third or even first) decline rather than trying repeatedly, because you may be getting nowhere. Third, Wikipedia drafts should be neutral, not promotional. It is difficult to write a neutral draft about your employer, which is one of the reasons why we have a conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:58, 16 June 2016 review of submission by Sarahlouisewaterhouse

Hello , I've just edited a submission which was declined due to copyrighted material. I clicked save. Then I went to the 'edit' button to add more details. But I could find nothing that I had written. I'm unused to doing this, so Im not sure that I haven't just lost my submission. Can you tell me if you have my edited submission please?

Sarahlouisewaterhouse (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarahlouisewaterhouse. The draft's page history and your own edit history show no edits saved since 1 June except one which merely resubmitted the blank draft for review, so unfortunately any other edit you tried to save is irretrievably lost. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the version that you resubmitted was blank, because the copyright violating material was removed and any edits that you made were accidentally lost. You may rewrite the submission in its entirety and resubmit it, but be aware that often material on web sites, aside from being copyrighted, is non-neutral, and it may not be enough just to rewrite it in your own words if that retains a promotional tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:19, 16 June 2016 review of submission by Jtothez

I received a comment from user Delta13C but i do not understand what portion of my article for submission on Christian Steinhäuser is in question. How can i discuss this with someone to better understand what is in question? Jtothez (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jtothez. When you seek clarification about a specific editor's comments, it's most effective to ask them on their talk page, rather than asking in a general forum. If you are unable to get a satisfactory answer that way, or need a second opinion, then turn to this help desk. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:31:39, 16 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Shyamw1

Hello, I would like someone to take a look at my references in the article in my sandbox. My username is Shyamw1. I followed the directions in References for beginners as well as the example cited by very helpful Wikipedia live chat staff but I'm not sure if I got them right. I also have a question about uploading a photograph. I obtained the photograph from the newspaper that published it so I am not sure if it is a copyrighted work or if it is considered a free image or a non-free image. They sent it to me so I am assuming I can use it. Thank youShyamw1 (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1[reply]


Shyamw1 (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shyamw1. I fixed a few problems with the references. You need to fix one major technical problem. The technique of named references is used when one wants to refer to a given reference at more than one point in the article. The first time such a reference appears, one gives it a unique name within the ref tag, like:
<ref name="revelation">DETAILS OF REFERENCE</ref>
Subsequent citations to the same reference can use that name as a shorthand (take note of the "/" at the end):
<ref name="revelation" />
The problem is that you have given five different references the same short name, "revelation". When you then refer to the source again at the end of the text, there is no way for Wikipedia (or the reader) to know which of the five is meant. To fix it, remove the "name=revelation" portion from the ref tags of four of the five references, leaving it only on the one reference that you want to reuse. For more information, see:
With regard to the photograph, it is almost certainly a non-free, copyrighted image. The fact that the newspaper sent it to you may mean they don't mind you using it for personal use (e.g. displaying it in your home), but you cannot assume it means that you may use it on Wikipedia. Even if the newspaper explicitly said you may use it in Wikipedia, that is not enough. The copyright holder must be willing for anyone to use it for anything, including commercial purposes. Since the subject is dead, it may be possible to use the photo under the fair use exception, but numerous conditions must be met, and fair use does not apply to drafts.
Copyright law is absurdly complex, so I strongly advise that you not worry about adding a photograph until the draft is accepted. Whether it has a photo or not will have no effect on whether the draft is accepted. After it becomes an article, you can revisit the matter. For more information, see:
--Worldbruce (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much for reviewing my references. I removed the ref name=revelation from the four citations as you mentioned. Can you please check to see if my edits are okay? Thanks so much - really appreciate your help and feedback regarding the photograph. Shyamw1 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1[reply]

22:06:36, 16 June 2016 review of submission by Zero stylinx


What are the traits to create a successful draft?

Zero stylinx (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero stylinx, the Your first article guide is a good place to start. If you need further help you know where to find us. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


June 17

05:29:39, 17 June 2016 review of submission by 79.179.106.43

79.179.106.43 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05:29:39, 17 June 2016 review of submission by 79.179.106.43

I submitted an article whose title Is ALIZA Ziv on June 16, 2016.IN ENGLISH I received an answer from Kyle Tastic, ‪KylieTastic‬ השאיר הודעה בדף השיחה שלך בפסקה "‪Your submission at Articles for creation: עליז...‬".

Since I submitted the the article in English I cannot understand what has happened

I don't see a problem here, the draft is at Draft:Aliza Ziv, see Referencing for beginners to help you fix the referencing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:00:22, 17 June 2016 review of submission by 190.44.139.201

190.44.139.201 (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

    08:02:34, 17 June 2016 review of submission by 190.44.139.201


Is anyone going to get round to reviewing the page? been over a month now!!

11:01:10, 17 June 2016 review of submission by RIT RAJARSHI

Hi RIT RAJARSHI - all you need to do is click on the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink review box. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC) (the "Ask Question" button of the page User:RIT RAJARSHI/Granatane took me here. I'm doing this particular edit on this help-page, because I misunderstood the Wikicodes given in the form, and What I already typed on that help-page, was not saved.)[reply]

I created the 2 draft-pages, on Granatane (User:RIT RAJARSHI/Granatane) and Granatanine (Draft:Granatanine). ( Originally I attempted to create the pages because I did not knew how-to request an article) .

Though the created-draft-pages failed at review (because I could provide so-little informations). But still, I think, there is encyclopedic notability of these 2 topics. Because... the terms, Granatane and Granatanine, are often-used in the field of Alkaloids (Some alkaloids, allied to tropane, such as pseudopelletierine contains them in backbone), natural-products organic-chemistry, drug-action, Ligand-receptor interaction ( such as Sigma-2_receptor#Ligands ) etc.

But when I started search web on the main, backbone compound (and nomenclatural origin) compounds 9-azabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane [1] (Granatanine[2]) , and 9-methyl-9-azabicyclo[3.3.1]nonan-3-amine [3] (Granatane[4]), I could not found useful informations throughout web ( so I tried to request the article and attempted to create the drafts).

So, I request for 2 articles on Granatanine and Granatane.

References

  1. ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/275187547
  2. ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/275187547#section=Depositor-Supplied-Synonyms
  3. ^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/136318#section=Top
  4. ^ http://www.caslab.com/Granatane_hydrochoride_CAS_49656-52-2/

Thanks RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RIT RAJARSHI: I have added Granatane and Granatanine to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Chemistry on your behalf. That list is quite long, so it might be years before anyone writes those articles. If you're willing to keep working on the drafts you started, you may be able to get assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry to improve the drafts to the point where they could be accepted as at least stubs. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce:, Thank you very much, However, I have so little amount of information that i'm frightened to start them even as draft. You could inform that wikiproject-chemistry domain , or may inform(give link) me, if it is separately required to adding there.
I also request you to give me a link, where that submission by you published or listed. Because I'm not expert in computer. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as links are concerned: Articles may be requested at Wikipedia:Requested articles. The specific sub-page where Granatane and Granatanine have been requested is Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Chemistry. You may wish to add one or more of those pages to your watchlist, so that you will see, when you check your watchlist, any progress on the requests. It may take a long time. In the past two years I've requested three other articles; only one has been written so far. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:44, 17 June 2016 review of submission by Bronka2016

He is notable because he received (posthumously) Poland's highest military award. In order to accept the article, a reference is needed to a reliable source stating that he received the award. Please provide the reference, and the article can be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:26, 17 June 2016 review of submission by Hmlarson

  1. No Wikipedia policy was cited in the final reviewer's declining explanation. The previous reviewer JSFarman said he was about to approve it and then disappeared. I'd like to know why Rodan is not considered notable given the references included in the draft and according to which policy?
  2. The final reviewer also made significant edits that removed relevant content and references to support Rodan's notability as an author and expert on cosmetic dermatology in addition to being notable as female entrepreneur1, and dermatologist. He then states, "She may be great but she has only few or no mentions outside her area of expertise and money." I'd like someone else to review this and the reviewers edits and provide feedback. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson, I was going to add references that were specifically about Katie Rodan in order to address the issues raised in previous AfDs but ran out of time. I will continue to search; I find it hard to believe that there aren't refs that concretely establish her notability. JSFarman (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


June 18

18:07:09, 18 June 2016 review of submission by Po Kadzieli


I need help please with the English references template. I have used a French one and it obviously does not work! This article is rather pertinent to Referendums related to the European Union, like on 23 June next.

Thank you for any help you can afford --Po Kadzieli (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Po Kadzieli (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:09:24, 18 June 2016 review of submission by Kikiha

Hi, I received message from LaMona that my draft was not accepted because it "is not adequately supported by reliable sources". I replied that I will add the footnotes as I had forgotten that they were already included with the draft I submitted. So now I don't understand the reason for the rejection - my footnotes include numerous newspaper and book references, so what is missing? Kiki (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:29:46, 18 June 2016 review of submission by Amanahsgbesar

i have put the reference and add some info


June 19

09:22:22, 19 June 2016 review of submission by Anketil

I am trying to explain how the name of JUBY was derived since there has been much incorrect information (often rubbish) written about it. Many if not most are from my family papers, Wills, armorial bearings, Mentions in State Papers, Rolls, Inquisitions post mortem, etc. Hos best can I list these without having my (short) paper rejected again please? Dr Bernard JUBY Anketil (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anketil. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published, secondary sources. Any analyses or interpretation of primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be original analysis by you of the primary-source material. If a book or article has been published using your family papers, wills, etc. as source material, then you may cite the book or article, but the degree to which primary sources may be used directly is extremely limited. If you wish to publish original research, you'll want to try an alternative outlet. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:00, 19 June 2016 review of submission by Veronika Eriksson

Hi, my post was rejected... Why is that?

Veronika Eriksson (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veronika Eriksson. The sentence fragment of which the draft consists appears to be in Swedish; English Wikipedia can only accept articles written in the English language. The draft makes no claim that the subject is significant (that it belongs in an encyclopedia). Furthermore, it appears auto-biographical. For these reasons, the submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:09:41, 19 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wikiupdater1997


Wikiupdater1997 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiupdater1997: Any article about an organization must cite multiple, in-depth, reliable, secondary sources other than the organization itself. For example, if someone has written books or magazine articles about CSC, use them as the basis for the draft. If no independent, reliable, secondary sources exist, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:16:03, 19 June 2016 review of submission by Misceditor1000

Was declined as being non-notable yet the sources I provided should mean it's notable enough for an article. If it's been mentioned in news sources, I feel it should be considered notable for an article. May be because I ref'd Loews Theatres' Wikipedia article titled as Loews Cineplex Entertainment, but I definitely didn't cite it using ref tags (pretty sure WP articles can't be ref'd with ref tags). If it really WAS declined just for referencing Loews Cineplex Entertainment's WP article using hyperlinking even though several other articles on here do the same thing, I'll be mad. I'll also be mad if this project all of a sudden starts claiming the sources it provided as selections for reference sources aren't reliable. If they aren't reliable, then why can they be chosen as reference sources? Misceditor1000 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Misceditor1000. When you seek clarification about a specific reviewer's actions, it's most effective to ask them on their talk page, rather than asking in a general forum. Reviewers are fallible human beings, like the rest of us. If they've made a mistake, it's important that they know about it, and they usually welcome an opportunity to rectify it. If you are unable to get a satisfactory explanation that way, or need a second opinion, then turn to this help desk.
My own guess would be that the wikilink to Loews Theatres had nothing to do with the draft being declined. Based on the text in the big pink box on the draft, the reviewer applied WP:GNG and found the draft lacking. The cited sources are a blog, two citations to cinematreasures.org, and four citations to works by one author at the Dayton Daily News. WP:BLOGS are almost never deemed reliable sources. Cinematreasures.org does not exhibit the characteristics of a reliable source, but if you think it is one, you could seek an affirmative opinion at WP:RSN. For notability, "A series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source". So the reviewer may have concluded that in net, the draft has a single independent reliable source, whereas multiple sources are expected.
If so, what can you do about it? Perhaps you can add independent reliable sources. One that supports the unsourced text in Draft:Beaver Valley Cinemas#Opening, or other unsourced statements, would be a good start. WikiProject Film may be able to suggest useful sources. At least one source outside Dayton would be beneficial, because if a reviewer evaluates the subject as a business, WP:CORP's stricture that "attention solely from local media ... is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" is likely to come into play. If you wish to argue that the building is notable, then the following may be informative:
I hope this shows you some ways forward. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. I'll consider these things and maybe ask the reviewer. Misceditor1000 (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

03:27:18, 20 June 2016 review of submission by Risingsinger

i'm doing as much as i could with the draft. But so far, it clearly stated that maybe i'm not right for this type of editing, writing or finding reliable sources and i'm probably a terrible writer. Like the other two articles, Leighanne Littrell and Kristin Richardson, that i fixed up, it makes very clear that they were not very good articles and that's why they got deleted. i did everything as followed: i read the rules, i found the reliable sources as said, i even typed it up in my own words.

Hi Risingsinger. Don't be overly pessimistic. There are millions of ways of improving Wikipedia without creating any new articles. Some people spend their time reviewing novice editors' work. Some answer questions at help desks. Check out Wikipedia:Community portal to get an idea of the breadth of ways in which to help. If you continue writing new biographies, you might have more success avoiding subjects at the gossipy tabloid end of the spectrum, instead shooting for the Nobel-prize-winning / Olympic Silver / Grammy-award-nominated end of the scale. Browsing Wikipedia's finest articles may give you ideas. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:16:35, 20 June 2016 review of submission by Emsklizqk

I am trying to figure out how to edit a new article that I submitted, and was declined, so that it can be acceptable and live on Wikipedia.

Emsklizqk (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emsklizqk, the draft article is at Draft:Givn Water, you can continue working on it there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Emsklizqk. If the intended thrust of your question was more "what editing is needed" than "how does one edit", bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory of all brands that exist or have ever existed. A brand must have received in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources to warrant a stand alone encyclopedia article. You may find the essay "No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability" informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:00:34, 20 June 2016 review of submission by Anketil

Already answered above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:43, 20 June 2016 review of submission by Kandsranch

Can you tell me why a new article for The Lean Launchpad/I-Corps was denied? Are there steps we can take to meet your requirements? Thank you. Erikka

Kandsranch (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kandsranch:: Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals.
The draft was declined because it reads as if written to promote the topic by someone closely connected to it. It cites three blogs (Forbes/sites), which is arguably the most toxic-to-a-draft's-chances thing that a draft can do. It also cites five writings of Steve Blank, who developed the pedagogy in question. Although such non-independent sources may be used, they do nothing to establish notability, and may be used to support only a minor part of the draft. The draft's only independent sources do not mention Lean Launchpad or I-Corps.
If Inc., Science, or similar independent reliable sources have written at length about Lean Launchpad / I-Corps, you may use them as the basis for a draft. Otherwise the topic is a non-starter, as Wikipedia only covers subjects of which the world at large has taken significant notice. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

06:50:12, 21 June 2016 review of submission by Chorasophia


Hello. I'd like to submit a photo of Arter and details like Arter's founder, its establishment year and further details in a box that is usually seen on the right hand side in wikipedia articles.

I would also like to change Arter (art center) to Arter (Art Institution).

Could you help me out?

Thanks, chorasophiaChorasophia (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chorasophia (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chorasophia. This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. After a draft has been accepted, it is outside our scope.
Before moving the article to a new title, review Wikipedia's policy on article titles and in particular the guidelines regarding disambiguation. "Arter (Art Institution)" would be inappropriate because Art and Institution should not be capitalized. It is not clear that "Arter (art institution)" would be an improvement over "Arter (art center)". Personal preferences carry little weight, since no one "owns" a Wikipedia article, but you can put forward an argument on the article's talk page explaining why the title should be changed, and see if you can get a consensus.
An infobox template has been added to Arter (art center) for you. Read the documentation at Template:Infobox museum to understand how to use the various fields. If, after doing so, you still have questions, please consider asking at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Editors there will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps! --Worldbruce (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:47:29, 21 June 2016 review of submission by Petro Rucci



Hello, I have uploaded my article about Fjackets several times but still can't get it right. I requested editors to edit my page but still it requires some editing. Can please some one help me out with it.

Petro Rucci (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:07:07, 21 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Brifans

I am a paid publicist for Briana Roy and I am asking you guys please do not delete her page , I am still in the process of creating a Wikipedia page for Actress and model Briana Roy . Thank you


Brifans (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't make progress on the draft in six months, it has been deleted. You can start over again, but it would be not just a good idea to make the paid editing disclosure, but the binding policy of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:06:52, 21 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 206.193.253.35

I need help in understanding what are reliable sources for my article on Dr. Russell. Many of my sources are links to google patents or industry journals. And I really don't understand what citations I can provide for his degrees. How does one show a source for diplomas?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

206.193.253.35 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A possible source for his degrees is the university website, most have brief bios of their leading academics. That is exactly the type of routine non-contoversial information that can be sourced from non-independent publications. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

Request on 16:38:42, 22 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Shyamw1


Shyamw1 (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, my username is Shyamw1. I have a draft of an article in my sandbox. I edited the references section based on the feedback and comments I received from very helpful editors. Could someone please check and see that the references are okay now? Thanks so much. Shyamw1 (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1[reply]

Now that the previous problems with two copies of the draft seem to have been resolved, I moved the draft from your sandbox to Draft:Gopalaswami Parthasarathy and now the references have large ugly errors. Can someone here take a look at the references and fix them? Alternatively, the author can ask for help with the references at the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The refs still need work, but they don't throw errors anymore.Mduvekot (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The article has redlinks. Please consider whether to remove the links. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shyamw1: When you reach the point that your specific questions have been answered, and you simply want the entire draft reviewed again to see if it can be accepted, it may not be obvious to you how to resubmit it (because the prior reviews were removed). To submit it for review, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. When you save it, you should see a large yellow box saying that it is awaiting review. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the previous review templates and comments should be restored, they should not be removed at all until the article is accepted. Previous reviews are an important resource for both the draft author and subsequent reviewers. On the one hand they contain advice and links to various guide and help pages for the draft author, they are a record of the progress of the draft and help reviewers to see what issues have previously been addressed and to assess whether they have been adequately resolved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

00:36:59, 23 June 2016 review of submission by RoyBNZ

I recently submitted an article about Manuka Health New Zealand, who I have been foloowing with interest over the years. I based this article on similar wiki articles about New Zealand companies of similar size e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimax_Mowing_Systems and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbard_Foods, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invivo_Wines and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canterbury_of_New_Zealand Can you explain more how to edit article without losing important factual information such as research and awards? RoyBNZ (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Draft:Manuka Health New Zealand. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RoyBNZ. It's natural to learn from examples, but in doing so it's important to use excellent examples. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. Trimax Mowing Systems is decent, but the other articles you listed are awful. Don't expect an article patterned after them to be accepted - the existence of bad articles is not a good reason for creating more bad articles.
Not everything you consider "important factual information" is important to Wikipedia. Not every verifiable fact belongs in an encyclopedia. Get rid of the "Key brands", "Awards", and "Environmental performance" sections. That's the sort of material that makes the draft promotional. I'm sceptical of the "MGO Certification" and "Research" sections as well, but haven't pulled the journal articles to see how relevant they are to the company. For Wikipedia, the most important section is "History". It should be written in prose rather than as a bullet list. Support it with independent sources like the NZ Herald one, rather than with press releases. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:03:14, 23 June 2016 review of submission by CityGirl2

Hi there - all of my sources are legitimate and verifiable, but I didn't follw proper formatting at first. I followed the instructions carefully, added additional information and references, changed a few to internal links, and would like to resubmit. Initially, I'd like to know A) if I'm on the right track with the changes I've made, and B)why I keep getting "Check date values" messages on some but not all the 'Retrieved on' dates in my reference list. Further, this is not only information the general public needs to have access to, but is certainly relevant due to 2016 being a Presidential election year. I certainly understand the rules governing article creation/submission, and I'd like to follow those rules closely. I appreciate any assistance you can provide. Many thanks!CityGirl2 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CityGirl2. There are still three external links ([1], [2] and [3]) embedded in the body of the article. They need to be removed, moved to an external links section at the bottom, or converted into references, as the case may be. The date formatting errors show up at the end of the reference, after the retrieved date, but if you examine them closely you'll see they're referring to the date parameter, not the access-date parameter. The problem is that dates with leading zeros like "06 February 2015" are invalid. Instead use "6 February 2015". And don't abbreviate March. After fixing the aforementioned, I recommend you resubmit the draft, but continue to improve it while waiting for the next review. There are a number of Manual of Style problems, such as the absence of a lead and the placement of references relative to punctuation, that need fixing but may not prevent acceptance. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:45:34, 23 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sujatasinghofficial


Sujatasinghofficial (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has two main related problems. First, it doesn't have any references, and so it doesn't make any claim of notability, that is, in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Not everyone is notable anyway. Second, your draft is an autobiography, and the submission of autobiographies, while not forbidden, is discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:54, 23 June 2016 review of submission by 1.186.248.175

1.186.248.175 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question? You haven't submitted a draft, at least not from this IP address. Your only other edit from this IP address was an inappropriate edit that has been reverted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:54:22, 23 June 2016 review of draft by KKirby55


Hi - I'm composing a page on a novel transdermal delivery modality - I have a picture illustration or two I'd like to add. How do I do that?

KKirby55 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KKirby55: The presence or absence of an illustration will have no effect on whether or not the draft is accepted, so it's often best to postpone adding images until the draft is accepted. Whether a particular image may be used at all depends on its copyright status. Adding an allowable image is a two step process: first upload it, then use it in on a page.
Go to Commons:First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes Wikipedia:File names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, there is a dedicated help desk for image uploading.
Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial can guide you through how to use it in an article. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

00:04:56, 24 June 2016 review of submission by Dowhatyoulove19

Hi LaMona / Wiki friends, thanks for reviewing my article. I have reference several notable Australian Music Industry publications here, I may not have done them properly? Can you help. I can include more of the same. David Roy Williams is similar to the pages Michael Gudinski and Chugg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Roy_Williams This person is notable in the Australian Music Industry, specifically in the years of Shock Records. He was the Co-chairman of our Aria Music Awards, the Australian equivalent to the Grammy's. I can try accessing a library to get references to printed media from the 80s, 90s early 00's.

Thank you in advance!

Dowhatyoulove19 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:35, 24 June 2016 review of submission by Scomma



Hi, I have tried to revise the article that I made about Page365, but still stuck in notability and what I have is the materials from news articles that mentioned about them, will it be fine to use them or what kind of soure that I can use to increase the notability?

Request on 14:17:10, 24 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Justin Jaron Lewis

I do not understand why this article has been turned down again.

Also, I see that other hands have been involved in editing it without consulting me. If these edits had been helpful in getting the article accepted I would be glad, but since they have not led to acceptance and have deleted material I thought was important, I don't understand why they were done.

The rejection has the same wording as was used before the last many edits. In those edits, however, I tried to address each of these concerns.

"Reads like an advertisement" -- this comment was made on an earlier draft in which I had included several quotations in praise of Buxbaum and his work. I deleted those quotations from the submitted draft. For example, rather than quote the high praise given to Buxbaum's book in several reveiws, I have simply mentioned that there are reviews and provided references to them. I don't see anything in the current draft which is not a statement of fact. -- Also, could the reviewer not edit out anything that "reads like an advertisement"?

"Reliable, independent sources": I have added a bibliography of Buxbaum's books, most of them from well-established publishers. The source references include reviews devoted to Buxbaum's work in several well-regarded journals, as well as passages in printed books recognizing his importance. Buxbaum's own website is included only in the "External Links" section, and interviews with Buxbaum are included for some details of his personal story.

"Notability" -- First of all, someone has deleted the sections I added about venues where Buxbaum has taught and told stories, and websites of or articles about some of his ordinees. These were intended to further establish his notability and I do not know why they have been deleted.

Otherwise, I cannot understand how an author of several significant books, storyteller recognized by the most important people in the storytelling world, and teacher of accomplished students, is not "notable." As was mentioned in a previous discussion, this is also a man at the end of his career. It is not as if I am trying to promote some up-and-coming young author whose worth has yet to be established.

Please reconsider this article for acceptance. Could it perhaps be reviewed by someone who is familiar with the world of Jewish spirituality or the storytelling revival?

With thanks. Justin Jaron Lewis (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

13:32:42, 25 June 2016 review of submission by Raffyross


I submitted the article "Ronald J. Ross". The editors are inferring I may have a close connection to the subject of the article. I have attested that I do not have a relationship did not receive any compensation for the creation of the article. How can I resolve this successfully and have this claim of COI removed from the article?

Raffyross (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:44:49, 25 June 2016 review of submission by 71.245.13.13


71.245.13.13 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

Request on 08:46:04, 26 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Micko.west

Hi, I am unclear as to what this comment means ' Remove all in-line http links - not allowed.', left by the reviewer. My submission has been rejected because of lack of reliable & verifiable sources. I thought that the way to do this was by citing references through htttp links. If all these have to be removed, please inform me as to how external sources are to be cited. Also, I have lots of reliable and reputable sources that are pre internet, is it possible to scan these documents and include them with my submission. Finally, is there a conflict of interest with the page being submitted by myself about my music/acting career?

Many thanks

micko westmoreland


Micko.west (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=727049433"