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 Megrumpy (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 21 October 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
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


October 15

02:15:15, 15 October 2016 review of submission by Chen xiaojing


Chen xiaojing (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is blank. You submitted it, and it was declined, and you resubmitted it anyway. Please do not waste our time with blank submissions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06:32:02, 15 October 2016 review of submission by 217.210.31.244

The Family Home Entertainment article has been redirected to Artisan Entertainment, so I'm trying to revive the article with more sources. Can someone help out with this please? 217.210.31.244 (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect to Artisan Entertainment was done pursuant to a decision made at Articles for Deletion last month. And all you've done here is recreate that old article, and then add some bare URL's at the end. You might consider requesting a WP:Deletion Review of last month's decision, but I don't see much chance of getting that decision overturned. You'll likely have better luck by going to the Talk page at Talk:Artisan Entertainment and starting a discussion there about merging some of the information from the old article into the Artisan article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What that draft needs is not more sources, it's better sources. It currently has over 80 sources, most (maybe all?) of them worthless. A link to the result of a Google search is never an acceptable source. Maproom (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added more source links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Family_Home_Entertainment#More_references So can you please use the more reliable ones to add new information? 187.113.203.102 (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you can find more reliable sources rather than expecting volunteers here to do a job for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:13, 15 October 2016 review of submission by 217.210.31.244

Does this revival of the TVPaint article look good now? 217.210.31.244 (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. It cites no sources. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added source links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TVPaint#References Can you please use them along with http://wiki.tvpaint.com/index.php?title=TVPaint to write more information on the pagge? 187.113.203.102 (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am a volunteer here, and I have better ways to use my time. How about you do it yourself? This response also applies to the preceding item on this page. Maproom (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do it myself, it takes up a lot of time. Why don't you do all the rewriting similar to (and not copied directly from) the TVPaintWiki article and using the sources I put? 85.196.227.118 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because you would have to pay us more than you are paying us now. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:17, 15 October 2016 review of submission by Kahorere


Kahorere (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:42, 15 October 2016 review of submission by Renata.sarno

Hi, my name is Renata Sarno, I wrote an article about a disease, Blue Cone Monochromacy, BCM. I tried to follow all the instructions about references, external links, sources and many people affected by Blue Cone Monochromacy read the article and find it very useful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blue_Cone_Monochromacy

I tried several times to submit it and, as there is a page named 'Monochromacy', there is not the possibility to submit a page about BCM. 'Monochromacy' is not the name of a disease, it could be in some patients just one between several symptoms that BCM people show.

I was wondering why a human disease (OMIM 303700) cannot have a wikipedia page !?

Renata SarnoRenata.sarno (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renata.sarno (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there has been extended discussion about this on the Talk page Talk:Monochromacy#Blue Cone Monochromatism. Whether or not this particular form of monochromacy should have a separate article will be best decided at that venue. You might consider starting a Request for Comments there. For information about such Requests, please see WP:RFC. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:09, 15 October 2016 review of submission by 2A02:C7D:CA94:B500:31B4:90F2:5D65:1C35

I would like to know why my article was declined. 2A02:C7D:CA94:B500:31B4:90F2:5D65:1C35 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to specify the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must have been using a different IP address when you submitted the draft. The shifting of IP addresses, which results in not having a stable edit history, is an advantage to creating an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:17:36, 15 October 2016 review of submission by Gencler2015

Hi Gencler2015 please see the Referencing for beginners guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

Request on 16:59:06, 16 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by ShayaRonnie

Hello person who reads this, I have created a draft of the fannon character Elyza Lex and submitted it to a review. Shortly after, I've received a response from MatthewVanitas stating that the article has not been accepted due to the fact that the "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." I would like to ask for your assistance in that matter. Elyza Lex is a character created by a fandom called the Clexa Fandom, who ship the characters Clarke Griffin and Commander Lexa from the tv show CW The 100. I have attached and cited several sources that confirm the actual existence of Elyza Lex as seen and portraited entirly by the Clexa fandom and other people who participated in the creation of her. There are Twitter pages, Instagram pages, Facebook profiles, Tumblr accounts and credible articles that support my claim that this character exists. Even so, the article about her has not been accepted by one MatthewVanitas.

Can anyone help me find the proper verifiable information "so that there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia"? For more information, please reply to this message and I will answer promptly. Thank you for responding in advance, and may you have a pleasant day.

ShayaRonnie (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a planet of billions of people, there are lots of things that exist but come nowhere near meeting our standards of notability. Fannon characters are a prime example of that category. This article is better suited for a CW The 100 wiki, but comes nowhere being suitable for a global general information encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shaya. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Although I was not the reviewer of your submission, I do agree with their assessment. Most of the sources were blogs that do not meet our standards for "reliable sources" (see WP:RS). And that leads me to agree with Orangemike's assessment -- that it is unlikely this fan-created character will ever be demonstrated to have the enduring notability that we expect for the articles. But one of your sources, the one from the Huffington Post, does appear to be useful. I encourage you to see whether any of the material in that source can find a home in the article on Lexa (The 100). You might consider opening up a discussion about it on the talk page for that article, which is here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

14:37:22, 17 October 2016 review of submission by PotatoMasta

I submitted an article that appears to be a joke or a hoax, but is not. It is about an object that is very famous in itself, and while the object in itself is and was originally a joke, the article about it was not a joke. The object in question is a bathtoy that is well known (probably about 1,200 people) in the schools mentioned and the surrounding towns thereof, and is very much shrouded in myth. I want to create a Wikipedia article that can assist in removing these myths and give a little bit of simple history about this "mascot" of a sort. The article I created was submitted once, rejected, then fixed to remove many of the personal remarks made by the individual who created this joke (the alleged primary caretaker) and insisted that this toy be given a personality of his own in creation of this article. Again I submitted, but was rejected for the same reason: it being a joke. I would like to know if there is any way I can remove the hoax/joke status on this article and get it submitted as it was originally meant to be? I do not want to corrupt Wikipedia with stupid jokes, and I understand the reason why individuals aren't allowed to make articles about themselves or their friends, but The Hippo is a famous object in itself and is probably more well known than the "Primary Caretaker" himself. How can I make this article be serious even though it is about a popular joke?

PS: And also, there are other popular jokes with articles about them in Wikipedia. Nutopia, for example, is one of those, but there are many more. How is this joke any different?

PPS: I am not angry about this, just rather disappointed. Please do not take this as a hate message.

This article, to me, looks to be a joke. Should it not be a joke, it lacks notability and references, which are other reasons for declination should you decide to resubmit. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the two reviewers who declined it, I am willing to believe the author that the article is not a joke but is about a joke that has the status of local legend among a community of about one thousand teenagers, just as the author says. However, there is nothing unusual or notable about local legends that are passed on among communities of teenagers, or, for that matter, among communities of adults. As the previous poster said, it lacks references and notability. Just because something isn't in the list of things that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not] doesn't mean that something belongs in Wikipedia; the list of what Wikipedia is not is incomplete. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would a yearbook count as an accurate source if I were to try to establish it as a more accurate article? PotatoMasta

I personally don't know whether I would accept the yearbook as a reliable source. I wouldn't accept it as a sufficient source for establishing the notability of the subject. (That is, the yearbook may be reliably true but irrelevant.) There is nothing unusual or notable about local legends that are passed among communities. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know that high school yearbooks have been used as reliable sources for documenting the high school attended by persons who are biographically notable for some unrelated reason. That isn't the same as establishing notability. I wouldn't trust a high school yearbook as a reliable source for establishing trivia about a notable person. While the faculty advisor, who is a professional, will verify that the person is a member of the senior class and will ensure that the yearbook is free of libel (serious BLP violations), she will not necessarily verify the truth of every trivial fact stated in the yearbook. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if what you want to do is to document the legend about the Hippo, who is said to be an intelligent being, et cetera, you really need an urban folklorist, who might be interested in this as representing a class of urban folklore, rather than Wikipedia. The story is interesting only as illustrating a class of folklore, not as being unusual enough for Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PotatoMasta The fundamental problem here is that there don't seem to be any truly Independent sources. Do we have an article about the school? Perhaps you should start from that end, research the school's history, find a few good sources, and then you can include a section about the Hippo. You could also ask the topic specialists at WikiProject Popular Culture for advice and assistance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two schools mentioned here. One does not have an article (it was established only two years ago), but the other does. Do you want me to first create the article for the one that does not, and edit the other to include a section about The Hippo? Both schools had a huge impact on The Hippo's evolution, but the one that has an article does not include The Hippo in the page.

Thank you very much for your concern in getting this accurately published somewhere (even if not Wikipedia), it is highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotatoMasta (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this article, I do not understand how the administrators at Wikipedia will not accept it. To me it seems that this user PotatoMasta is being unfairly treated for writing an article about something that, based on the wording of the article, is very passionate about. There are articles elsewhere on Wikipedia that have been an actual hoax, but they have been published and not this article. And all this other garbage is just that, garbage. Also why does an article of this nature (a nature of folklore) have to be cited. This article will never be used by a person as a citation, and anyway Wikipedia is not a reliable source anyway. If you have ever noticed (and I'm sure that since you are an administrator of Wikipedia that you are extremely biased toward Wikipedia) but no person ever uses Wikipedia as a source because Wikipedia is seen as an incredibly unreliable source. So by this reasoning, Wikipedia should not require that every article have to require articles, especially those that are folklore, to have a great multitudes of sources from sites that are actually reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjones12735 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:09, 17 October 2016 review of draft by Toreeva

Hello, The problem could be complicated but I need help with the article. The article itself was already on Wikipedia, but the person followed me and each time trying to delete it. I did complained, and instead to resolve the problem with that person, my article was put into Draft category and I was not permitted to do the editing the Draft. Instead, someone recommended me to use the Sandbox, where I would add the material which someone could use for the Draft. And I did created the Sandbox with addition sources which could be used for the Draft. My question is: do you have someone who knows the Russian lang. and the Russian art of 60-70s, because the article is related to the art of that time, and some of the references are in Russian. And another question is: do you have also editors who is NOT bias, and who is willing to look into Draft and Sandbox and to help to improve the article with the good faith, and to submit the Draft for review? I'm opened for any question that person(s) might have. Thank you in advance.Toreeva (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Toreeva (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely understand what the author is saying, because of the quality of the English. I agree that she might be better able to explain what the situation is in Russian to someone who is fluent in Russian. I understand that censorship of the arts in totalitarian including communist countries may make verifiability complicated. The conflict of interest guideline and the autobiographical guideline still apply, and we are likely to be more willing to correct any errors in a biography of a living person than to assist a living person in writing their own biography. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

Request on 07:45:20, 18 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Drjijopaul

Drjijopaul (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drjijopaul: There was no need to duplicate your submission here on this Help page, so I took the liberty of removing it. The submission from your Sandbox has been declined, both for failing to demonstrate notability and for failing to provide any references from reliable sources (or, indeed, from any sources whatsoever). If you wish to resubmit, you might want to first read our introduction to referencing, which can be found at WP:REFB. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:59:53, 18 October 2016 review of submission by Wpmarina

Wpmarina (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Hello! I submitted an article as draft and it was not approved. I would like to know the reason. I am knew at wikipedia and I wish to learn from my experience and mistakes. Thank you.[reply]

Hello, Wpmarina. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. The person who can best answer that question is the reviewer who looked at your submission. You'll find the reviewer's name and talk-page button at the top of your submission. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is Draft:Chilitos Valenzuela. It was declined as not supported by reliable sources. You did not provide any references. Also, it has tone issues. It is not written in the formal neutral tone that is expected in Wikipedia; parts of it have a breezy informal tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

09:04:46, 19 October 2016 review of submission by SurreyMorph

I have this comment about my draft: "Provide reliable sources for his biography, including for his membership in learned societies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)". How do i provide sources for membership of say British Academy? His University website is given which states he is a member of these societies so is that not enough verification ie if the University is satisfied that he is in these societies, shouldn't Wikipedia be happy too? I based his draft on various other linguists in the same field and Geoffrey Pullum is also a fellow of the British academy but I can't see how his page has provided sources for membership more than the draft for Corbett has done. Please advise what you are requiring as i am at a loss! SurreyMorph (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That draft has 14 references, but they are all written by the subject or by his employer. What is needed to establish his notability is significant discussion of him in reliable independent published sources. Maproom (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maproom's comment about notability applies to most articles. One reason Wikipedia has special notability criteria for academics is that in-depth independent sources about academics are often scarce. With 6,500+ citations, Corbett convincingly satisfies criterion #1. As a fellow of the British Academy, he satisfies #3. And holding a distinguished professorship at University of Surrey satisfies #5. So don't worry too much about notability; that isn't why the draft was declined. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SurreyMorph: One way to reference being a fellow of the British Academy would be to cite: "Professor Greville Corbett". British Academy. Retrieved 19 October 2016. There is an important distinction between references and external links. When you include his university website in the "External links" section, you are telling the reader that they can look there to see his perspective on himself. When you include it only there, you are saying that none of the content of the article came from his university website. Anywhere you wish to use it as a reference, cite it using ref tags as you have cited other sources in the draft.
The pitfall in patterning a new article after an existing one is that Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. The article Geoffrey K. Pullum is only one step above absolute crap. Arguing that Wikipedia contains rotten articles, so we should add another rotten article, will not convince experienced editors. If you wish to learn from examples, study Wikipedia's featured and good articles, such as: Samuel Johnson, Ahmad Hasan Dani, Benjamin Lee Whorf, and Steven Pinker.
As you rework the draft, aim to make it understandable to readers who are not experts in the field of linguistics. It may be necessary to replace jargon or add explanatory context. You may find the guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and essay Wikipedia:Writing better articles useful. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:25, 19 October 2016 review of submission by Kate Robins

Kate Robins (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard if anyone reviewed this. Look forward to your feedback. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kate_Robins/First_generation_students

Hello, Kate. Welcome back to Wikipedia. I see no evidence that the draft was ever submitted to Articles to Creation for review. Is that what you would like to do now? NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:07, 19 October 2016 review of submission by Neuroquest

I want to know if my recent edits to the Chris Elizabeth Gilbert article got to you. My first submission was rejected, but I'm not sure whether the revision was sent properly

Neuroquest (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neuroquest. Thank you for your submission. It has been received and is currently in the queue for review. Please be aware that there is an extremely large backlog and that the next review will likely not take place for several weeks. Before posting this, I did take a look at your submission and noticed that most of the references are in the form of bare URL's. These should be re-formatted using the {{cite web}} template. I also saw that you did not follow the style guidelines for our articles, particularly with respect to headings (for which see MOS:HEADINGS). More substantively, there are large sections of the article that remain unsourced. I also think that you haven't done a good job of demonstrating the opening claim that the subject has "pioneered innovative medical treatments". I encourage you to address these matters in the weeks between now and when the article does get its next review. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

05:16:31, 20 October 2016 review of submission by Grenouille Älva

My submission was rejected because "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Indigenous feminism instead". I was not intending to create a new article, but to edit the article that MatthewVanitas rightly directs me to. I thought I had submitted it as an edition, not as request for the creation of a new article. My question is then: how can I submit my draft as an edition of an existent article?

Your help will be greatly appreciated,

Grenouille Älva (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grenouille Älva You do not submit edits to existing articles, you just do them directly. Only entirely new articles are reviewed. If you are not sure about your intended edit you are welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:14, 20 October 2016 review of submission by Michael Burgio

Michael Burgio (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an article of my background and experiences on September 13, 2016, it seems as though it has been rejected. I don't understand why, and most of all I don't know how to correct the problem. Any help would be greatly appreciated

Hello, Michael. The person who can best answer the question of why your submission was declined is the reviewer who looked at it. You'll find the reviewer's name and talk-page button at the top of your submission. I did take a quick look at your submission, and I agree with the reviewer's statement that your submission is not in an appropriate format. For an example of an appropriately-written article on a medical researcher, see the article on Alexander Fleming. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, and thank you so much for your response in the article on Alexander Fleming. I'm trying to analyze the the problem I think is distinctly possible I haven't given the proper title to the article. What I'm trying to illustrate is nothing more or less than a lifetime of experience. with reference to Alexander Fleming's article, he is a researcher I have created and operate a research company. We are a statistical research company that simply evaluates the claims of the manufacture. We are not researchers, we created the methodology to do medical research. I hope this is of some help in resolving my obvious mistakes? Thank you for your time and for your. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Burgio (talk • contribs) 11:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the autobiography guideline and the conflict of interest guideline. Writing an article about yourself is discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:18, 20 October 2016 review of submission by Paprsky

I need assistance for writing the information about the company Paprsky services private limited. Kindly let me know how can I include this article in Wikipedia. I would like to know where the things went wrong. Please help.

Paprsky (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paprsky: Welcome to the Help Desk. As I see it, there are three problems here, the first of which is fixable. The other two are probably not.
  1. Your username is the same as the name of the company about which you are writing. Wikipedia prohibits the use of usernames that unambiguously represent companies, as well as usernames that suggest that the account is shared by multiple people. You must now change your username so that it complies with Wikipedia policy.
  2. Since your username is the same as the company name, it appears that you may have a conflict of interest due to a possible connection with the company. Conflict-of-interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia; the vast majority of people find it incredibly difficult to write neutrally and objectively about a subject with which they are closely connected. This leads to my third point:
  3. Wikipedia isn't an advertising repository or a place to host "get the word out"-style information about newly formed companies. We collectively allow articles on companies that meet the corporate inclusion criteria, which requires that the company have been discussed in significant detail by a variety of reliable sources of information that retain functional independence from the company itself. (On Wikipedia, we call this standard "notability".) To demonstrate that the company meets Wikipedia's "notability" threshold, high-quality coverage in newspapers and other such sources is desirable, but not a mere listing in a corporate database or a link to the company's own website. Put another way, Wikipedia requires proof that the company has been found to be noteworthy by independent sources, not just that the company exists. The draft doesn't include any of the desirable sources, and a quick search online doesn't reveal much of substance. Without these sources, I'm afraid the draft stands no chance of acceptance.
Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:16, 20 October 2016 review of submission by Corecomuk

Corecomuk (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Username missing!
    • No draft specified!
    • Lee Burnett

lee was born in hackney {mothers hospital} by bill burnett and a doreen burnett in 1958 and then lived in tottenham for 10 years he went to school at risley avenue infants and to senior school. in 1970 he moved to hackney, and in 1972 hes sister died in a car accident she was run over {tracey burnett} in 1975 lees mum and dad had a boy name stacy burnett and in 1978 they had a boy name of wesley burnett. but in 1973 lee met lorraine lewis and married her in 1986 where they had 2 boys darren in 1986 and karl in 1989, lee had many jobs but the one he is know for is the security business. he started in security in 2001 when he worked at steeple bay, he was there for about 6 years, then he moved to st osyth holiday park where he was there for about 7 years when a new security company took over and he stay with them about 2 years when he fell out with them and move on to highfields for about 5 months and then lees wife pass away in 2011. he then work at hutleys holiday park for about 4 years and in 2015 he met a lady called shirley with who he is still with. lee has always called him self the working class hero and still got that name today and still works in security game and he is liked and well known in the essex area you can ask anyone in the security game and would have heard of him.

The draft in question is User:Corecomuk/sandbox. There is no need to copy the entire submission into your question. It was declined because it lacked reliable sources and notability. JTP (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the English is also poor. If English is not your first language, have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia in your first language? There are more than 200 Wikipedias in different languages, not only in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Request on 00:33:33, 21 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Abbeydurkin


Hi, My name is Dr. Abbey Durkin and I am writing a wiki entry for Dr. George Everly. He is one of the founding fathers of critical incident stress debriefing, has hundreds of publications, international presentations, presidents of multiple academic and professional associations, editor and chief of journals, and still holds a faculty position with Johns Hopkins. I am truly perplexed that the feedback I have been provided cites "significance" and requests more references. There are almost 60 independent publications included in this entry. I have been going back and forth with the editors for months and need this resolved. Please help me move this very important entry into the public space, As Soon As Possible- Respectfully, Dr. Abbey Durkin Abbeydurkin (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abby. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. The best sources of information as to why your submission was declined are the reviewers who have already looked at it. Their names and talk-page buttons appear at the top of the submission. Before posting here, I took a look at the submission and found that I agree that this article is not ready for publication. There are two overarching problems. The first is that you provide a good deal of information about the subject, without telling the reader where this information came from. Information on Wikipedia must be explicitly referenced to reliable sources, and your submission contains no references whatsoever. The second problem is that you have not demonstrated that the subject is sufficiently "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses that word. Wikipedia makes no independent determination of whether a subject is worthy of notice. Instead, we look to see whether the subject has received significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here, too, your submission fails to provide any evidence. Before re-submitting, you might to take a look at our introductions to the need for, and uses of, sources. These are at WP:RS and WP:REFB. I hope this has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:54:46, 21 October 2016 review of draft by Megrumpy


I have just inserted a link to a website www.360cities.net This has been rejected as being blacklisted. It seems a very reputable long existing site to me. Why is it blocked?

Megrumpy (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=745571616"