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 Moonbouncer54 (talk | contribs) at 08:08, 28 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
Dec 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


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]
Hello, [User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]], I don't think I need to explain my situation in Russian, because I'm Russian and American artist, and I'm living in US since 1977. I created the info about our art schools and groups in Leningrad section (see Unofficial art in Russia) about artists of 60-70th, and the scholars asked me to include the info about myself, so people, who is reading the input, know that the article was written by the real person, who is not "dead" yet. And I feel it is my responsibility to include the artists of that time, and many of them are not alive. Therefore I created the Article, not as the bio, but as info of that time. In Russia, I was the artist, earned MA degree in Art, participated in the exhibitions, which were restricted by government to participate, and worked in the Lenfilm film studio. Here is US, I graduated DePaul Univ, Chicago, and earned MS degree in Computer Science, worked as the computer scientist and system analyst, and having 5 patents. In parallel I do art work, book illustrations, wrote 3 children books, and partic. in many liter. journals. The article already was in wiki, but was put back as the Draft. The notability was approved before by Tea house, but still question was raised, if I have my work in Museums, why there is no references to that? Where you can find the record about the museums collections in Russia? I have the official letters from 5 Museums where they accepted my art work into their collection, but you don't accept the emails. So how I can prove you? In another artists of my time (see, for example, A. Rapoport, or any Leningrad groups in Russia), the articles have only the names of the museums, but not references about that artist's work in their collection. Because, the Internet is only in the beginning stage, they don't have the webs with the names of the artists. So, how I can prove it, if in another artists article, no provided references were included? I have for the info the Sandbox, where I included the museums, who have my art work, and another material, articles, which could prove the notability. I need just editor(s) who is willing to look into Draft and Sandbox info, and would combine the info from Sandbox to the Draft with the good English, and submit again the Draft. And I'm opened for any question you might have. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 01:59, 22 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]

@Megrumpy: For general background on the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. 360cities.net is on the Wikimedia-wide blacklist m:Spam blacklist. The best explanation of why is in these four log entries:
--Worldbruce (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

16:33:30, 22 October 2016 review of submission by 108.34.250.11

The article on J Barry Grenga has been submitted for review by experienced editors. If he has a biography on IMDB he has enough notability to be on Wikipedia. The individual is clearly notable by wiki standards of people notable for one event and whos' contribution was large and considerable to an event . At a minimum his article and info should be merged with Florida State University College of Motion Picture Arts though the preference is a stand alone article. In short his efforts gave Florida State University College of Motion Picture Arts and their reputation a large and significant boost, by giving them their first Academy Award, and their first combo Academy Award and Emmy Award. This event at this film school could occur only once, and is a significant and memorable event in the film schools history; contributed significantly and largely to their reputation and standing in the eyes of prospective students and the Hollywood community. The article was posted a few ago and some editors in our opinion rushed to judgement on the issue of notability. We suggest that people are notable for single events and in specific categories such as professors who do not have mass media coverage and general notoriety. I think there is confusion among editors about the difference between notability and notoriety the state of being famous . J Barry Grenga is similar to a professor whom in an academic arena contributes to a universities reputation and in doing so is , notable aka as professor would be. See random example Judith Green or even the even less notable Judith Green. Adding to the above the article is well written and also one previous comment summed up his contribution "at the screening of the MFA films the faculty knew they had a big winner on their hands with Slow Dancin', they knew who, was responsible for what, that's why they made J Barry Grenga valedictorian and not the films director". 108.34.250.11 (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. The backlog for reviews is very large and your review might take several weeks to be done. However, before posting here I took a quick look at your submission and found that it is probably not ready for publication. For one thing, the submission requires a good deal of copy editing, noticeably so for its overuse of capitalisation and the use of an ampersand in place of the word "and". Also, your references could be formatted so as to give a more professional appearance (and the {{citeweb}} template will be helpful for doing this). Moving on to more substantive matters, much of the submission is being sourced to the IMDB site, which (being user-generated) is not accepted as a reliable source here on Wikipedia. I also noted that one of the paragraphs tells the reader what the subject has said about two other individuals, but the sources given in that paragraph do not appear to back up the claims being made there. Of greatest importance, though, is the question of whether the subject has demonstrated "notability" in the sense that Wikipedia uses that word. I didn't see anything in the way of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is an essential element for publishing a biography of a person here on Wikipedia. I encourage you to address all of these matters in the weeks between now and when your submission will be reviewed. I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say an IMDB profile proves Wikipedia notability, especially considering most of your article is sourced by IMDB and is not reliable, as mentioned by NewYorkActuary above. Also mentioned above was copy editing, to edit an article to make it more biographical and with a neutral point of view. Please use the articles I have linked to improve your submission. Thank you, and happy editing. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

08:02:28, 23 October 2016 review of submission by Badol1234

I want to publish for public who use wikipedia for look biography. My article is under draft. i don.t know how to publish it. please help me to publish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SABNAM_PERVIN(ACTRESS)

Badol1234 (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Badol1234 - You have not submitted the draft mentioned above. You have submitted Sabnam Pervin(Actress) into article space, and other articles into article space. However, both the article and the draft have two problems. First, they do not have adequate references to reliable sources. Read the notability policy and the verifiability policy, and referencing for beginners. Second, the article has too many redlinks, links when the articles on the people do not exist. Either the brackets can be taken out, or, if articles exist on the people but the names are misspelled, the spelling can be corrected. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

01:20:17, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Gordonap


I came here to ask why my article "first interracial kiss in film" was rejected when an equally subjective article "first interracial kiss in tv" exists on wikipedia. It seems to me that these are of equal importance and objectivity.

I assume that the editors will not accept my article or my request for reconsideration and that is fine. Judge Lacombe, a minor historical judge and an entry that I edited, is significant, but the first interracial kiss in film is not. Go figure. However, even if you do not determine that this subject is as significant or objective as much of the entries on wikipedia ... please do something about this Articles for Creation HelpDesk! It is, to someone with a PhD in history but limited understanding of computing, largely incomprehensible.

I cannot work out at all if I have correctly completed this request for information. The instructions are very confusing. My white boxes were not empty, so I skipped to 2. "Please follow the instructions in the box." Which box? There are lots of boxes here and I can't see any instructions, except for 3. "Save changes." So I will do that. [Follow up: I attempted to edit this entry to specify the draft, but cannot work out how to do that!]

I know that wikipedia is attempting to address the gender gap and gain more contributors from academia who may be used to publishing their work in traditional encyclopedias, but this page does not seem to encourage that engagement. Thanks for all the excellent work that you do.Gordonap (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gordonap (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take the declination personally. It was merely that your submission is poorly sourced. Wikipedia requires a large range of reliable sources to an article. Also, after reading through the lead paragraph of your submission, it appears that your submission may be lacking a neutral point of view. Feel free to resubmit your submission for review after improving it. Happy editing! JTP (talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:01:15, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Vegahm

Vegahm (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, my article was declined because it needed "inline citations" Please clarify where you think this is needed.

Hello, Vegahm. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. You didn't specify the submission in question, but I assume you mean Draft:Anthony Hall-Martin. In any of our articles, we expect the author to tell the readers exactly where the information came from. In your submission, you haven't done this. Instead, you've simply included a general list of references at the end of the submission, with no indication of which statements are being supported by which reference and where in the reference (i.e., page number) one might find that support. An introduction to in-line referencing appears at WP:REFB, which is a guide on how to include footnote references. I also see that you included links to a commercial bookseller inside the text of the submission. If you need to identify a publication, it is better to do so using the {{cite book}} template in conjunction with a footnote. I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:00, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Moviescoop


Hello, Thanks for your time. I removed the more promotional part about what kind of movies MovieScoop Cinemas shows and the chain's support for local organizations and charities. I just kept to the basic facts about the cinema chain. Thanks again. I am a novice at this! Moviescoop (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moviescoop. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I presume that you are asking whether, in its current form, the submission meets the various guidelines for articles on Wikipedia. I think it does not. Although it is good to have removed the more promotional aspects, the submission is still conspicuously lacking any evidence that this chain of movie theaters has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the chain. The only reference that appears in your submission is a routine "press release" type of article that informs the readers that some of the movie rooms now have new types of chairs. This falls far short of our notion of "in depth" or "significant" coverage of the subject. Because there is a very large backlog of submissions, it likely will be a few weeks before your submission is reviewed again. In the meantime, I encourage you to seek out references (and add them to the submission) that will demonstrate the appropriateness of having an article on this subject. In doing this, you might find the guideline WP:Notability to be useful. On a different matter, I noticed that your user name is identical to the name of the subject of your submission. If you haven't done so already, you might want to read our guidelines at WP:Conflict of Interest. I hope all of this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Moviescoop: To expand on what NewYorkActuary wrote, the notability criteria for companies explain that "attention solely from local media ... is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." This is one reason that very very few local businesses merit an encyclopedia article about them. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:56, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Tatateja

Tata Teja 19:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatateja (talk • contribs)

The draft in question is probably Draft:SundayKart. It was declined on the grounds that it reads like an advertisement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

10:32:52, 25 October 2016 review of submission by PaulTapper

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi,

I have proposed an Article For Creation, which has been rejected. I do have a COI for the article, but I have tried my best to make the article neutral and informative. I have relied heavily on external independent published sources in my references.

Please could anyone advise me on how to improve the article to make it publishable?

Thanks

PaulTapper (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I agree that your submission is neutral and informative. However, I don't think you've succeeded in making it "encyclopedic". As it stands, the submission essentially tells the reader only that the company exists and that it sells certain products, with references that go almost entirely to reviews of those products. To my eyes, the submission is little more than a stripped-down version of what might appear on a web site dedicated to selling the products. In order to meet Wikipedia's notion of "notability", you'll need to demonstrate that the company (and not just its products) have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company (see WP:Notability for more detail). In its current form, the submission simply does not come close to making that demonstration. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:59:28, 25 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Oldonlooker

Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you very much for your quick reply. I need your assitance because I am a very inexperienced user. I wanted to make an English version of the article in the Russian part of Wikipedia. But you wrote that I am supposed to make some footnotes. I read the explanation about footnotes BUT being inexperienced I did not understand most of what I had read. I am an elderly person and think it is already too late for me to learn hi tech things. Besides, I am not a native speaker. I did the following when I placed the article about A. Pakhotin. I looked at some other articles and saw that a reference is made by adding before the subject of the reference and after it. That is actually all I understood. I do not know how to make other things (I would rather say ALL the other things). So, if some kind soul helped me in creating all those footnotes I would be realy thankful. If someone showed me, for example, how to place pictures into the article (I have a few pictures of Pakhotin), I'd be also vwry grateful. Actually, almost all the material in the article can be referred to different relible sources. The problem is that I know only [[]] and nothing else.

Thank you again for very helpful hints and tips (unfortunately not for a person like myself). And thanks in advance to those who will risk to help such a prehistoric user like me.

Oldonlooker (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oldonlooker (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oldonlooker. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Before posting here, I took a look at your submission and saw (as did the reviewer) that the lack of footnotes is not the only issue. You have also listed an inordinate number of publications in what appears to be an attempt to list every text that the subject has ever translated. On top of that, I see the more basic issue of whether this subject is even "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. The listing of those publications obscures the fact that there doesn't appear to be any substantive discussion of the subject himself in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As to your specific questions regarding assistance in creating the footnotes and adding images, I think it very unlikely that you will recruit any volunteers here (we all have our own content work in addition to our volunteer duties). But you might have better luck asking for help from WikiProjects that are specific to the subject matter. In particular, you might consider asking for assistance on the talk pages of WP:WikiProject Russia and WP:WikiProject Translation Studies. I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:42, 25 October 2016 review of submission by 216.165.95.3


I have a page in "draft:" awaiting editor(s) to move it to the Mainspace. But it has been over a month since I placed it there. At some point should I move it to the main space myself by removing the "draft:" prefix from the title? 216.165.95.3 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

216.165.95.3 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, the review process is currently extremely backlogged. I realize that waiting for review can be frustrating. Second, in general, I will point out that the disadvantage to moving a draft from draft space into article space is that it is subject to any of the various deletion processes, all of which are more unpleasant than waiting for review or even than being declined. However, third, in this case the draft does appear to be one that is likely to be accepted. Either just wait a little while or move it to article space and take your chances, because it doesn't appear to be a candidate for deletion. Fourth, please try to remember to log in when editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

12:59:21, 26 October 2016 review of draft by Enginegroup


This is your only edit. JTP (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

06:55:02, 27 October 2016 review of submission by Foursy

Foursy (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC) My areticle was not accepted. It said I have to edit the article and then resubmit it again. I really need help about what do my article need to improve? Is there anything wrong? So please help me. Thank you Foursy (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Foursy. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I took a look at your submission and noticed that the sole reference was a brief description of the market at a hotel-booking web site. This is likely not enough to establish the market as "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. Rather than having a separate article, this brief amount of information might be better placed as a short sentence in the Markets section of the article on Chatuchak District. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:15:35, 27 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Batushka2

My articles have been refused. First refused because there was no Artist page, so I created one, then refused because the links were not considered independent. As the links included an independent reference site and also national newspapers (one being The Independent newspaper) and from credible professional journalists; I cannot say I understand. Can anybody help me?

Batushka2 (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Batushka2. User:Batushka2/sandbox, a draft biography of Marek Rymaszewski, contains six sources:
The user-space draft doesn't refer to The Independent or to any newspaper, national or otherwise. Searching www.independent.co.uk for "Rymaszewski" resulted in one match, [1]. It credits Rymaszewski, along with "a flock of additional contributors", with making a musical, but says nothing more about him.
Wikipedia is for summarizing information about topics of which the world at large has already taken significant notice, as evidenced by in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject and of each other. You may be grossly underestimating how difficult it is to clear this bar of notability, how difficult it is to prove the significant and demonstrable effects that would justify the subject's inclusion. Based on these sources the subject does not appear to be a suitable topic for a stand alone encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:15:57, 27 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Diamend

First of all, thanks for your help. I am quite new to wikipedia so had no expectation of a first submission being accepted and definitely need help. I am trying to put together a page about my great grandfather, A.J.Coles. I have one published source,(Jan Stewer by Douglas Cock,  Moonraker Press) family stories, pictures, some books he wrote, his second favourite typewriter, and am just applying to Devon Archives in order to look at some material my aunt gave to them to preserve.

I have no idea how to source the article except to put the book reference, but I should have more material such as his own notes or letters once i gAve hear back fromantic Devon Archives. Unfortunately a fire destroyed a lot of his earlier originals and his favourite typewriter, so there is not as much as could be expected.

Probably too much information but any advice would be helpful.

Diamend Diamend (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diamend. Being a descendant of Albert John Coles creates a conflict of interest when you write about him. If you decide to write about him anyway, be sure to follow the instructions on your talk page about how to disclose the conflict.
A book-length biography is an excellent start to gathering sources. A single source is never enough, so I've added a "further reading" section to the draft containing several local newspaper articles that could be mined for content. Ideally you also would be able to find scholarly sources. Have any academics studied his work? A research university library may be able to help with access to databases and advice. His personal papers will no doubt be interesting to you, and may suggest places to search or search terms to use, but will be of limited direct use when writing for Wikipedia because they are unpublished, primary sources, and not independent. The bulk of any Wikipedia article should be based on published, independent, reliable, secondary sources.
When citing the book, be sure to specify page numbers. To make it easier to verify, I urge you to use inline citations throughout, at least at the end of every paragraph. I also recommend that you employ some form of shortened footnotes to avoid repetition. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:49:34, 27 October 2016 review of submission by Alynetam

When one googles Michael Christopher Brown, a photographer at the legendary Magnum Photos agency, the first ten pages of links feature just this photojournalist. That is, he is a photojournalist who spends his time researching and reporting on stories around the world for international publications. [Repeatedly working with and shooting for Vanity Fair, Vogue, The New York Times, TIME Magazine, Nationgal Geographic, Magnum Photos, and many more.] He is not say a fine art photographer motivated towards activities that might facilitate his works being acquired in a permanent museum, a different genre and world within photography, which seems is the main reason why this page was not accepted. His notability therefore cannot be judged as an art photographer, for photojournalists one builds credibility with publications not permanent collections.

Here are some of the publications about Michael and featuring his work as reference.

The NYT Magazine – The I.C.C. The NYT Magazine – The Deported Vogue – Reggae Revival The NYT Magazine – Jane Goodall Is Still Wild at Heart The NYT Magazine – Why Not Us Women? The NYT Magazine – Next Year in Havana The NYT Magazine – On the African Front The New Republic – Central African Republic The NYT Magazine – Jeffrey Wright’s Gold Mine T Magazine – Alexander Payne The New Republic – Cairo Le Journal de la Photographie – Airport Smithsonian – Airport KYUR8 – F.A.R.D.C. Newsweek – Inside M23 Time – Hurricane Sandy Time – An iPhone in Congo FOAM Magazine – Libya Burn – Libya, China & Russia National Geographic Magazine – Young, Angry, and Wired Time – The War in Libya Wired – Jamming Tripoli Smithsonian – Women during Libya’s Revolution The Atlantic – Mr. Zhang Portfolio – Thirsty Land National Geographic Magazine – The MK The Atlantic – Made in China Time – Rome National Geographic Magazine – Redwoods Time – Cory Booker NPR – Sakhalin Smithsonian – Kashgar Time – Ordos Time – China’s High-Speed Rail National Geographic Magazine – Circling Alaska Lens Culture – Kabul Newsweek – China’s Red Restaurants Like Father, Like Son War of Images Pari Dukovic Interview Victor Cobo Interview Vice – Libyan Sugar Photo-eye – Libyan Sugar American Photo – Libyan Sugar Alyne Tamir – Interview CNN – Libyan Sugar ABC – Libyan Sugar Medium Washington Post – Libyan Sugar Photograph Magazine – Libyan Sugar The New Yorker – Witness: Libya HBO – Witness: Libya Der Tagesspiegel – Libya Foto.no – Sidi Bilal Spiegel – Libya Vice National Geographic – Congo Russia Today – Sakhalin Mac-On-Campus – Libya The Photo Brigade Digital Photo Pro Voices of Photography Jetset Magazine National Geographic Italy Alessia Glaviano Blog Left Field Project We Are Juxt Instagramers Italia Goblin Magazine


October 28

02:59:38, 28 October 2016 review of submission by Ckenyon21


Our nonprofit has been around for nearly 75 years but doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Oddly, our High School does have a page. I'm trying to build a page but I've been rejected three times. I tried to reference other existing sources but we are the largest source about our history.

I'm happy to just delete all the content and have a basically empty page.... I'm not sure what to include.

Please advise what to eliminate and what to leave.

08:08:54, 28 October 2016 review of submission by Moonbouncer54

Hi, I have used " gallery mode=packed heights=200px style="text-align:center" " and the images were centred within the page width. But for some reason they have now become left-aligned. Could you tell me how to correct this please Thanks

Moonbouncer54 (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=746582010"