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 MinecraftKitty (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 12 January 2017. 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


January 6

00:14:38, 6 January 2017 review of submission by ELP123

I submitted the above page for review and it was declined for not having enough "reliable sources." I used sources like Billboard and The Hollywood Reporter which are extremely reliable and verifiable in the industry. Please let me know what needs to be added or changed for this to be approved. Thanks!

ELP123 (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ELP. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I took a look at your submission and found that it has been declined by a second reviewer as being too promotional. And both of those concerns continue to apply. Most of your submission is simply a listing of clients, which leads to the "promotional" aspect. As for the rest, I found no sources that provided in-depth coverage of the subject. Instead, the sources either gave the subject passing mentions or included quotes from the company's founder. Without in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources, it is unlikely that your submission will be accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

00:25:50, 6 January 2017 review of submission by Ajurisic

Main argument for declination of my Wikipedia article on Jovan Golić: “The submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.”

Questions: Does this mean that the quoted sources are not reliable or that the given reliable sources are not adequately cited? Which given sources are not reliable and why? What is wrong with the rationale given below? What should be improved?

Rationale: In essence, Jovan Golić is being proposed for inclusion in Wikipedia:
(1) for his world-recognized contributions to cryptography, most notably in the area of widely used stream ciphers, which are covered by several articles in Wikipedia and where he is known as a world leading expert, and
(2) for his prominent role as the Action Line Leader for Privacy, Security & Trust in the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), where EIT is already covered by an article in Wikipedia.

Item (1) is formulated by three statements:
“He introduced many cryptanalytic methods for stream ciphers…”,
“He pioneered cryptanalytic attacks on many widely-used stream ciphers…”, and
“He is known for his work on…”.

The statements are supported by:
(i) wikilinks where his work has been referred to (A5/1, RC4, Bluetooth, MUGI, time-memory tradeoff),
(ii) selected publications of Jovan Golić in reputable international peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings,
(iii) two independent peer-reviewed publications referring to his work on RC4,
(iv) citation reports by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar, and
(v) DBLP publications list.

All these sources appear to be independent, objective, verifiable, and hence reliable. More precisely, the used formulations “many cryptanalytic methods” and “pioneering cryptanalytic attacks” are undoubtedly supported by selected peer-reviewed publications in premium-class journals and conference proceedings and citations of these publications. In particular, please note that his prominent publications on stream ciphers A5/1 and RC4 presented at EUROCRYPT 1997 contain first published cryptanalysis of these widely used stream ciphers.

Item (2) is supported by an announcement on the EIT Digital weblink and one external weblink, which are certainly verifiable and thus reliable.

Please help!

To establish that its subject is notable, an article must cite several reliable independent sources with significant discussion of the subject. Wikilinks do not help, as Wikipedia does not regard itself as reliable, there would be a problem of circularity if it did. Draft:Jovan Golić has 26 references, or 28 if you include the external links. However, it only cites the first 24 of these, which are all to the subject's own writings, and so not independent. Thus the draft cites 0 independent sources. I would therefore expect any reviewer to reject it. I don't know whether Golić is notable, but you are going to need to show that he is by finding some acceptable sources, and citing them. Maproom (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

00:34:31, 6 January 2017 review of submission by Ajurisic

I would like to change the current title "Jovan Golić" to "Jovan Dj. Golić", since there is already another article with the title "Jovan Golić", but it seems that this cannot be changed. Thank you in advance for your advice.

There's no need to bother about that. If the article is accepted, the reviewer will find a suitable title for the article when they move it. Maproom (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:58:58, 6 January 2017 review of submission by 104.163.152.80

I'm interested in second opinions on whether notability is satisfied in this article. The reviewer says it's a WP:CRIME article, but it seems to me that it's a genuinely notable individual. I'd argue that the 2000 word "underground railroad" profile article in the New York Times (he's had two articles in the NY times) pushes this over into notable person terrain, rather than non-notable crime. The Times profile deals exclusively with the subject and his efforts at bringing migrants across the border. There are other profile articles and interviews listed in the references. The references are from the Guardian, the NY times, Le Figaro, Liberation, SF Chronicle etc. They are what you call 'good refs'!104.163.152.80 (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:104.163.152.80. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Your submission seems to be a borderline case. Although the subject has certainly garnered international coverage, most of it relates to the pending trial. I think it was reasonable for the reviewer to raise the issue of WP:CRIME because I, too, see a question of whether the subject meets that guideline's notion of "historic significance" (which it defines as "indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage"). Nonetheless, I'm inclined to say that the subject does satisfy our notability criteria. But before accepting the submission for publication, I'd like to hear comments from any other reviewer who happens to read this response over the next few hours. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:42, 6 January 2017 review of submission by TheoNic

Why was my page request turned down!?* — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoNic (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Draft:Super-class Star Destroyer, the reason for the decline is explained at the top of the draft: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." In fact it cites no sources at all, and fails to mention that its subject is fictitious. Maproom (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:53, 6 January 2017 review of submission by Kradelet

Just submitted a article titled Leukemia Research Foundation. I asked yesterday on your FAQ if i could/should as I serve as the organization's Executive Director. I was told to go ahead as it appeared I understood your parameters on advertising, self-promotion, etc.

My question: Was I supposed to reveal some type of potential conflict of interest as I submitted this draft?

Just trying to be on the up and up. The LRf is most certainly notable and we hope to be published. THanks Kradelet (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article speedy deleted. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:28:30, 6 January 2017 review of submission by Daveorama


My draft for Nick Middleton was rejected for reasons that indicate notability and citation. I don't understand this because I included substantial citations and links to existing articles on Wikipedia associated with this person. The article is linked to The Funk Hunters of which he is one of the two members, and it is also linked to the Wikipedia article on Westwood Recordings of which he is the CEO and producer. I have also linked to many artists who Middleton works with who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. In addition I have submitted with legitimate citations. So, I am confused as to why the article was rejected and I am finding it difficult to understand what it is that needs correcting. Please be specific and I will correct it, but as it stands I can not comprehend whey it is being rejected for those reasons.

Thank you

Commented there. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:39:19, 6 January 2017 review of submission by Wjcfreelancer

I have received notice that this new page has been rejected: "Substantial portions of this draft needs to be rewritten in prose instead of long lists with no context or indicate why the items in the list are important, what they represent in the legacy of the unit, or how they relate to an encyclopedic understanding."

I followed the format used for existing, similar articles. The "lists" are (1) a presentation of the regiment's companies showing where they were raised in prose, but indented so that each company is separated for the reader's convenience; (2) a lengthy presentation of the regiment's service,

Wjcfreelancer (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article accepted. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

15:51:16, 7 January 2017 review of submission by Droughers

Droughers (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Had draft article refused... It is based on a construction company in Manchester UK now closed down. I am one of perhaps 10 people left with the knowledge of this company and give talks at local history groups. I presume its because of provenance, I only have the company's brochure and a book by John Gerrard, the rest is from direct family communication and personal experience. How do I progress with this please.[reply]

If no-one else has written about it, then the company probably fails our standards for notability of companies. To have an article here, a topic must not only exist but have been written about substantially, which in this case does not appear to be true. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Droughers: You may wish to consider alternative outlets for User:Droughers/sandbox. LocalWiki, for example, is intended for sharing local information such as local commercial history, without the need to show that the topic is notable or to cite reliable published sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:33, 7 January 2017 review of submission by Sairamg13


Sairamg13 (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saira. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

19:21:46, 8 January 2017 review of submission by 93.41.8.102


93.41.8.102 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, rename new "S-class_patrol_boat" as "200/S-class_patrol_boat". Thank you

Done. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

Request on 06:38:00, 9 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Penuliswiki39


I have received a rejection on my page submission because it does not satisfy Wikipedia's standards and policies of notability. Thing is Chong Ket Pen really is a notable person in my country. His company does all the roadworks and maintenance in my country and he's a very active philanthropist. He is also now working on building affordable homes for the citizens here in Malaysia (not on Wikipedia yet). I don't understand how he is not a notable person as oppose to this guy Tey Por Yee who is just a regular Malaysian businessmen or this guy Mohd Nazifuddin Najib who is nothing but our Prime Minister's son. I don't understand how their article is approved and published as apposed to the one I wrote on Chong Ket Pen. Also Chong Ket Pen has been given the title of "Dato' Seri" which the highest state title conferred by a Malaysian Ruler on the most deserving recipients who have contributed greatly to the nation or state, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_styles_and_titles#Dato.27_Sri

I understand that most our my sources link back to Protasco Berhad but doesn't that count as a reliable source since they are a public listed company? They are required by law to publicly announce everything they've done and is planning to do.

I honestly feel this person should be part of Wikipedia I'd appreciate the help on how can I get it approved. Appreciate the help and advice.

Thanks!

Penuliswiki39 (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penuliswiki39, the problem with using the subject's company website as the major source is that it is not Independent. A subject is only considered Notable if people who have no connection to the subject have published significant in-depth information, analysis and commentary about the subject, in reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, books or academic publications. Wikipedia does not really care what a subject has to say about itself, nor what the subject's company, friends, family, associates, employees, employer, agent, representatives, or any other connected person says about the subject. I have Googled your subject's name and have found numerous newspaper articles about him and his business activities, and that was only in the English language, newspapers such as "Malay Mail Online", "The Star Online" and "The Sun Daily". I presume you would be able to access even more sources in other languages. Use company or personal websites only for uncontroversial simple facts such as dates, addresses, correct spelling of names, etc., never for opinions or arguable claims, unless you are clearly quoting it to make a specific relevant point. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all that and read your draft, I think you might find it easier to write an article about the company, rather than about the current boss. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:46, 9 January 2017 review of submission by NeheScar

Hello, I am not necessarily requesting a re-review. I just wanted to know which sources the reviewer deemed as trivial and how many non-local sources this business would need before being considered notable? I did send the reviewer an email earlier this morning, but upon reviewing her talk page it says that she is temporarily retired? Can someone help me with this?

Hello, NeheScar. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. It seems that your question has been answered by the reviewer at the top of your Draft. If we can be of any further help, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:29:24, 9 January 2017 review of submission by Boxx96

I've added more significant independent news sources, I am a bit on the fence including awards and recognitions but the projects hold significant value as almost all of them have existing Wikipedia pages with thousands if not millions of theme park guests and visitors a year.

Hello, Boxx. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The reviewer has left additional comments at the top of your Draft. If we can be of any further help, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

01:32:42, 10 January 2017 review of submission by Mcintouch


i am trying to create a page for a 3rd wave coffee retailer similar to starbucks ans stumptown. but i'm being told my 13 references are not enough. what exactly should i do?

Mcintouch (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcintouch - Well, first, I will be blunt, but referring to a 3rd wave coffee retailer sounds like market-speak, and so I have to ask whether you have a connection with the subject. Second, just numbering the references at the end of the article rather than making them into footnotes isn't ideal. Third, sometimes just adding more references doesn't make a company notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:01:45, 10 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Swam44uk

I believe that John Hemming-Clark deserves a Wikepedia page because he unity and has written three books which are available on Amazon and through a reputable publishing company (Searchline Publishing). John is also a scout leader and has written books about this. Antonia De Sancha has a Wiki page but John Doesn't and John seems to have done a lot more work towards positive causes etc. Please can you advise on how we can make John notable.

Many Thanks.

Swam44uk (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swam44uk (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment that the section on Politics is not written from a neutral point of view and appears to be written to advance his political career rather than to describe. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Swam44uk - The draft is not in good grammatical English and needs work in that regard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:00, 10 January 2017 review of submission by Mcmlis

Hello, I edited an article for submission about 20 days ago, and I was wondering where it might stand in the queue. I'm excited about the updates I made to it and I'd love to see it published. The article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Miguel_Eduardo_Padilla_Silva

Thanks for your help! Mcmlis (talk)merrily Mcmlis

Mcmlis (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcmlis - I have looked at your draft, and I see significant tone issues with it. It appears to be written to praise its subject and to promote his career rather than to describe him neutrally. Focus on what third parties have written about him, if he is notable. If I were reviewing it at this time, I would decline it. Maybe I ask the same question over and over too many times, but do you have a connection with the subject or his company? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use Wikipedia as a reference. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, Robert. I had previously revised the post to make it more notable. Can you suggest edits and other posts that can help me toe the line between notability and praising more carefully? I had read articles about other executives at FEMSA and thought Padilla was worthy of an entry. I appreciate any help you can offer. Mcmlis (talk)Merrily Mcmlis – Mcmlis —Preceding undated comment added 16:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:01, 10 January 2017 review of submission by Redshojin

Hey there. So this draft was declined because the references used don't show the article's notability. It's a game currently in paid pre-release so until it's released and there are reviews and other coverage that is understandable. My questions are more geared toward how to help the page along once it does reach a certain aspect of notoriety. Could someone let me know which references being used currently are in favor of it's notability, and which references are unnecessary? I ask so that it can better fit into wikipedia's idea of notability.

Second question: is it safe to leave a page within it's draft format for now until which time there is enough suitable references, or does that leave the page in danger of being auto-deleted? Is there a good way to back up the page, perhaps somewhere on my user page so that I can keep formatting and content? And finally, third question: can an image be added if it's a copyrighted image but released for use by the press from the company? Perhaps another user with more permissions to upload would have to do that. Thank you! Redshojin (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Redshojin. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. If you haven't already done so, you ought to take a look at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources for detail on the usefulness of different kinds of sources. Also, the Talk page connected to that page, or the Talk page for WP:WikiProject Video games, will be excellent places to ask questions about specific sources. As for the length of time a draft may be retained, automatic deletion usually will not occur until after six months of inactivity. As for uploading images, that can be a complex process. WP:Uploading images will provide an introduction to that process. But note that, if you upload an image under the "fair use" doctrine (which is what you appear to be describing), it will not be retained unless it is being used in an article. And that means article, not draft. So, uploading that image should wait until your Draft has been accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:49:43, 10 January 2017 review of submission by Toux

Dear support, my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carbohydrate_Structure_Database was declined on Dec, 22nd, I corrected it on Dec, 26th, and wrote a comment for reviewers, what I changed and why. 16 days passed since then but the article is still awaiting a review. Is this normal?

Toux (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


January 11

00:17:50, 11 January 2017 review of submission by UND08844


I have been encouraged by previous reviews to use a neutral tone. I have been working on it and would like a re-review to point out any changes that need to be made. Thank you.UND08844 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

00:33:13, 11 January 2017 review of submission by Chemical.investors


I have written this article on a thought leader and a dealmaker in the chemical space. Independent references (from the most respected chemical industry trade group AICHE, a newspaper in the middle market investment space listing him as a top dealmaker to follow, his Bloomberg profile), yet it is rejected by reviewer with the reason being "it is just a business listing,.... no notability...". The article is on the person, not his companies. I have provided additional references since the rejection. Please help.

Referring to the subject of an article as a "thought leader" always strikes me as marketing buzz-speak. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:02:26, 11 January 2017 review of submission by Benjamin Messmer

20:03:41, 11 January 2017 review of submission by Benjamin Messmer


Any help on article improvement would be great.

Request on 20:56:08, 11 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Stephvanb

Hello - I have tried to submit information regarding a software company ClioSoft and I keep getting denied. Can you please help me so that this could get published for one of our clients?

Stephvanb (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stephvanb - I have a comment and see two issues. You say that you "keep getting denied", but it appears that your draft was submitted and declined once. That is a minor point. There are two major issues. First, your draft has no references. In order to establish corporate notability, the references should include independent (third-party) coverage of the company. Second, you acknowledge a conflict of interest if the company is a client. Wikipedia strongly discourages editing by editors who are affiliated with the subject (in this case, the company). Wikipedia is based on neutral point of view, and editors who have a special interest can seldom write neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

02:38:10, 12 January 2017 review of submission by AI8O

How do I piut hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles in a new submitted article? AI8O (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AI80 You use [[name here]]. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:26, 12 January 2017 review of submission by David hewick

I have received a comment on my draft article page (just under the 'review waiting' Yellow Box). Can I reply from the draft article page via the 'talk' button. It is not clear how you send a reply back to the person who made the comment. I have replied via the Teahouse, but this separates the answer from the original comment. David HDavid hewick (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC) David hewick (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:57:47, 12 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Benmeling


Dear wikipedia help desk. I am currently working on an article on my father the artist Gerhard Meling. I have a lot of references but am uncertain how this works. I am not at all proficient within this user interface. Is there anyway the article can be edited by someone professional from your staff for a small fee? I would in this case be able to send/email references, together with some pictures we would like to insert at various places. In the mean time i will be educating myself on how this is done, still i would appreciate all the help and info i can get on how to get references and how to verify source materiel.

Thank you!

Ben Meling


Benmeling (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben. I'm afraid you might have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. It is written and maintained entirely by volunteer editors. There are no staff and paid editing is heavily frowned upon by the community. On a related note, our conflict of interest policy strongly discourages editors from writing about people or topics they have a personal connection to, because this compromises our neutral point of view. I think the best thing for you to do in this circumstance is to request an article about your father. You can provide any references you have with the request for a volunteer to use when creating the article. – Joe (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:24, 12 January 2017 review of submission by Tdmjulie

I am requesting guidance on how to revise the submission to meet the Wikipedia standards.

thank you.

21:20:50, 12 January 2017 review of submission by Powderday


Dear all,

After posting a new draft for the website "the people's cube", the first reviewer of the draft SwisterTwister (although I of course appreciate his or her time in reviewing), did not really respond on questions about the validity and notability of these new sources. And now the new draft was tagged for "speedy deletion" by a rather avid opponent of the first version of the page dedicated to this topic (Exemplo347).

I wonder if an unbiased reviewer could be requested to check on the notability and neutrality of the listed sources in my draft. If not, can someone help me in understanding what exactly is wrong with these sources? Once more, I appreciate the Wiki work of Exemplo an SwisterTwister, but maybe they missed something in their first review or that their decision is not based on political bias (and I hope, as a long time Wiki reader and very recent contributor this is not the case) .

Kind regards and many thanks in advance,

Powderday (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you've failed to mention here is that this draft is a recreation of an article deleted as the result of an Articles for Deletion discussion - WP:G4 applies. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:09, 12 January 2017 review of submission by MinecraftKitty

Why did you not submit my article? Please tell me ASAP MinecraftKitty (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=759741222"