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 CRDAVIS14 (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 24 April 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


April 18

01:27:42, 18 April 2017 review of submission by Jdonnell cs92


I accidentally misspelled Sheafer in the title/url of the wikipedia page. Instead of "Shaefer" it should be "Sheafer" How do I fix this mistake? Jdonnell cs92 (talk)jdonnell cs92


Jdonnell cs92 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have fixed it for you. Isingness (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:52:51, 18 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 202.253.138.199


I have been told that the Wikipedia page on ProSPER.Net cannot be published because it is copyright by ProSPER.Net. I am the responsible for ProSPER.Net, writing the article. I don't see the issue here as we are not failing any copyright issues. I work for ProSPER.Net and am solely responsible for its communications of the network. 202.253.138.199 (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. The best source of information about copyright questions will be Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. You can also ask questions at WP:THQ. I expect that when you do ask your question at those venues, you will be told that, as an individual, you do not have the right to grant licenses for material that is copyrighted by your employer. I also took a look at the unu.edu web site and saw that the license granted there (which is here) does not permit re-use of its material for commercial purposes, whereas material hosted on Wikipedia does not have that restriction. And so, it seems to me that there is a very real copyright issue that can arise from taking material from the website. But I encourage you to seek a more-expert opinion from either of the two sources that I named at the start. On a different note, if you are writing an article about your employer, you are subject to our conflict-of-interest requirements, for which you might want to read WP:COI. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:27, 18 April 2017 review of submission by Gitakrishna


Kindly view the following 'Draft', and offer your valuable advice on how to further improve the said Article, please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jugpreet_Bajwa_--_the_Blind_Singer Thanks in Advance, please. Gitakrishna (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It appears that JSFarman has provided helpful advice upon your draft. I would also point you to the following document - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout - which talks about how to comply with Wikipedia's manual of style. Isingness (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:13:47, 18 April 2017 review of submission by CYSYork


Can you tell me what else to add that would make it clear how notable the York Civic Trust is? I am surprised that the references I have supplied do not make it clear how important it has been and continues to be in an internationally significant city. It was recognised by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments England, a government advisory body, and noted in my references - which are wider than those supplied, for example, in the Wikipedia articles on the Gloucester Civic Trust and the Swindon Civic Trust. Please advise, I'm a bit baffled. Thanks CYSYork (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It appears that many of your sources are primary sources; you should likely replace each of these with secondary or third-party sources if you are looking for a different response from those reviewing your draft. You may also want to look at finding sources from outside the York area, in order to demonstrate that it has a level of national or international notability. A helpful document for your situation is likely found here Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Isingness (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:46, 18 April 2017 review of submission by Wmasterus

Please help me to put reference for below content:

Prompt Softech is a part of Prompt Group of companies based in Ahmedabad city, Gujarat. Prompt mission is "Innovative, Integrated, Value added & Customer-Driven Progress". Prompt Softech is leading automatic milk collection system(AMCS) provider company with 25000+ installation in all over india.

Which type of references are best for above paragraph? Wmasterus (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - While the sentence is too promotional for Wikipedia, regarding your specific question regarding sources, I would refer you to the following document: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You should be able to find guidance there. Isingness (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

10:54:01, 19 April 2017 review of submission by TGSTINT



Hi there, i have problems to find notable sources. I read the guidlines about notability and reliable sources now several times - and can not see how the current used references in my draft dont agree with them - and what else to use.

Before my first submission I looked for online sources showing the biographical steps over the years the person i write the draft about took - this was declined - which i understand. Before my second submission I checked the reliablility of sources and authors of the used online references. Each one works or worked at some point in professional journalism or at radio/music stations (its a draft about a musician) - all off them for newspapers that are well know (like guardian and new york times etc.) - still declined. I can't see where this does not fit the guidelines but anyway. Before my current submissions I added print media - books and magazines with articles about the musician. Also an encyclopedia entry is added mentioning her. Most of these references and authors even got their own wikipedia page themselves which i linked in the reference section. Again it is declined. And I again can not see where this does not fit the guidelines - but this time all added print references are worldwide published and mostly even world famous (which probably lead to them having their own wikipedia article).

My quesion is quite simple: what else can I use to show notability? Online sources by professional journalists and worldwide published books and magazines by professional journalists do not seem to be enough. So - as I have no clue what else to use - where else can I search? What medium can show notability?

Reply - I would direct you to the following document: Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles . Upon a cursory reading of your page I am not sure she is notable outside of the bands she participated in that already have pages, however this document should help with your understanding of when a musician should be added to Wikipedia and when their content is either not appropriate or better appended to a different entry. Isingness (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply -

Thats exactly my problem as i already read that guideline several times - and am quite sure my draft matches those when possible (didnt win any music prices, golden album etc). But guess i will see what reason the reviewer gives for declining - as i can show with my references 11 points in the guidelines you linked that my draft covers. thx--87.122.249.54 (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If they do not meet any of the basic points of the policy, as you've stated, the subject would need to meet Wikipedia:GNG in order to be seen as a valuable addition to Wikipedia. However, generally you will want to write about subjects where such achievements as Gold records or major music awards are part of their career if you are looking to create entries in your future contributions. Isingness (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:10:42, 19 April 2017 review of submission by RoxanneCrossleyScality

Hello, I am trying to post an article about french entrepreneur Jerome Lecat. He is the CEO of Scality. The bio which is used is the one I also wrote for the Scality website - so it is the same. How can I let wikipedia know that I am the one who wrote this bio and that there is therefore no copyright problem? Thanks a lot. Roxanne

RoxanneCrossleyScality (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roxanne. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Your premise is incorrect -- there is a copyright problem here, because your employer is claiming copyright in the material on its website and, as an employee, you do not have the right to waive their claims. Conceivably, you could get your company to place portions of its website in the public domain (or, at least, make it available for re-use under an appropriate license). If you wish to take this route, the best source of information on how to do it will be Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. You can also ask a question at WP:THQ. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:05:43, 19 April 2017 review of submission by Ravenloches

In attempting to create an entry for The Art Sherpa, I received a response saying that my entry read more like an advertisement. I can certainly see this so I'm hoping to get some guidance in fixing the direction of the entry so it can be available for anyone find the artist and make sure it meets the guidelines. This is all very new to me, I've never created anything like this online. The coding areas look daunting but I'm hoping to make this entry so other artists like me can get information on someone who has been very influential in rediscovering my passion for art. Thanks for your help. Ravenloches (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ravensloches. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I've re-written your draft to remove the promotional, advertorial and unencyclopedic material. Feel free to revert my changes if you do not approve of them. But even if you do approve them, you will still need to demonstrate that the subject has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of her. You might find WP:NARTIST helpful reading, as well as WP:GNG and WP:Reliable sources. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:28:54, 19 April 2017 review of submission by 192.112.102.254


Hi, I entered an article a while ago (3/24/17) entitled Kitchen Witchcraft. Originally, I was editing a stub, but the stub was deleted. So, I simply made a whole new article. Unfortunately, a month after my initial submission (4/19/17), I still see no changes in my article. It has not been uploaded, approved, or rejected. It's still listed as a draft.

I was just wondering if anyone has looked at this article or if there's a specific problem with it that has resulted in this situation. Is there some reason that the article has not been approved or rejected yet?

Thank you.

192.112.102.254 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is a very long backlog here, and the few volunteers good enough to review articles in this space may take some time to get to your article. As a brief review, the deletion review of the stub specifically stated that you needed to provide third-party sources (specifically those outside the practice). While I do not necessarily agree with that opinion, it is unlikely the page will pass through AFC without the use of third-party sources as defined by that AFD, specifically those analyzing or historically recording the practice from outside its field. Isingness (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:44, 19 April 2017 review of submission by Nagarajan08

Hello, I created an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Darez_Ahamed about a civil servant in India who has won the Indian Prime Minister's Award for Excellence, and belongs in the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_Administrative_Service_officers . It has been rejected as not being notable; I believe it should be looked in from an Indian context and the person is notable here. Can someone help whether this is a notability issue or edit issue?

Reply - I do not see where your entry has been rejected. Would you mind please directing us to the proper url? Isngness (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagarajan08: If your question is why Draft:Darez Ahamed was removed from Category:Indian Administrative Service officers, drafts are not allowed in mainspace categories. The page can be categorized if and when the draft is accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Isingness: @Worldbruce: Thanks: my question is, why the draft is not accepted Draft:Darez_Ahamed , since the person is quite notable.
Hello, Nagarajan. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. The reason your draft has not yet been accepted by us is because you never submitted it for review. If wish to do so now, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

Request on 07:37:33, 20 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rivkiyoudkevich


Hi, I submitted the article and it was declined. I dont agree with the reason and I tried not to make it an advertised article. Also, I placed 22 links and there are 50 more if needed (most in Hebrew as can see on the hebrew article). I dont know what to do so if anyone can help it will be a great help! Thanks

Rivkiyoudkevich (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce yes but why? whats wrong with it? also, all the links i provided arent enough?? how can it be when i see articles with 2 or 4 links only? please help, thank you/ Rivkiyoudkevich (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rivkiyoudkevich: Have you read the extensive comment I left on the draft, below the stacked pink boxes? Is there part of it that you don't understand? As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:33:39, 20 April 2017 review of submission by Viktoriya.biliaeva

Hi there! I've been sending my draft for submission for several times, but it has always been rejected. After each submission I tried to follow the instructions and edit my draft so it wouldn't be rejected next time, in particular, I've added external references according to Chrissymad's comment, I've inserted inline citations as it was mentioned by David.moreno72. However, yesterday I got the reply from ProgrammingGeek that was different from the previous ones, as he stated that the draft looks like a sort of advertising. I just wonder how it could happen that none of the reviewers noticed that the draft is a sort of a product promotion before? Also, I'd like to know what is considered to be under 'notability' as I've come across a plenty of articles with no references at all! Thanks in advance. Viktoriya.biliaeva (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Viktoriya. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. When reviewers decline a submission here at Articles for Creation, they very often identify only what they find to be the most serious problem. In looking at the history of your submission, I see that two of the three reviewers believed the most serious problem was the poor quality of the referencing, but the third thought it was "advertising" (which often means simply that there is little in the draft that wouldn't be found in a product brochure or advertisement). My own look at the submission tells me that both problems exist and that both need to be addressed before your submission can be accepted for publication. As for referencing, and despite your statement to the contrary, you have not provided in-line citations. Instead, you simply put a list of links near the bottom of the draft. You are, in effect, telling readers (and reviewers) that if they want to find the source for any particular statement, they have to click through each of the very many links in hope of finding the right one. This is not proper referencing and I encourage you to read through our WP:Referencing for beginners and our guidance on in-line citations. As for advertising, you really need to write an article that is more than a description of what the software can do. And so, you'll need to base your draft on what has been said about the software by reliable sources that are independent of your company (and the company's blog will not be sufficient for this). And as to the notability question, most reviewers here will be looking for you to demonstrate that the software has some measure of historical or technical significance. You might find WP:NSOFTWARE useful reading. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:47:40, 20 April 2017 review of submission by TeamAvB


Hello, We don't know if it is any use to go further with the draft about the painter Georgy Kichigin. We would kindly ask you to take a look at the information we have collected on http://www.meddens.eu/Kichigin/Index.html and if there is based on this information any use in continuing with the draft. Regards, TIA.

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning Username and above text implies shared use. Others, please advise. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TeamAvB (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Comment: The holder of the username teamAvB is just one person, other users have no access via this username. If there would be a positive reaction the draft will be continued by another single username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamAvB (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 217.122.65.153 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Username changed to AvB679[reply]

@AvB679: Hello, AvB. Thanks again for your submission to Wikipedia. I think you have a reasonably good chance of getting an article on Kichigan published here on Wikipedia. The fact that he was one of the artists identified in a presidential proclamation back in 2006 certainly contributes to his notability. I encourage you to read through our notability guideline at WP:NARTIST with an eye towards assembling reliable sources that can demonstrate satisfaction of one or more of the criteria listed there. And although I don't think the meddens.eu website is itself a reliable source (it looks to be somebody's blog), the information there might serve as a useful guide to finding other sources. But right now, the larger problem you face is not the lack of Kichigin's notablity. Instead, it is the fact that your submission reads like an essay, and not as an encyclopedia article. What's more, it doesn't use an encyclopedic tone of voice. You might want to read through some of our better-quality articles on artists, such as El Greco or Caspar David Friedrich. Doing this will give you an idea of how an article should be structured and how the material can be best presented. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AvB679 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you very much for your reply. It is clear to me. The link was merely because there was a extensive list of refs translated from Russian... most refs are in Russian.[reply]

20:22:44, 20 April 2017 review of submission by 93.137.106.152


There is need for assistance to check grammar mistakes and advice if there is need for any further improvement of the draft.

93.137.106.152 (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I've published your submission, after doing some mild copy editing in the lead paragraph. But I didn't try to do more. Wikipedia has a group of volunteers who do that kind of thing and, if you would like their assistance, place the {{copyedit}} template at the top of the page (but be aware that they have a backlog that stretches back several months). You might also want some assistance with translation. I saw that the final sentence in the lead paragraph translated the Japanese source as saying the song is about the "essence of human beings". It seems to me that there must a better English translation of whatever the original source was saying. You can ask for translation help at WP:JAPAN. Thanks again for your contribution to Wikipedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

01:50:10, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Edpendrag


Edpendrag (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC) It is evident that this site is unworthy of its inclusion on the Internet and should be removed.[reply]

Hello, Ed. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Concerns about the existence of Wikipedia are best addressed to User talk:Jimbo Wales. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:04, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Senfee

I cannot locate the reviewer comments on this page from last September. How can I find them? Were they emailed to me?

Thanks! Senfee (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Senfee. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. If you're talking about Draft:Dorothy K. Burnham, the reviewer's comment appears right above the draft and also appears on your Talk page. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:00, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Dempseycarroll

Not sure as to why the submission is rejected again as we updated the language/added more sources to the best of our ability? Please, advise. Thank you! Dempseycarroll (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DempseyCarroll. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I assume you're talking about Draft:Dempsey & Carroll. If so, your submission wasn't "rejected again". Quite the opposite -- you recently received a comment saying that a reviewer was ready to accept it for publication, providing you fixed up the referencing (and that reviewer advised you to take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners). I also see that you have ignored a previous comment advising you to remove peacock language from the draft. To this, I'll add that the lengthy listing of "collaborations" is unencyclopedic and should be removed prior to publication of the draft. On a different note, I see that your user name strongly suggests that you are affiliated with the subject of the draft. If you have not already done so, you should read through our conflict-of-interest guideline. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

Request on 17:41:23, 22 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.46.97.28


as I submitted article for creation without reference will staff archive enrico j Madrid and article enrico j Madrid for reference

24.46.97.28 (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I see you have added several references. Before re-submitting for review, I would ensure you are complying with Wikipedia:Reliable sources as regards the references you select, and I would ensure that you better comply with the Wikipedia manual of style as regards the formatting of your draft. Isingness (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:20:40, 22 April 2017 review of submission by Wernien


Wernien (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I please as, why the review of my draft article takes that long? I don't want to complain, but could it be that the article has been overlooked or is still not good enough to be published. - Thnak you very much. And I apologise in advance, I do not write very much here. Wernien (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It has only been less than three weeks; with the backlog you may be waiting a while longer. Regardless, you may want to add third-party references to all parts of your text so that when it is reviewed it does not get rejected for poor sourcing. From what I can see, the JSTOR link is also dead, so you likely want to ensure all parts of your draft are functional to avoid other issues. Isingness (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Thank you very much, I have repaired two links. I have also checked the references, To my understanding the sourcing should be OK. I am looking forward to the possibility that the article will be published.Wernien (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

Request on 05:28:59, 23 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by K1 ecentral


Hello, K1. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:17:30, 23 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Takudzwa mususa



Takudzwa mususa (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Takudzwa. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

02:36:24, 24 April 2017 review of draft by Jkim713


This is my first submission to Wikipedia and I am trying to fix my reference list. How do I use a reference multiple times in my content. The last line in the my submission references 4 earlier cited remarks but when I cited it, the reference list created whole new lines, that is my list of 10 references became a list of 20 references..how do I fix it? Jkim713 (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I think you're looking to use the "named reference" technique. You can learn about it at WP:REFNAME. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:45:00, 24 April 2017 review of submission by Pergameno


I have writing an entry on Margaret Manion. I have received this message "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (April 2017)" I have tried to write a lead section. Would you please let me know how to make it better conform with the requirements.

Pergameno (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Pergameno - While this is not generally the place for questions about accepted pages, and is instead a venue for questions regarding pages not yet accepted, there is some easy advice I can provide. A proper lead generally covers all the major aspects of the page in general. Your current lead does not appear to cover all her positions or major publications, if appropriate. A few more sentences should do it. Then ask on the talk page if other editors (especially the person who posted the tag) is/are comfortable with removing the improvement banner. If you do not hear back, you can take that as a yes, and if you do, then re-engage. Hope this helps! Isingness (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:07:21, 24 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kenj005


Parthesh Patel (Gujarati:પાર્થેશ પટેલ)


Kenj005 (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kenj. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:36, 24 April 2017 review of submission by Skyking30

Hello K6Ka, I respectfully requested that the present photograph of myself be removed and I will provide a more accurate Official Air Force Photograph. The present photo appears to have been "edited" or photo shopped....I will be pleased to provide an Official Photograph upon removal of the present One. Thank You, Christopher S. Adams, Jr, Major General, USAF (Ret)


Skyking30 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please submit this as an WP:Edit request or on the talk page of K6ka. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:22:12, 24 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Marc Daum


14:22:12, 24 April 2017 review of submission by Marc Daum

I noticed the article « Bijoux Burma » was declined. I understand i have to rewrite the article to appear to read more than an entry in an encyclopedia. So i will. But also: do you think my article has enough references and sources to establish its notability ? Only two of them i mentioned, are written in english and independent. The other one are in french (for example a thesis from La sorbonne University) or coming from Bijoux Burma official Website. Should i add more? May I add 10 others including articles in Vogue and Paris-Match.They’re not written in english but in french. If so, how long could be the article ? Thanks a lot for your precious help. Marc Daum (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Daum (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:01, 24 April 2017 review of submission by CRDAVIS14


Hi,

May the following articles, while not suitable for coverage in the page itself as not specifically about CollectPlus, not provide requisite evidence of notability for CollectPlus, as per the guidelines? [1] This article references CollectPlus as a key rival to Royal Mail amid its plans to develop its click-and-collect offering. [2] Similarly this article references CollectPlus as a rival that Tesco is seeking to match with development of its click-and-collect offering. [3] this article discusses the best and worst parcel firms in research conducted by MoneySavingExpert, again referencing CollectPlus with significance.

The following are published articles discussing research conducted by CollectPlus: [4] [5] [6] Again, hopefully they show notability but were not included in the original submission as they are not directly about the company.

I hope this demonstrate notability of CollectPlus, but if there anything further I can do, please let me know. CollectPlus is the returns service for a number of known brands such as Amazon, John Lewis and Asos, and announcements in national press can be provided as citations as well if necessary.

Thank-you for your consideration. If none of these are considered sufficient for notability and the article submission remains rejected, I will wait for more notable coverage to be obtained before considering again.

Thank-you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=776978891"