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 Rayzhang123 (talk | contribs) at 07:41, 13 November 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
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


November 7

09:00:44, 7 November 2017 review of submission by Bala960

@Bala960: Hello, Bala. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:45:58, 7 November 2017 review of submission by Jinnun


Jinnun (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jinnun: Hello, Jinnun. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:52:41, 7 November 2017 review of submission by 216.69.120.2

Hi, I understand there is a backlog of wikipedia pages waiting to be reviewed. However, is there any priority given to presidential appointees or those nominated to serve in the federal government? Specifically, I've been working to get a wikipedia page for J. Mark McWatters since August. It's been rejected twice and resubmitted I'm currently waiting on another round of review for the page. Can the editor make the necessary changes to publish the article? Im at a lost as to how to rework the article to meet the wikipedia community standards. Is there a phone number I can call and speak with someone?

216.69.120.2 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP address. There is no priority given in the review system. Please be patient when awaiting review of your article. Feedback will be given then. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This submission has been declined. There is further discussion here. ~Kvng (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:10, 7 November 2017 review of submission by Subhasis007

My article have been declined by wiki. What is the reason behind it?? How to improve the article? Subhasis007 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Subhasis. Your submission was declined because it was not sourced adequately. Wikipedia requires reliable sources to demonstrate that an article is notable before it can be included in the encyclopedia. Once you add more sources (so that your page passes the relevant guidelines), it will be accepted upon re-review. Thanks, ProgrammingGeek talktome 20:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

04:00:38, 8 November 2017 review of submission by WikiCreators

Why it was declined when sources are notable WikiCreators (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiCreators. It appears that the sources you cited did not appear to be reliable. For more information, please consult our reliable sources guideline, and note that self-published materials are not reliable sources. Thank you. ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:58, 8 November 2017 review of draft by Binazir1987

Hi. Dear madam or sir would you please help me? I am making an article for an Iranian director. Many of my references are from Iranian websites, Iranian news agencies, Iranian newspapers etc. So they are written in Persian. Now I want to know when I am writing the detail about a reference, can I write the title, the name of the agency, the name of the newspaper etc. in Persian? Or I should translate them all to English? Binazir1987 (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Binazir1987: There is no requirement to do that. But look at Template:Cite_web#Foreign_language_and_translated_title for how to do that if you want to (it would be helpful). Galobtter (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:46, 8 November 2017 review of submission by Jopo

Why was this submission declined? I find it interesting if a software product used by thousands of organizations worldwide is not considered notable enough. I rewrote a large part of the article with references so the previous deletion should not play a part. What should be done better? Jopo (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jopo. The reason your article was declined (pinging Kiteinthewind in case I'm wrong) was most likely because your article has to walk a fine line with CSD G4. I see you took part in that deletion discussion - and although the CSD criteria do make an exception for material that is substantially different from those that were deleted, I'm not sure how different it really is. Keep in mind, I can't see the deleted page. If you're confident it's substantially different than the version that was deleted, go ahead and re-submit — FWIW, I probably would've accepted it. Thanks, ProgrammingGeek talktome 19:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

  • Jwologo (talk · contribs) (TB)
    • No draft specified!
    • I am an expert on Updog, and I am providing new information not provided elsewhere, but my article was not posted due to the sources not being secure enough. I however am the source, and I was only citing any information that was not my own.


Jwologo (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwologo: All Wikipedia articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, published sources. Content is not based on editors' personal experience or knowledge. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The essay "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth" may clarify this. Also note that "updog" may fall in the category of neologisms. Wikipedia generally will not publish articles on neologisms. Perhaps some of your work on the subject would be suitable on our sister project, Wiktionary, but I'm not very familiar with their criteria, which are quite different than Wikipedia's. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:43:25, 9 November 2017 review of submission by Christopherelgood

I want to post brief factual information about my company and identify the specialist field. My first attempt has been deleted. I am using as a model the successful post about Elgoods Brewery

Christopherelgood (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Christopherelgood. It appears that your submission to Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the help desk. Thank you. Additionally, please make sure you review our conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks again, ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see the replies left for you at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Make public page from Sanbox, Christopherelgood. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

15:55:57, 10 November 2017 review of submission by Asmazda

Please let me know why my article "Appeon" was declined. Thank you.

Asmazda (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asmazda: I'm afraid you have not satisfied Wikipedia's WP:GOLDENRULE. The sources you've provided are not WP:INDEPENDENT nor WP:RELIABLE. ~Kvng (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:41:25, 10 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Baddowsam

.

Baddowsam (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baddowsam I'm afraid you seem to have completely misunderstood the meaning of independent source. You have referenced the organisation that gave the award to the subject and the subject's employer. Those are the very definion of not independent. An independent source is someone who has no connection at all to people, organisations and events described in the article. A mainstream newspaper or a magazine - with no connection to radiography or the NHS - would be an acceptable source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:41:53, 10 November 2017 review of submission by Kindness33


Hello, I was wondering if you could tell me when the page "Ursula Hayden" will be reviewed? I submitted it over a month ago for review. Thank you!

Kindness33 (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kindness33: The draft is now progressed to Category:AfC_pending_submissions_by_age/Very_old where drafts may get attention from some of our braver reviewers. There is a general sentiment flowing against WP:COI and WP:PAID submissions so many of our WP:VOLUNTEER reviewers are reluctant to take these cases. Sorry for the delay and thanks for your patience. ~Kvng (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:05, 10 November 2017 review of submission by Lesterking

Lesterking (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why my page was not approved.

Hi Lesterking you need to actually read the decline, the grey block in the pink box at the top of the page. It contains several links to further information and guidance. The short answer is that it has no references at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:34, 10 November 2017 review of submission by Niallmcg

Hi. I need some help to figure out why this page keeps getting declined. The reviewers have not provided me with any help or advice. Its has been declined as not having adequate references but I have 6 references, one which is a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal and the other is a text book. This is page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faculty_of_Dental_Surgery,_RCPSG . I would be more than happy to make it better but without any actual feedback I can't make it any better than it is.

Thanks in advance.

Niallmcg (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Niallmcg, I can't speak for the previous reviewers, but I can identify a problem or two. You never clearly define the subject. Is it one specific department of dentistry at a specific university? Is it a "learned society" (apologies for the lack of a better term) of dentistry? It seems to have some role in setting the exams for dental students, but is this for the entire country or only at one, or a few, dentistry schools? You never define what "RCPSG" is, do also check the rest of the draft for any other unexplained "alphabet soup". Your draft jumps straight into detailed minutiae without first clearly introducing and defining the basics. Hope this helps. Basically it needs a good introduction. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dodger67. Thanks so much for your feedback and advice. I have now added a introduction and changed the name of the page to the full title rather than using RCPSG. I have also spelt out a few other abbreviations and found some more references. How does it fair now? Should I resubmit? link to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faculty_of_Dental_Surgery,_Royal_College_of_Physicians_and_Surgeons_of_Glasgow Thanks again for your help Niallmcg (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niallmcg: Instead of trying to create a new article, have you considered improving the existing article, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow? A new stand-alone article has to meet a notability requirement and that's going to be tough with the narrow topic scope you've chosen. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kvng . Yes i had thought about adding to the page already existing but I would argue that my page is a notable topic given that it is an internationally recognised faculty and I have included a number of good references at this point. If you look at what is already existing on wiki for another UK surgical college the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Dental_Surgery refers to The Royal College of Surgeons in England and the their faculty of dental surgery. This page already exists but has less references and I would say less quality than the draft I am putting together about the Glasgow College. My references are reliable (the main reference is a peer reviewed journal paper), significant( in that the paper was the front cover of the journal, but also I have a text book reference), I have also included a Lancet article that gives evidence for the history of the Dentists act and the laws allowing the college and subsequently the faculty to come into existence. Again a further example of another Royal College with a page for their dental faculty is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Dentistry_of_the_Royal_College_of_Surgeons_in_Ireland. Poorly referenced and little information.

So I think it does meet the notability criteria and this is not a narrow topic as it covers the history of a profession over many many years. Niallmcg (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Niallmcg: please be aware that not all material has been thoroughly reviewed against policy and the existence of poor-quality material is not justification for adding more of it (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). But that's not necessarily what's going on here. I haven't reviewed your draft so I'll take your word for it that there's a good case for notability. I just thought I would point out that improving an existing article then WP:SPLITTING it into separate articles may be an easier path for you to take. ~Kvng (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

Request on 08:19:13, 11 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Holly1688

When I check in the main page if there has the details about patterned color coated steel sheet, it shows no, and say I can create this page. But when I created and submitted, the page was refused by Wikipedia, and told me there already have the same page. So for this problem, may I know the reason? Or please tell me the specific reason why the page I create was refused. Thanks very much. Holly1688 (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Holly1688: The reviewer, David.moreno72, is suggesting that instead of creating a new article, you consider improving our existing article, Corrugated galvanised iron. Does that make sense? ~Kvng (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:13, 11 November 2017 review of submission by Tebellolenyatabernice

Tebellolenyatabernice (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tebellolenyatabernice: Hello, Bernice. Although you didn't actually ask a question, I thought it might be helpful to note that your draft is unlikely to be accepted for publication here on Wikipedia. Not only do we generally frown upon people writing about themselves (see WP:AUTO), but your draft looks like nothing more than a social-media posting. This is not the kind of thing that gets published on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:02:45, 11 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Aparna Nanjunda

Any one who can help me out

Thank you


Aparna Nanjunda (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aparna Nanjunda. Wikipedia only accepts articles about topics that have gained significant attention from the world at large. No information about the airline is available in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so Wikipedia should not have an article about it. There are millions of other articles that could be improved, see Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 12

03:12:19, 12 November 2017 review of submission by Pictank

This page creation was declined and would like to know why. Thanks

Pictank (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pictank. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is that all content must be verifiable in reliable, published sources. This is typically demonstrated by using inline citations. In biographies of living persons, inline citations are required for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, which in practice means almost everything. Draft:Mary W Maxwell cites no sources.Help:Referencing for beginners explains the mechanics of citing sources.
Also, Wikipedia only accepts biographical articles about individuals who meets it's notability criteria for inclusion. Maxwell may have led a full life, but it is not clear that anything she has done rises to the level of encyclopedic notabilty. Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, and the bulk of any article should be based on such sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:15:47, 12 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Donat.natthanan

Can you suggest me how to write Wikipedia in Tod Mun Hua Plee Topic .In This topics, I must send to a teacher to get the score.Please you suggest me

Donat.natthanan (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donat.natthanan. Wikipedia is not a cookbook, and articles should not be written like recipes. Borscht and Gumbo are two examples of well-written articles about dishes. Note their emphasis on the history of the dish and their use of scholarly sources instead of random websites. Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Tools/sources may help you find reliable sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:12:32, 12 November 2017 review of submission by Hagennos

I noticed that my submission of page for OPNSense Firewall was rejected stating that one of the references is not allowed. I assume that this is because the reference is to a blog post. OPNSense is an Open Source Firewall with regular updates. The project has two major updates a year and minor updates every month. The minor updates are important from a security standpoint as these are normally issued to correct bugs and close security issues. The announcement of the release is only through the blog post which I had referenced. OPNSense Release Announcement Only the major releases are referenced through the web page directly OPNSense Roadmap. I do not see any other way to reference the release and the only other solution would be to remove the reference which I believe is not correct. Hagennos (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Hagennos (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:10:02, 12 November 2017 review of submission by Oyaron


The TNS is the formal IAU (International Astronomical Union) name designator for discovered optical transients and Supernovae, mentioned e.g. on this wikipedia entry - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT_2017gfo, therefore we - at the Dept. of particle physics and astrophysics in the Weizmann Institute for Science - wanted to make sure that there exists and entry for the TNS on Wikipedia.

The article we posted was rejected for the reason that it is not supported by reliable sources, and we wonder what is necessary for this entry to be accepted.

The TNS is a utility serving the world wide astronomical community, supported by the IAU, with no commercial benefits or as such. All professional sky surveys, as well as amateur astronomers, report to the TNS for receiving formal IAU names for the discovered astronomical transients.

As a formal world-wide astronomical resource, an entry for the TNS must exist on Wikipedia

We'll appreciate your advise what is required to add/revise so that the entry is approved.

Kind regards,

Dr Ofer Yaron, on behalf of the experimental astrophysics group at Weizmann.

Hi Oyaron Your topic is so specialized that I strongly advise you to get advice from WP:WikiProject Astronomy. The regular editors there would know best how to deal with these issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:24, 12 November 2017 review of submission by AndHereComesJohnny

Gary Copec was a significant computer scientist (over 30 publications according to DLBP, well over 2000 citations according to google scholar), if people of his stature are not notable enough it is unclear who is. I'm not a coauthor, just someone who's done work in his field, and I was trying to fill in what I thought was a lacuna in WP coverage.

AndHereComesJohnny (talk) 6:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

AndHereComesJohnny If Kopec were an academic rather than industry scientist he might have had an easier route to notability. The only open route to notability requires that there are multiple independent and reliable sources that contain substantial information about him. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he did most of his creative work at Xerox PARC, considered a "university without students". Anyway, I added another link.

AndHereComesJohnny (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:03, 12 November 2017 review of submission by TonyParis

TonyParis (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why my article was declined and how can I get it accepted?

Thank you.


November 13

00:37:30, 13 November 2017 review of submission by عمر العالم


عمر العالم (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01:35:15, 13 November 2017 review of submission by Handfield123

I am being asked to provide reliable sources for the Yummy Devils page. This is a band that had a short duration from 1983-1986. It was not covered in the press, but had a strong influence on the local rock ecosystem. The only sources are really the people who saw the band play. There are also recordings, available on the page https://archive.org/details/iuma-yummy_devils

What is the best way to address this issue?

Handfield123 (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:19:53, 13 November 2017 review of submission by Irshad1289

I come to Know Copyright items which i included from Bijapur station and now i have removed that and done some changes and resubmitted the article may i know how much time it takes to review for second Edited Submission? Irshad1289 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:41:30, 13 November 2017 review of submission by Rayzhang123

Is there anyone can help me find others sufficient content to require an article

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=810085438"