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 What'supCanada (talk | contribs) at 07:01, 19 November 2018. 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


November 12

04:18:53, 12 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat







What is your question? Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I processed all but one of these pages. Declined most, CSD'd one, and accepted the village. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Sir, I object your decision. You have only declined quality and notable pages. I do not believe that some Wikipedia administrators review our articles so poorly. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Bro, Would you please give your opinion on the declined drafts? Drafts are being discussed here on Legacypac's (talk page) -------------- Farooqahmadbhat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be various fragmented discussions already, and an email in my inbox, I could reply in various places but I will just outline my thoughts here. You can refer to my comment by linking to it elsewhere if you want.

  • Junaid Azim Mattu as the Mayor of Srinagar is not presumed notable under WP:NPOL. Politicians that don't meet that guideline are hard to prove notable and will need more than a short stub.
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tina Dabi will decide the fate of Tina Dabi. As the title has already be create protected in mainspace I suspect COI or paid editing in the past on that subject.
  • Peer Ki Gali is notable, as noted by Legacypac the article is closely paraphrased and needs to be rewritten slightly to avoid copyright issues, this is a prose issue. Check [1] and [2].
  • Bufliaz has been approved.
  • Rafia Rahim and Mehak Zubair are low profile radio presenters, to have the articles accepted you need to expand the articles and add more references to show why they are significant.

I hope this helps. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:22:32, 12 November 2018 review of submission by BridgeScript

I would like to get a second opinion on a declined draft. Here is the discussion we had with the reviewer who suggested getting a second opinion: User_talk:BridgeScript

BridgeScript (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean "pass"? Can you point out those references that do not "pass"? BridgeScript (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The notability guideline is like a test applied to the article to see if it passes the minimum standard for inclusion. You need at minimum two or three times as many similar references, or at least two substantial articles in national news in addition to the references already in the article to pass. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. BridgeScript (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:58:02, 12 November 2018 review of draft by Laurel Brunner


Laurel Brunner (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to get this article posted? I keep trying and get no help at all and am confused by all the options of nonspecific guidance. I am sure I am not as clever as everyone else on here, but I am doing my best.

Can someone tell me what more do I need to show that this topic is notable? Why it has been referred to as “garbage“ (which is hardly an objective statement, given that it is only a short text)? Why is submitting updates in response to objections considered worthy of deletion?

I am new to this whole process so I think a little constructive support is not an unreasonable expectation. Here is the text I propose as a new article topic, along with its supporting external references. Please could someone tell me what is wrong with it, and how I fix it. Thank you.

Extended content

• {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Laurel Brunner|U1-employer=Digital Dots|U1-client=Xeikon INternational BV|U1-otherlinks=http://verdigrisproject.com, https://www.printingnews.com/home/contact/10290626/laurel-brunner https://insights.ricoh.co.uk/author/laurelbrunner https://www.asiaprintexpo.com/speakers/laurel-brunner https://www.printmedianieuws.nl/laurel-brunner/}}.


Xeikon Xeikon was founded by Lucien de Schamphelaere in 1988 to develop a digital colour printing press. In 1993 the company introduced its technology at an international trade show. Indigo, now HP Indigo, also introduced a digital colour printing press at this show. Together these two companies established a new printing method and revolutionised the printing industrythe principles of which have been widely followed leading to new applications for print, such as photobooks.

References & Sources "https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/20/business/company-news-xeikon-adr-s-surge-on-first-day-of-trading.html". The New York Times. March 20, 1996: COMPANY NEWS; XEIKON A.D.R.'S SURGE ON FIRST DAY OF TRADING Intro: The American depository receipts of Xeikon N.V., a Belgian maker of digital printing systems, surged 34 percent yesterday in their first day of trading. The company, which is seeking to capture part of the short-run color printing market, sold 6.4 million A.D.R.'s at $15 each to raise $96 million.

"https://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/29/business/xerox-is-offering-a-new-category-of-color-printer.html" The New York Times. April 29, 1996. Xerox Is Offering a New Category of Color Printer Hoping to find a color-printing niche with machines that sell for about $200,000 each, the Xerox Corporation has introduced its Docu-color printer, which can transform electronic files into full color pages at a rate of 40 sheets a minute. (…) For the most demanding color-printing customers, even faster machines with better quality are available in the $350,000 to $400,000 price range. The AM DCP-1, Agfa Chromapress and IBM 3170, all of which use a print engine made by Xeikon of Belgium, and the Indigo E-Print 1000 each print up to 70 pages a minute.

"presse-archiv/artikel/FAZ/20000129/agfa-digitaldruck-geht-an-xeikon/FR220000129311326.html" Frankfurter Allgemeine. January 29, 2000. Agfa-Digitaldruck geht an Xeikon (‘Agfa Digital Printing goes to Xeikon’) Das Geschäftsfeld Digitale Drucksysteme soll an die auf diesem Gebiet zu den international führenden Anbietern gehörende Xeikon N.V. verkauft werden. Im Gegenzug werde Agfa-Gevaert weitere an der amerikanischen Nasdaq notierte Xeikon-Aktien erhalten und damit die Beteiligung an diesem Unternehmen von 20,1 Prozent auf höchstens 25,5 Prozent aufstocken.

"http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dst30012002_084" De Standaard. January 30, 2002. De neergang van Xeikon (‘Xeikon’s fall’) Timeline of Xeikon’s rise and fall since its 1996 Nasdaq listing 

"https://www.tijd.be/algemeen/algemeen/george-soros-bederft-agfa-s-vlaamse-wereldprimeur/5120574.html" De Tijd, June 23, 1993. George Soros spoils Agfa’s world premiere De Hongaars-Amerikaanse spekulant George Soros en Benny Landa bederven de Vlaamse wereldprimeur van Agfa-dochter Xeikon uit Mortsel.

"https://www.tijd.be/algemeen/algemeen/Vlaanderen-is-even-goed-in-high-tech-als-Silicon-Valley/5120632" De Tijd, June 24, 1993. Flanders can match Silicon Valley’s high tech Met de ontwikkeling van de eerste digitale kleurendrukpers bewijzen we in Vlaanderen even goed te zijn als de high-tech bedrijven in Silicon Valley. Het is dus ook mogelijk in Vlaanderen', stelt Xeikon-voorzitter Lucien De Schamphelaere.

"https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/03/printing-revolution-landa-xeikon-drupa" The Guardian, May 3, 2012. Rivals launch a printing revolution that could be as significant as Gutenberg Landa and Xeikon to unveil new inkjet and toner technology at drupa exhibition in Düsseldorf This week will see the launch of a revolution in printing that may turn out to be as significant as the invention of the Gutenberg printing press - if entrepreneurs and analysts are to be believed.

Sources 

 https://patents.justia.com/inventor/lucien-a-de-schamphelaere</ref>
 https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB944267223291941315
</ref>
 https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0309/6105062s1.html#def9bc214b26</ref>
 https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=49581547</ref>
 http://www.rit.edu/news/newsevents/1997/Oct01/story.php?file=cary</ref>
 http://whattheythink.com/articles/83713-we-lost-derek-kyte-lucien-de-schamphelaere/</ref>
 https://patents.google.com/patent/US5617189A/en/</ref>
 http://www.imaging.org/site/IST/Membership/Honors_and_Awards/Honorary_Membership/IST/Membership/Awards/Honorary_Membership.aspx</ref>
 https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=49581547</ref>
 http://toc.proceedings.com/16615webtoc.pdf </ref>
 http://www.duomedia.com/news-detail/xeikon-international-bv/15484/xeikon-showcases-digital-label-advantage-at-busy-labelexpo-americas-2018-exhibition/english</ref>
 https://www.verpackungsrundschau.de/news/news+categories/people/digital+printing+pioneer+lucien+de+schamphelaere+has+died+at+the+age+of+85+.168807.htm#.W-Glf6ecYUs</ref>
 http://www.gbv.de/dms/tib-ub-hannover/505067803.pdf
<syntaxhighlight lang="trac wiki"> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/DE69400680.html
<syntaxhighlight lang="trac wiki"> https://www.wesayhowhigh.com/blog/article/print-explained-offset-litho-vs-digital</ref>
 https://www8.hp.com/us/en/commercial-printers/indigo-presses/products.html</ref>
 https://panjiva.com/Xeikon-International-Bv/4976262</ref>
 http://www.paper.co.uk/products/digital-media-xeikon/</ref>
 https://www.finat.com/members/details/xeikon-international-bv</ref>
 https://www.drupa.com/vis/v1/en/exhibitors/drupa2016.2410980</ref>
 https://www.interpack.com/vis/v1/en/exhibitors/interpack2017.2487457</ref>
 https://www.pastprintfuture.com/blog/2018/7/19/focus-on-a-digital-future</ref>
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPML </ref>

Laurel Brunner (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:45:29, 12 November 2018 review of draft by DalyceKelley


DalyceKelley (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please change my draft article title from DJ Bay Bay to just Bay Bay when reviewed as I have learned he is referred to as just Bay Bay aka Bay Bay The Ambassador. Thank you.

20:24:47, 12 November 2018 review of submission by Rmilnes


This is a page describing a branded technology. Is it at all possible to get a page on a branded technology published? There are unique elements to the technology. In principle there is no generic description for the technology other than by reference to the brand name. The original draft is extremely rich in clinical references, as well as the pros and cons of other technologies.

Rmilnes (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the helpful guidence on the draft. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

01:52:28, 13 November 2018 review of draft by 01:52:28, 13 November 2018 review of submission


I am requesting help because I do not believe this submission was correctly reviewed.

First, the reviewer notes that the submission lacks significant coverage in reliable, published sources. However, the article includes THREE references to an article specifically about SALMA OKONKWO, published by FORBES.com on 7/31/18 (see link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2018/07/31/ghana-solar-farm-ubi-salma-okonkwo/#2d239cf61d24). The article was written by sr. reporter Chloe Sorvino but published by FORBES.com. Other sources footnoted in the submission include PETROL WORLD, a global subscription-based b2b magazine covering the petroleum industry, and MODERN GHANA, a recognized news site for the country of Ghana. As required, all of these publications are independent of Ms. Okonkwo and I believe meet the rest of your criteria for outside sources.

Second, when this article was first submitted in Fall, 2017, it met the objectivity requirement (as reviewed by the first reviewer), and the text has not changed, except with the addition of several facts not available in 2017 so we are confused by the note that it reads like an advertisement. Every fact is presented clearly and without editorial remarks. Adjectives are minimal and used only when necessary. The timeline is correct and straightforward. There is no subjective text or opinion.

Therefore, I would appreciate a new objective review as soon as possible. Thank you.

23.241.240.131 (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is a solid start, but no matter how many times it is cited, it's still a single source. None of the other cited sources add anything significant about Okonkwo. If three articles independently and over a period of time went as deeply into the topic as the Forbes one, there would be no problem with notability. As it stands, however, I too would decline the draft.
Note that just because reviewers of the earlier Draft:Salma Okonkwo didn't mention notability when they declined it doesn't mean it hasn't always been one of the problems with the topic.
Much of the draft, such as the entire "other activities" section, cites no sources for its statements or misrepresents the sources. That can make it seem promotional. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:55, 13 November 2018 review of submission by KarenRutter


KarenRutter (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I have been told that my Articles for Creation: International Federation of Workers' Education Associations (IFWEA) has been accepted at Articles for Creation. What further steps must I take to have the article made live? Please can you guide me? Best regards, Karen

KarenRutter (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation of Workers’ Education Associations has been published and is live. You do not need to do anything more. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:27:52, 13 November 2018 review of submission by Agatanowa

Hi a added my own work on wiki article and reciewved message it will be deleted, this is my own work. It exist also on another page where i added it myself. wiki assumes it was copied and copywight vandalised because of its apperance on another www. This is a mistake. Dont selete my photo please. Agatanowa (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and follow the instructions. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Agatanowa: (ec) If you are referring to photographs c:File:Agata Nowa by Tucki.jpg and c:File:Nowa, 2018.jpg, they are not on Wikipedia, but on Wikimedia Commons, and any discussion of them should take place there. If you are Agata Nowa, then unless you used a self-timer or selfie stick, it's highly unlikely that any photograph of you is your own work - you were not the photographer, and it's the photographer who holds the copyright.
This help desk is the place to ask questions about Draft:Agata Nowa. Keep in mind that Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:05:26, 13 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Sabinablum


Hi, my article has been deleted for copyrighted content, but I don't get it because I put all the source where the information was from. Do I need the artist permission to use information from the artist's web site?. Also, can I have pls back my article so I can adjust it and improve it?

Sabinablum (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which draft are you referring to? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: It is Draft:Jacob Gils. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks. Yes you may use sources, but you cannot direct copy and paste from it and form an article. That's a copyvio and may lead to a block. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have the page restored. You may rewrite the page in your own words. Legacypac (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:59, 13 November 2018 review of submission by MostafaAdelSaf


I recently submitted a draft (Ahmed Farid) and it was rejected then reviewed and accepted. When I search on google for the name of the article, it doesn't show normal wikipedia, it shows something called Everybodywiki! I'd like to know what's wrong, please. MostafaAdelSaf (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New pages go through New Page Patrol (a review process) before being indexed by search engines. NPP may take several months. Wikipedia is free to reuse, and other websites republish our articles, which is what you are seeing. Legacypac (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:54, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Glazaunders


I am concerned that this article may not be coming from a neutral tone still. I revised the article to try to change all the language to neutral, but I want an independent user to tell me if there are still any problematic phrases, and if so, what they are. Glazaunders (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be writing about yourself/family members. Follow WP:COI if you insist on doing this. Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:22:56, 13 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Passion d


Hi there,

I have submitted an article but it was not accepted the first time. Therefore, I have had it revised and resubmitted. However, it is taking quite a bit of time to get back a response/notification as to whether it has been accepted or not.

Can you please let me know what the reason might be or how long it normally takes to get back an answer.

I would appreciate your reply.

Many thanks.


Passion d (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Passion d, Good job taking the advice and applying it to fixing the draft. It can take up to 7 weeks for review but it can usually be a lot shorter. In the mean time you can keep fixing your draft up to ensure it passes GNG. If you have anymore questions you can ask me or other AFCR. Good luck. JC7V (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:27:58, 13 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 68.103.78.155


Can you create the 2019 NCAA Division I Baseball season article please because they I Put 5 References on it and move it from the draft page to the Article Page please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time. No. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@68.103.78.155 even though you got a no, you can still improve existing articles on baseball topics and if you need questions on how, see the Teahouse or Help Desk and people there will be more than happy to assist you. JC7V (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:39, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Phuebi


Hi, I didn't create the page "V.League_Division_1_Women's". There are some things wrong with it that I don't know how to fix. Eg., the league is divided into Eastern and Western Conferences. So the "League table/Standings" Area is wrong. I don't know how to fix that by making a new table. Also, the standings change every time a game is played so how can you reference that?

I don't know or care anything about the stadiums. Can that be "commented out" without removing it so that the person who did create it can continue with it?

Whose responsibility is it to update the match scores all the time? I can't commit to it.

This article was rejected for lack of sources so I added some. How do I know if it's good enough.

btw - V.League Division 1 Women's is a sub-category of V.League (Japan) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.League_(Japan)>. That article is therefore misleading. Not sourced very well.

Have a great day!

ps - you instruct to "MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Save page" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!!!" but I don't see any SAVE PAGE button

Phuebi (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phuebi Greetings to you. See below
  1. Table - if you want to learn about inserting/creating a table, pls see Help:Table for instructions.
  2. Reference/Sources - independent, WP:Reliable (secondary) sources are used to for referencing content/info added. Homepage, user generated content site, sources associated with the subject, etc are considered primary sources and are not reliable/independent.
  3. Update/adding/deleting content - Draft articles and articles in main space have NO owner in Wikipedia; however the creator of the article is recorded in the page. For such any ::#:editor can add the info as long as proper reference is provided.
  4. Save the edit - when an editor has finished their edit and click "publish changes" on the top right corner of the page, a "Save your changes" window will appear. Enter a brief summary edit info on the rectangular box and click "publish changes" on the top right of the window. When you have done that, that means you have save your edit. Hope this help. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:22, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Anna.nicklin


I struggle with adding a company logo correctly, and with the right copy right permissions. As a company we own the rights, but it seems I may have uploaded under the wrong template or space or with insufficient credentials. Is there a guide specifically for company pages assets like adding logo to a Infobox? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nouryon_Logo_Button_WhiteOrange.png#/media/File:Nouryon_Logo_Button_WhiteOrange. Anna.nicklin (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted as Spam G11 Legacypac (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:53, 13 November 2018 review of submission by JoIIygreen


I would like a re-review of my article for Heart to Heart Counseling Center. I was basing the information off of the content which was listed on their website. I have since removed all of the content that was deemed to be promotional (pretty much everything about their products and services) and left only the history of the counseling center and Doug Weiss.

I feel like this article is necessary to the completion of Wikipedia because Doug Weiss already has a wiki page, so this page would complete his bio about where he works.

Please let me know what you think of the revised article. Thank you.

JoIIygreen (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JoIIygreen Good day. Pls note each article need to meet the notability requirement and the content is support by independent, reliable (secondary) sources in significant coverage in order to merit a page in Wikipedia and not inherit by association. Secondly, the sources you provided are not secondary sources but primary and they can NOT demonstrate the notability of notability of an organisation. Lastly, Wikipedia can NOT be the source - pls see WP:CIRCULAR. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CASSIOPEIA Thanks for your feedback. I updated the sources again to credible, primary sources like Rehab.com, Daystar TV, 7NEWS, and the Colorado Springs Independent. Is that enough? I was using this Wiki article here (AASECT) as a reference and don't see how mine is much different. JoIIygreen (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JoIIygreen First of all, pls read again what determine a primary source vs secondary source. Secondly what you provided are secondary sources but pls note the sources need to talk about the subject( Heart to Heart Counseling Center) in length and in depth and note merely passing mentioned. You sources do not talk about he subject. Thirdly, sources involved interview with the subject /associated with the subject are considered primary source and can NOT be use to demonstrate the subject notability due to the sources are not independent. The page can not be accepted to Wikipedia main space as its fails to meet the notability guidlines. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:02, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Jdriboflavin


Hi – I'm a contributor to the open source software project referenced in this article. It looks like the article was submitted originally by someone affiliated with a commercial entity, and then that commercial entity was confused with the open source software project itself.

It looks like the article has been stripped of those references and now points to a bunch of reliable non-commercial sources that talk about the project. But it seemed like a good idea for someone without a COI to review this before it is submitted.

Thank you.

Jdriboflavin (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even non-commercial projects need to pass the notability guidelines. And I am not convinced this one does. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

08:00:00, 14 November 2018 review of submission by KarenRutter


KarenRutter (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I was told by one of the WIki editors that my article International Federation of Workers' Education Associations was accepted, and that I did not have to do anything more. I can see the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Federation_of_Workers%E2%80%99_Education_Associations

But if I do a search for the title, it does not appear. Is it actually live yet? What else do I need to do?

Best regards, Karen KarenRutter (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KarenRutter if you mean an external search such as Google, it can take a while for new articles to be indexed. We have no influence on how and when the Google crawlers do their thing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KarenRutter, I could able to find in google search HERE. If you cant find it, then do wait for a few days and check it again. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:23, 14 November 2018 review of draft by NoDramaLama


NoDramaLama (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Hi there, I need help, please. I have submitted my article a few times, each time updating it as requested with additional links and references, but I keep getting rejected. Can someone pretty please help me to understand what kind of links are needed? I have viewed similar articles about similar companies and have tried to use the same kinds of links, but with no luck so far. I have updated it again with more links and references. Please, could someone assist? Thanks so much.

NoDramaLama Greetings. I have a quick look but have not time to review the article so please note below
  1. Wikipedia can NOT be the source - see WP:CIRCULAR, so pls removed as source
  2. Sources needed are reliable secondary (such as from major newspaper). Source from interview, home page, press releases, sources associated with the subject, user generate sources and etc are primary and/ or not independent, kindly remove sources.
  3. Please check on the blue texts in the grey panel on the draft article to learn further what is secondary reliable sources.
  4. Pls remove all the directors info in the draft.
  5. Organisation (subject) need to meet the notability of an organisation to merit a page in Wikipedia. Pls read. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk)

15:50:22, 14 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat


Changes have been made originally. Please give your opinions.

16:29:21, 14 November 2018 review of draft by Maclang99


Maclang99 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would need some help concerning the submission of my first article draft. After my last exchanges with User:Maclang99 pasted below, my article is still waiting to be reviewed. In the meantime I would like to know if there is anything I can do to improve it. Furthermore I see the duplicate created by mistake still exists, the second one has not been deleted yet. Thank you for your help. --Maclang99 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Maclang99[reply]

Sandbox - submission for review Dear Robert McClenon, As you have notified it, I have submitted twice the same article (Richard Castelli) for review. I did it by mistake. The reason is that my article being not in the Sandbox anymore, and nowhere else?, I thought it had been lost. So I published it again. I am a new user and I am not very familiar with Wikipedia procedures yet, sorry. You can proceed to delete the second one. Can you tell me where I can find the first again if I need to update it? Thank you, --Maclang99 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Maclang99

User:Maclang99 - There are two copies of your draft, at Draft:Richard Castelli and User:Maclang99/sandbox. In my opinion, neither of them is ready to go into article space. Do you have an affiliation with Richard Castelli? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Hi, Thank you for your fast and kind reply. Since you notified a possible COI, I would like to confirm that I have no affiliation with this personality, but having visited several of the exhibitions he curated and appreciating well the artists, he produces, I thought it would be interesting to find his biography on wikipedia as it does not exist yet. If my first article is approved this time, I would like to continue and propose a series dedicated to a number of living people from the arts and entertainment, especially those affiliated with science-art-technology. I would be grateful if you could give me your advices on what to modify so that the article could be admissible. Thank you in advance, --Maclang99 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Maclang99

20:20:18, 14 November 2018 review of submission by 165.225.38.214


We keep being told that this reads as an infomercial but it should be read as a bio. This individual in religious Jewish circles is a high profile convert. It needs editing and submission as a relevant individual. 3 more events will be added shortly.

165.225.38.214 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:36:17, 14 November 2018 review of draft by Ilmchal12410


Ilmchal12410 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Hello, Because of potential COI with my submitting this article myself, I'm considering allowing someone else to submit the article. Can another person submit the same article while my original article is in the Articles for Creation Sandbox? Do I need to delete it first? Please advise. Thank you, Ilmchal12410 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

08:16:29, 15 November 2018 review of draft by Angcorwut


Can I ask the team to review my updated submission if it merits approval, I adjusted the content accordingto the feedback left by the editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Myla_Villanueva

Thanks! Cor Angcorwut (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)angcorwut[reply]

Angcorwut (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:14, 15 November 2018 review of draft by Rlmintern


I am requesting help because two of the links I am trying to use to cite on my DAVIE page are blacklisted. I went to request that they be removed on the whitelist page, however, it still would not let me publish the links to even request that they are granted access. The links are from Ticketmaster, but are links to blogs written about the artist, not tickets. Rlmintern (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rlmintern, it seems that the reason your revisions got deleted was because they were copyright violations. Please review the policy I linked and make sure that content you add is sourced BUT is your own original thoughts.

By blacklisted I assume you mean that they tripped an edit filter? Try linking the blogs directly in that case. Best, ProgrammingGeek talktome 16:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:46:58, 15 November 2018 review of submission by Danmiddlehurst

I'm trying to publish an article about a company Taulia - who provide financial technology solutions. However, I can't seem to get it published as the feedback is that it's too 'marketing' sounding. Please can you provide some specific feedback so I can get this published? Danmiddlehurst (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I have a 4 year business degree and substantial additional business education but I can't understand what "a global working capital solutions provider that provides supply chain finance, dynamic discounting and invoicing services " means exactly. The company might be notable but the whole page stinks of promotional language and marketing buzz speak. Put the page in English please. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word "solution" is a paticularly huge red flag. Unless the topic is disolved substances or a mathematical problem it is meaningless marketingspeak. It is so bad that it usually irretrievably contaminates the entire paragraph or even the whole page. Any source that uses the word should be treated with apropriate skepticism. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

03:14:00, 16 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat

Please give your opinions. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The page Draft: Peer Ki Gali was reviewed and approved by an administrator an after an hour, another administrator "User:Onel5969" moved this page to Draft. I have supplied all the verified sources to the page. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've accepted the page again. There was an issue with the user who approved the page and it seems some people are taking pains to undo their work. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03:34:25, 16 November 2018 review of submission by 140.116.6.62


Thanks for reviewing the submission, but I wonder why it is challenged against the comment "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

The four references are all published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Selenium, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium_(software), is one of the most popular open source testing solution in the world, even they dedicate to the W3C WebDriver standard. The subject (SideeX) was adopted to serve as the basis and play a key driver for their Selenium IDE new generation solution, which is well notable in the field of software testing in the world. Reference 1 and 3 are the Selenium official web site and github, where they credit the subject (SideeX). Reference 4 is a keynote of the international official Selenium annual conference, where the subject is also credited.

Could you please help me how to improve the draft to make it acceptable? Thanks!

140.116.6.62 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

140.116.6.62 Greetings to you. I advise you to re-read the terms for independent sources and Reliable sources.
  1. The Official Selenium+Blog - This source (Selenium) is associated with the subject and it is a blog page, thus means not independent source.
  2. a9t9 - This sites created by two person in 2016 - see here [3], thus it does not considered well-established reliable source.
  3. Selenium - This source talk about Selenium and not in dept and length solely about the subject.
  4. Youtube - YouTube is considered not reliable source.

Sources from home page, official site, sources associated with the subject, user generated sites, interview, pres releases, interview are considered not independent and/or reliable. We are after secondary reliable sources such as from major newspaper, or reputable review journals and etc where by the subject is talked about with significant coverage, in dept and in length and not solely passing mentioned. In addition, notability is not inherited from association. For further info if the above is not clear to you, pls read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:32, 16 November 2018 review of draft by Digital Kungfu


Digital Kungfu (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Im requesting assistance because I want to know which websites are considered reliable and credible, for instance would this article from Entrepreneur Magazine be considered credible? https://www.entrepreneurmag.co.za/advice/success-stories/lessons-learnt/the-100th-edition-of-the-matt-brown-show-entrepreneur-magazine-interview/

Thank you.

@Digital Kungfu: The article in Entrepreneur Magazine is reliable, but not arms-length. It's written by the guest host of The Matt Brown Show's 100th episode, on which Matt Brown was interviewed. There's a lack of independence there. The article may be used as a source for content, but does not help establish the notability of The Matt Brown Show. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:48, 16 November 2018 review of draft by ReggieSJC


Hi, the draft for Videoslots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Videoslots has been rejected a number of times. It looks like its due to the references.

Should I only include news-worthy references from third-party sites? Does it matter if the 'Retrieved' date is the same for all references? Are there any other comments you can share that might help get the Videoslots page approved?

Many thanks

ReggieSJC (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Only 3rd party reliable sources
Retrieved date is irrelevant
Please don't use Wikipedia to promote your company. If the business is truly notable someone without a WP:COI will create the article Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:32:00, 16 November 2018 review of draft by Tanya ZQ


Hi! My name is Tanya from Zeroqode company. Our wiki post every time is declined. The problem is in reliable sources. The last comment is: "Still lacks reliable sources. Self-published sources such as blogs don't help"

Could you please have a look on our page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zeroqode and give us an advise regarding our references.

  1. As I understand reading you help "TechCrunch", "Computerworld", "What's New On The Net" are reliable sources, right? Or, I am wrong, and why?
  2. Could you please say whether we have any chance to be posted on Wiki?
  3. How many reliable sources we need to have to be posted?
  4. Is Youtube channel(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naa-_JVgQKM) are considered as reliable? This guy is an independent blogger who has a lot of followers, we found traffic from his youtube channel in analytics.
  5. What is regarding Philosophie source (Philosophie - Strategic software design and development studio) - I was thinking that their blog considered as reliable, because they are testing design and development ideas.

Thanks in advance! Waiting for your reply soon.


Tanya ZQ (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tanya ZQ I don't have much time, but a few things:
  1. I don't think "What's new on the net" is considered reliable. I'm open to be proven wrong.
  2. The computerworld article doesn't mention the company at all.
  3. See WP:TWITTER for information on social media, but YouTube is only really reliable for already reliable sources. Independent bloggers aren't reliable.
  4. You would need at minimum 3 in depth reliable independ sources. You haven't provided one of these.
  5. WP:BLOGs are rarely considered reliable.

I'd also argue the draft is really promotional too... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 17

01:23:09, 17 November 2018 review of draft by Kcornell123


I see multiple pages that list IMDB as a source but was told to remove IMDB from the source list. Do I cite IMDB or not? Kcornell123 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:40:37, 17 November 2018 review of draft by DFTSchools


Hi I have created the name of the Article as 'Daughters of Mary Immaculate and Colloborators'. But it should be 'Daughters of Mary Immaculate (DMI Sisters)'. How can I change?

DFTSchools (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to move page and if so, not to the suggested title. You have a lack of references and a bunch of inline links which is no good. Legacypac (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:36, 17 November 2018 review of submission by Akhilmohan3365


Akhilmohan3365 (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged G11. Total nn spam. Legacypac (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:41, 17 November 2018 review of submission by Basper82


We've updated the writing the references to highlight notable factors in this article and subject. We've removed promotional reference links and added information about cases that were of public notoriety over just promotional material for the lawyer highlighted.

Basper82 (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL lawyer. Correctly rejected. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:34:26, 17 November 2018 review of draft by Ushindi4578


Ushindi4578 (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Requested user be blocked. They are spamming the same garbage all over the place. Legacypac (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:50:28, 17 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 94.179.172.250


Something else. This draft is awaiting review and awaitig response. Please re-consider status of AfC resubmission by editor Alex4ff. Thanks!

94.179.172.250 (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:57, 17 November 2018 review of draft by Simeonsoden


Hi, I submitted a draft article that has been declined, however the account that made decision has since been blocked for being a sockpuppet (I'm assuming that's bad). Please let me know if I should make the suggested changes or if i could resubmit it and have a more 'reputable' user approve. Please advise on the best course of action Many thanks. Here's the draft in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Virginia_Bodman

Simeonsoden (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simeonsoden Greetings to you. You could follow the suggestion and read the links as per the in the pink panel in the draft. Please note Wikipedia can NOT be the source - see WP:CIRCULAR. Utube is not a reliable source. We are after multiple independent, reliable sources which the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not merely passing mentioned. Please note sources such as from major newspaper and reputable journals would be suitable as long as they are not interview pieces. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 18

01:28:38, 18 November 2018 review of draft by Kitb


I am grateful that my draft has been reviewed. I have read the review, and need help with the following aspects, please:

1) I am struggling with the comments that it: 'reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopaedia entry', and '...should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.' I have quoted, among several other references, the three most authoritative multi-authored textbooks written in the the overall topic in question (the overall topic being geriatric medicine, of which 'comprehensive geriatric assessment' [CGA] is a (or possibly the) key element. Indeed, CGA (or 'multidimensional geriatric assessment') has chapters devoted to it all three of them and two of them have two chapters referring to it.[1][2][3] I have quoted no materials which I have produced.

Q a) Could someone show me an example of what would be accepted as an '...independent, reliable published source.' that would be preferable to these?

2) I also need guidance as to why my draft '...reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article' and how I should change it to be '...from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.' Since there is no disagreement about how effective CGA is, and it is used pretty much universally in clinical practice, I cannot see how to make it 'more neutral'. I have read the style guides, but cannot work out from there where I am going wrong.

Q a) Could someone give me some guidance as to how this might be made more neutral, please?
 b) Could someone show how to make it more encyclopaedic, rather than 'like an essay', please?

Many thanks!

Kitb (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:37, 18 November 2018 review of draft by Bangruchika


Bangruchika (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:04, 18 November 2018 review of submission by Basper82


We've updated the writing the references to highlight notable factors in this article and subject. We've removed promotional reference links and added information about cases that were of public notoriety over just promotional material for the lawyer highlighted.

Basper82 (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


14:02:01, 18 November 2018 review of draft by Prob2prob


My submission has been declined by an account that has since been discredited and banned. Shouldn't this be reversed?

Prob2prob (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prob2prob:,
The issue of Frayae's AfC's accepts and declines has (and continues to be) discussed. In the meantime we are both reviewing a number of the reviews and handling any ad hoc requests that arise like this one.
In an immediate sense if I formally reviewed your article I would say that it had insufficient sourcing to demonstrate its notability - neither satisfies the various requirements within independent, reliable, secondary sources. I'd suggest resolving this then re-submitting. There is something to be said for the formal decline grounds offered, but I don't think it is a clear-cut essay usage, so notability is a key first step to resolve. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:24:13, 18 November 2018 review of submission by Jenna Berry


Jenna Berry (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi my name is Jenna Berry and i was wondering why my article can't be posted

Jenna Berry, Hi, your draft was declined for being an Wikipedia:Essays which is against policy (as you can tell by clicking that link). If you want to know how to write an article in a policy complying way, see WP:YFA for more then with that advice in mind you can go to work on your draft/article. Good luck. JC7V (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:57:44, 18 November 2018 review of submission by PMitrano


I created a page /article a few weeks ago and it got accepted! I would now like to edit it and add an image, but I can't figure it out. Do I click on "edit source"?

PMitrano (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PMitrano: - normally an article says "edit source" if it is protected, but I don't believe this is the case. Are you unable to make any edits to the article?
Regarding an image, are you intending to add a picture that is already in wikicommons or upload one (and if so, what are you hoping to upload?) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out! I initially did not see the edit button. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMitrano (talk • contribs) 22:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


November 19

04:33:30, 19 November 2018 review of submission by Criminalminds19788

mine was declined stating there wasnt a refrence, i gave one from forbes in the article, im confused on how that does not count as one

Criminalminds19788 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC), Criminalminds19788 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:35:36, 19 November 2018 review of draft by Yolbotwhit


Martin Creamer is a renowned and respected veteran journalist and editor in South Africa. He has a vast knowledge of the mining industry not just in South Africa but internationally as well. He deals with major mining companies such as Anglo American, Anglo Platinum, Anglo Gold Ashanti, Gold Fields, BHP Billiton and many more.

Yolbotwhit (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:01:22, 19 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by What'supCanada



What'supCanada (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Oxford Textbook of Geriatric Medicine - contents (chapters 16 & 17)". Retrieved 18 November 2018.
  2. ^ "Brocklehurst's Textbook of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, 8e - contents (chapters 34 & 38)". Retrieved 18 November 2018.
  3. ^ "Pathy's Principles and Practice of Geriatric Medicine - contents (chapter 112)". Retrieved 18 November 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=869539687"