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 2601:601:1501:3e90:5d72:37b9:12d1:2e91 (talk) at 18:00, 25 January 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


January 19

02:45:06, 19 January 2019 review of draft by Bablu Baghel


Bablu Baghel 02:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

05:30:24, 19 January 2019 review of submission by Esports.achiever

if we could know the actual reason for our article to be rejected? for your information the article is about Mr India Pritam Chougule and information given is genuine as far as our concern. it can be verified as necessary using the contact details of Mr Pritam chougule given. Thank you Esports.achiever (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esports.achiever. Draft User:Esports.achiever/sandbox was rejected because the subject is not notable (does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:02, 19 January 2019 review of submission by 2001:14BB:82:6985:9052:FF3:3ADA:593E


As per the Musician criteria I’ve further added - entries on National charts (three previous albums), one reaches #6 on Physical album chart. - three nominations for Jazz Album of the Year by International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (Finland) - two nationally live broadcasted feature concert under his own name: Finnish National Boradcasting Company YLE and Westdeutscher Rundfunk WDR (Cologne, Germany).

2001:14BB:82:6985:9052:FF3:3ADA:593E (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have resubmitted the draft on the strength of the 3 albums charting on the Finnish national chart. It will be reviewed in due course. You can continue to improve it while you wait. For example, external links, links that take the reader away from Wikipedia, are not allowed in the text. There are three in the draft; they should be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:58, 19 January 2019 review of submission by 76.89.243.88


The re-edit now includes references and citations.

76.89.243.88 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The piece in The Victoria Advocate is a start, although some reviewers will discount it as an interview in Kelton's small hometown newspaper. All of the other sources are trivial mentions, which do more harm to the draft than good. Replace those five with two sources as deep as, at least as reliable as, and more arms length than The Victoria Advocate, and the draft might have a chance. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:59, 19 January 2019 review of submission by 49.15.234.239


49.15.234.239 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


23:30:04, 19 January 2019 review of draft by Fraction7


I created a page for my movie, VIYCE. It was not biased or inaccurate. You stated that it was a joke or a hoax. It is not either. VIYCE is a real movie. I know because I made it. Please publish the article now. Thank you. Fraction7 (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fraction7. Don't create articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization, or products. Wikipedia is not the place to get the word out about anything. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. So you'll write an article about my movie, then? Who's going to? Fraction7 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fraction7: No, I don't create articles about films. Hundreds of volunteers do, though, and any number of them would write a Wikipedia article about your movie (although not necessarily to your schedule), if it were notable, in other words, if the world at large had already taken significant notice of it. Simply existing is not a reason to have an encyclopedia article about it. From what you've written elsewhere, I gather that there are no independent, reliable, secondary sources about it. That means it isn't notable (doesn't satisfy the encyclopedia's inclusion criteria). So there's no point in anyone writing an article about it here, because Wikipedia would not publish it.
There are talk page guidelines that you should attempt to follow. In particular:
  • As a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving a draft in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic, or statements based on your thoughts, feelings, or beliefs.
  • Fragmenting discussion by posting the same or similar questions in multiple locations is an unhelpful behavior known as forum shopping.
  • When you have a conflict of interest with regard to a topic, you are expected to respect the volunteer community's time and avoid making protracted or repeated requests.
Repeated violations of these behavioral norms may lead to being blocked from editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:41:20, 19 January 2019 review of submission by MarFad92


MarFad92 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC) It was an accident. I slipped and my keyboard decided to make random sayings. Also perhaps my mouse as well.[reply]

January 20

00:54:38, 20 January 2019 review of submission by Horncritic


Submitted article on Harmonie Ensemble/New York last month. It was accepted. But it doesn't show up on Google as a Wikipedia article. A totally different article submitted by someone else in 2015 in Swedish comes up, but not the new, expanded English version submitted last month.

Horncritic (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Horncritic. When Harmonie Ensemble New York is patrolled (the timing of which you have no control over) it will be released for indexing by search engines. Whether and when search engines actually index it is beyond the control of Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:15:11, 20 January 2019 review of draft by Thefriendlyneighbour


I am a first time wikipedia contributor and am writing about the biography of a sport person. I submitted the content and the content was rejected as I do not have any citations. Unfortunately this is the first time someone is writing about it and I am at loss how to find the citations for the details that I have collected. All of the data are collected based directly from the person along with all medals and photographs the person has.

Could you please help me to understand how to make it as a valid wikipedia artile?

Thefriendlyneighbour (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefriendlyneighbour: If nothing has been written about the person in any other publications then Wikipedia won't include an article about them. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:11:08, 20 January 2019 review of submission by Yungstatic14


Why was my article rejected? Yungstatic14 (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yungstatic14. It was rejected because the subject is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Twitter is not reliable if someone other than Yung Static is tweeting about him, and is not independent or secondary if Yung Static is tweeting about himself, so either way it does nothing to demonstrate notability. Also, autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:10:55, 20 January 2019 review of draft by Aarshisingh


To whom it may concern,

I just wanted to check if there is any way for this article to go live quickly?

Thank you! Aarshisingh (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aarshisingh: I am confused. You blanked the article and have added a tag asking for the draft to be deleted. Do you want it to be reviewed or deleted? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:25:19, 20 January 2019 review of draft by Amanda.useta


Amanda.useta (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done everything I was asked to do why am I getting denied when I have proper permission to use some information and why am I still denied when its corrected thanks God Bless--Amanda.useta (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanda.useta: This draft is a mess. I am not sure if you are trying to write an article about the man, or the college, or the church. Which is it? If there's no existing Wikipedia article about the church (I couldn't find one), maybe start there? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:07, 20 January 2019 review of submission by R38R32R10MTAOTT


I want an ReReview because I am adding more info that i know about the subject(s). R38R32R10MTAOTT (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R38R32R10MTAOTT. A fundamental pillar of Wikipedia is verifiability. The encyclopedia's content summarizes previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, you must be able to cite a reliable source before you may add it. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@R38R32R10MTAOTT: There are several problems with your draft. Firstly, the context of the subject isn't clear, so people not familiar with the subject won't be able to understand it. Secondly, it has grammatical errors and formatting problems such as the random use of capital letters and punctuation. Thirdly, it has no links to other articles so readers cannot easily establish what the terms you've used mean. The fourth and main problem is that there are no references, so people cannot verify that what the article says is accurate. It also means that reviewers cannot tell if what you've written about is a notable subject that should have a place in an encyclopedia. Please do not resubmit the draft unless you can fix all these issues. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:49, 20 January 2019 review of draft by Wednesday1331


Hi! I have a friend who wantsto take over working on this article. Can I delete it somehow or turn it over to her?

Wednesday1331 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wednesday1331: Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so your friend can just go ahead and improve the draft, and then submit it for review when they think it is ready. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:43, 20 January 2019 review of submission by Elitedivasindia


Elitedivasindia (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told, the topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, it is just blatant advertising too. Theroadislong (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:05:10, 20 January 2019 review of submission by King Momo42


I would like a re-review on my Banks because I disagree that it wasn't notable enough. This is due to the fact that I, myself was looking for a page about Banks IV in the curiosity of re-creating the cellular automaton in Java. Unfortunately, I was unable to find such a page so after I finished looking through other websites and articles, and re-creating the automaton; I decided to use the information that I had found to create the Banks IV page myself. I also cited many sources, if anyone could tell me what I could do to improve the page; that would be great! King Momo42 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@King Momo42: - Hi there. I agree with the reviewer that there are insufficient reliable, independent, secondary sources. The secondary aspect rules out any direct draws on the thesis (for notability purposes). That leaves the journal article and the commentary. While the independence of the article could be disputed I think it is a reasonable source. However, I do not believe there is sufficient reliability on the Ross Rhodes commentary - if nothing else, there isn't any editorial control: he writes the commentary and is the sole decider on inclusion. In effect, it is like a high quality blog. A sole suitable source is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:23:36, 20 January 2019 review of submission by Fraction7


Why has my article for VIYCE been refused? It was unbiased and accurate. VIYCE is a real movie. I will prove to you that it is a real movie. here is the website and the movie itself for reference. Fraction7 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Fraction7 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fraction7: - because by your own admission, it doesn't have any proper reviews. Wikipedia doesn't include any film in existence. Instead it has to satisfy film notability - which usually requires multiple in-depth, reliable, independent reviews. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody will review my film because nobody knows it exists- and nobody will know it exists until it has been put on several reliable spots-such as here on Wikipedia. I'm getting rather tired of this redundant and self-defeating expectation. Fraction7 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fraction7: - it is not a self-defeating explanation. It isn't Wikipedia's job to provide an initial publicity bump for your content. Every other film we've included got coverage and reviews without Wikipedia then they got articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not ask for a "publicity bump". All I ask is that my film be given an article on here. I do not demand that my movie be given a "publicity bump". YOU ask that. I cannot give my own movie a publicity bump. I only made the movie. It is your job to interpret it as you will. It is a 100% real movie. I do not ask that my film be given any reviews. I only wrote an article on it, believing that it deserves an article as much as Adam McKay's similar 2018 film, Vice. My movie is called Viyce. Only Adam McKay can get reviews. he is famous. He knows Will Ferrell. I don't know Will Ferrell. I made a movie. Fraction7 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

Why has my article for VIYCE been refused?

I fail to grasp this. I made a movie over the course of two months. It is a movie about George W. Bush. It is a movie. I chose to write an article about it. It has been refused. Why? It exists. I cannot provide reviews for it, from any big newspapers. This is because no big newspaper knows it exists. The movie exists, however. This is why I wrote an article for it. It should be published. I wrote the article because Wikipedia does not yet have an article about it. Fraction7 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poster indeffed for advertising/promotion. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:29:25, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Aaron Justin Giebel


I think that this article is relevant, because millions of people use kiddle (it's not my site) and they might want to know what it is. It needs to be writen. The articles were 2 years after it launched. Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron Justin Giebel. Critical articles from The Independent, BBC News, and The Next Web are a good start, but all significant coverage seems to be within a few weeks of the service's launch. To show notability, there needs to be attention from independent, reliable sources, over a period of time. It may be WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:57:20, 21 January 2019 review of draft by Tigerfan5150


I'm writing to get more information about why my submission was declined.

According to the message, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." However, every factual statement made in my article was cited and referenced a live, clickable primary source.

The message did not indicate if certain sources were not reliable or if all. I am mainly confused because of the number of articles allowed on Wikipedia that have no sources at all.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Tigerfan5150 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tigerfan5150. There are many citations in the draft, but not every statement cites a source. That's a problem, but one that easily could be fixed by removing the unreferenced material. A more serious problem is, if you're close enough to the subject to know personal details, what are you doing writing about them, and what aren't you disclosing about your connection?
Most serious is that the subject doesn't appear to be notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Wikipedia is looking for what independent sources have written about Guerin. The cited sources are almost entirely what Guerin has written or are by entities that have a vested interest in promoting her: her school, employer, publisher, and a venue where she is reading. The draft cites only two independent sources: msnbc.com and bestnewpoets.org, and both are trivial mentions, not in-depth coverage. The Best New Poets anthology is a glimmer of hope, but for now it is WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce. Thanks for the response. I have to admit, I'm now even more confused. The original rejection was for the type of sources. You say that if I remove the unreferenced material, that would take care of the problem. But then you say that the subject is not notable. So, if I make the changes, will the article still be rejected since the subject is not notable? As to any connection with the subject, I'm not sure what "personal details" you mean. All of the information in the article was available on her university website or blog, or these sources led to other information through fairly simple Google searches. Again, any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
@Tigerfan5150: Yes, the draft will still be declined. It has multiple problems. Some could be fixed, but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. The unsourced information in the draft is marked with {{citation needed}} tags. Perhaps you saw the information somewhere and simply neglected to cite where you saw it (although I notice that you didn't answer the question of why you chose this topic and whether you have a conflict of interest with regard to it). In any case, remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Again, thanks for the response. Sorry if I seem irritated as that's not the tone I'm meaning to convey. You actually didn't ask why I chose the topic. You asked "if" I was close enough to know personal details about the subject, why was I writing about her. I thought I addressed the "personal details" in that I didn't think they were that personal since everything was on her university page or Google. Since you've asked, I've taught some of her poems in my classes on contemporary poetry. Also, I've actually been interested in giving writing for Wikipedia a shot and thought Guerin would be a good test case precisely because she's an up and coming writer and it wouldn't be a long entry. I also chose her, as opposed to other contemporary poets I teach, because she was selected for the Best New Poets anthology this year, so I thought she would be a good choice. She's also mentioned on another Wikipedia page that I found when I did a search to see if one already existed for her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jang_Seoknam. The irony of all of this is that one of the reasons I've considered writing for Wikipedia is that so many articles are poorly written on a basic grammar/syntax level, and that many of them cite few or no references. These are two of the main reasons why I, and my colleagues, tell students not to use Wikipedia as a source. This back and forth has made me realize that there does seem to be some attempt at due diligence, but it makes me question why so many poorly written, poorly sourced, and non-notable entries are on the site. I'm sure editors are constantly updating the site to remove these articles, but how did they make it on in the first place? Sorry for the rant, but again I was first told I was rejected due to unreliable sources, then to remove the unreferenced material (though literally thousands of Wikipedia articles have few to no references), and then I was told it doesn't matter what I do, you won't approve the article anyway. I guess I just wish there was consistency in your guidelines and decisions. Thanks again for your time. Tigerfan5150 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:35:34, 21 January 2019 review of submission by DanGBE


Following up on my changes, secondary sources added such as from the official Thailand Ministry of Education website and 'Which School Advisor' and other publications.

DanGBE (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:10:50, 21 January 2019 review of draft by Rdoboyouh


My submitted was rejected, what do I need to include to get it approved? Rdoboyouh (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rdoboyouh. See the big pink box on the draft or the corresponding big yellow box on your talk page. You may also find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY useful. Most likely there's nothing anyone can do to get the draft approved. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:33, 21 January 2019 review of submission by 2605:E000:214B:E700:D88C:DD08:7082:7EAA


2605:E000:214B:E700:D88C:DD08:7082:7EAA (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2605:E000:214B:E700:D88C:DD08:7082:7EAA: hi there. Unfortunately the reviewer was correct to reject this - until he has created multiple notable works or has otherwise satisfied notability (which requires multiple in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources) he isn't a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:40:54, 21 January 2019 review of submission by 184.166.187.64


The latest revision should address your concerns.

184.166.187.64 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@184.166.187.64: - Hi there. A couple of notes:
1) AllMusic is good, but you can't pile up the same provider multiple times - i.e. you need a non-AllMusic review. Two is better because it makes it easy for the reviewer in case they're not sure about one of them.
2) Once you've made those edits you need to resubmit your draft so it can be processed. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. 184.166.187.64 (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:29, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Aaron Justin Giebel


I updated the sources to a whole bunch of different times: 2019, 2018, and added more information. Please take a look! :) Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Justin Giebel: - hi there. I would say there probably sufficient notability here, so feel free to resubmit. I've not checked it over on the various other grounds to see whether it satisfies those. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:39:27, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Paymanadibi


I want to know why my article rejected?!!! I did any corrections that you suggested in guideline. please help me Paymanadibi (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paymanadibi: It was deleted by an administrator who considered that you were using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion, which is against the rules. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:16:39, 21 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Arushij94


I am trying to publish a Wikipedia page but my draft for the same is being repeatedly declined by the worthy editors for different reasons. I need assistance as our efforts on writing Wikipedia page for Artisan Furniture requires definite direction. I strongly feel that it belongs to the Wikipedia family but I am somewhere missing out the important steps and ways to justify the same. I direly seek to have a proper channelised approach with which I can justify the relevance of this article on the valuable Wikipedia platform and the guidance to make it a better piece of reading.

Arushij94 (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arushij94: - hi there. It was actually declined on two different grounds - the latter two were both failure to demonstrate notability (it's just that "decline" means it doesn't currently satisfy notability and "reject" is a belief by the reviewer that it can't, at this time)
The problem is that a company has very strict corporate notability ccriteria to be included in wikipedia. The sources used to prove notability (obviously you can have other sources to prove individual facts) have to be in-depth, reliable, independent and secondary. The last rules out the company website. Industry magazines are often suspect as they have a bias in supporting businesses within their industry. Reading through the other two sources, they both seem to fall afoul on reliability/independence grounds. As such, the article is currently far off the multiple high quality sources needed for corporate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:21, 21 January 2019 review of submission by MansaMusaRw


MansaMusaRw (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hey there, how do i edit my draft incase it was deleted?

@MansaMusaRw: Your draft was deleted due to it being used for advertising or promotion, and because of copyright violations. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:29:59, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Kjsopro


Kjsopro (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are just test content - you're welcome to write them in your sandbox, but please don't submit them to AfC which is for drafts believed to be ready for article status.
Additionally, there's no need to resubmit help requests. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:18, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Kjsopro


Kjsopro (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjsopro: Your draft has no content apart from the words 'Ayub moalim'. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:57, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Kjsopro


Kjsopro (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:10:55, 21 January 2019 review of submission by BalaKPN


BalaKPN (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the content not being suitable (I think you've tried to make an infobox, which is great, but it would still need significant prose content), the sourcing is far from sufficient. corporate notability rules are very strict, requiring multiple sources that are: secondary, in-depth, independent and reliable. The latter two sources are not secondary, and the former is just basic company details - far from in-depth. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:26, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Woleking


Woleking (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:15, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Woleking


Woleking (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Why would my truth information and work ethics be rejected. People love the work and so do I.thanks Woleking (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:03, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Your suraj


1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IME_Group There is a page about this in Wikipedia. My page (project) is also related to that same company. IME_Group has not even provided enough references/ citations. I have provided as much as I can. Both are of equal value in my country and both are notable. Since IME has a page in wikipedia. I thought City Express Money Transfer also deserves to be in wikipedia. In a way, I am helping Wikipedia by giving information. I have no personal gain from this. This is only a part of my project in college. I am, in a way practicing writing articles for Wikipedia so that I may/ may not contribute more in future.

2. Also, I have seen some not so notable companies of Nepal listed in Wikipedia. There is no question about notability of my subject. Please trust me on this one. I have also provided strong references. I am not trying to promote or exaggerate anything. I am telling what the references are telling.

3. You can also suggest me to remove/ changes or edit that are preventing my article from being approved. Please do not delete my article. Please re-consider. Notability is not an issue, please trust me.

Your suraj (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Your suraj. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they are welcome. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
I take no position on whether City Express Money Transfer is notable or not, but the draft fails to demonstrate that it is so. It doesn't cite a single independent, reliable, secondary source containing significant coverage about the company. If you wish to help Wikipedia, I recommend against creating new articles, especially ones about current companies. There are millions of easier and more helpful things you can do to improve the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to get involved. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:01, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Martins12345


FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING A RE-REVIEW ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}}

Martins12345 (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is not written in English and appears to be a blatant advert so has no chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:47, 21 January 2019 review of draft by BalaKPN


i am trying to enter common data about my small scale industry/company . i am not sure why its rejected frequently . Please advice what details i missed or what details your expecting

BalaKPN (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate request - I've answered above Nosebagbear (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:08:57, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Rj Akash Empire


Rj Akash Empire (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rj Akash Empire: - this is functionally (part of) a CV, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:19:27, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Klinton Edvan


I have given evidence about whatever article I wrote, if you refuse me, what can I do? You have only got the wrong information about me. See, I have been troubled by giving evidence about my article again and again, but you are just stuck on your own point only. If there is a mistake in an article before, I would like to know its solution, not about myself, but here showing the dishonesty itself. This will be a crime, if you have trouble me again and again without any reason, than i'll be sad. I was threatening in the chat room but they (Volunteers) do not want to write the article through myself which i want to write. Misrepresentation is being given against my wishes, so you are requested to see the process of correcting it by looking at my article and not repeating the process and not creating problems again and again. please Help me please. i gave citations too, is they are fake.--Klinton Edvan (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Klinton Edvan (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are still saying that I have not done any changes about my article yet. How can you say that? What was in my article first and see, what is now . i sure you will be find a changes definitely. You do not intend to get my article published. Without any reason, you have rejected that, which is injustice and I will definitely speak against it and go to the Public Complaints Forum. So talk about the issue, and not bother me. irequest you again.. please and i am really Sorry if you hurted from me. Klinton Edvan (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klinton Edvan. If English is not your first language, you may be more comfortable writing for another language variant of Wikipedia, such as Hindi, Tamil, Kannada, Marathi, Telugu, or one of the many other languages of South Asia. See meta:List of Wikipedias for a complete list of choices. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:31, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Aaron Justin Giebel


please take a look Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also a duplicate request - please see above.
For the future, we're pretty quick on the help page (usually within about 6 hours), but please give us at least 48 hours before posing another question, we're only human! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:34, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Franklin187


Hi everyone, I just removed the SPS and UGS. Can you pls tell me where I should take the three best sources as User:Buidhe said help desk. Where is that exactly? Thanks in advance.--Franklin187 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Franklin187 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Franklin187. This is the place to bring your WP:THREE. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

06:17:00, 22 January 2019 review of submission by Klinton Edvan


i literally know English, Don't worry about it. please tell me about rejected my article. what type of notability you want. i didn't get you, please describe me in details, what do you want to see in my article or what has to be removed in my article. when you got any error in article please tell me in brief where's the error in that and how will overcome from that? please help me. i really want to write a same article because i want to show his journey for all readers... --Klinton Edvan (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Klinton Edvan (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:YFA, WP:NBIO. Do not demand for explanation without reading anything. I do not care whether you want it to be published or not, but whether is suits Wikipedia or not, after all this is the 5th most popular website in the world and we have strict content policies according to Alexa. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:33:46, 22 January 2019 review of submission by Your suraj


Please keep my article as a stub if it can't be put as an article.

Your suraj (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Your suraj: - hi there. The opening line of a stub's definition is "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". As you can see, stubs are still articles. As such, it is still necessary to meet the minimum corporate notability requirements. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:37:16, 22 January 2019 review of submission by Swiss cottage 75


Swiss cottage 75 (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:24:34, 22 January 2019 review of submission by Sportsfan018

Hello this is my first page so apologies if I am not doing the right thing. The reviewer thegooduser declined my submission with the reason that it does not show significant coverage. Does that mean it doesn't have more sources or the subject is not significant enough for a wiki page? The reason I created the article is because i didn't find a page for it and thought to add to the wikipedia with the entry. Can you help expand on what is needed to get this published please? Thank you Sportsfan018 (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Articles need to have enough secondary, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your draft fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. Please take some time clicking into the links and familiarize yourself with our content policies. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:35:36, 22 January 2019 review of submission by BalaKPN


I am entering a new company common data. so i dont have secondary details pls advice how can i proceed

BalaKPN (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BalaKPN. If there are no independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the topic, then you are not allowed to write an article about it on Wikipedia. See WP:WHYNOT for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:59, 22 January 2019 review of submission by Nirupammathur


Nirupammathur (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miraj Group. I've been trying to submit the information that I found about Miraj Group. Previously it got rejected because the language was bit advertising type. Next I tried making it in the sandbox and wen't on to get a review that where am I lacking, but again my article in Sandbox got rejected. I've worked and wrote it according to Wikipedia guidelines, still it gets rejected.

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Nirupammathur#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirupammathur: Thank you for your response on your talk page. The subject of Draft:Miraj Group may be notable, but the draft fails to show that it is. It cites only two sources, and one of those (likely a press release) is about an insignificant industry award. The second source is better, but is really about Miraj Cinemas, and says little about the parent company. It is cited in the draft in support of the statement, "Latest Miraj Group has started its cinema division through its company Miraj Entertainment Ltd." The corporate structure would be a good thing to include in a Wikipedia article, but the Economic Times doesn't mention Miraj Entertainment at all, so that statement is not supported by the source. Most of the draft is not supported by sources.
On top of the notability and verifiability problems, the draft gives undue weight to the company's philanthropy, and there are significant problems with the grammar, style, and tone of the submission. If English is not your first language, you may feel more comfortable contributing to another language variant of Wikipedia, such as Hindi, or one of the many other languages of South Asia. See meta:List of Wikipedias for a complete list of choices. All in all, I suggest you focus on your schoolwork rather than editing Wikipedia. If you do edit, it's better to gain experience by making smaller edits to existing articles for a considerable while before you try to create a new article. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:21:20, 22 January 2019 review of draft by LHamstig

can a 'reliable source' be a website page of the company which the article is based on? Thanks

LHamstig (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. It would be a primary source. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:10, 22 January 2019 review of draft by LHamstig


I have problems having my article approved, stating it 'reads more as an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry'. Any advice on how I can proceed?

LHamstig (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a start remove every instance of the word solution ie as in "business specialising in digital navigation and compliance solutions" it has no place in a Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:04:10, 22 January 2019 review of submission by Mickmonaghan343


Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Guys I am putting this page up for review again, it has been delayed by a previous person being banned and my version being draft two. Aside from that i feel he does comply with wp music under section 4 of notable touring artist, i have added his references of his current canadian and american tour and referenced independant sites that mentioned his tour and i did the same in europe, I am in the process of finding articles about his music too that are independant but hopefully you will consider this, I am confused at how he can have a german wiki page but not an english one. thanks michael

@Mickmonaghan343: I think this artist could meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. However you need to remove any material that you can't provide a reliable source for, per WP:V, and you need to remove any promotional language. See WP:PUFFERY. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

02:18:52, 23 January 2019 review of submission by TiffanyShiuan


TiffanyShiuan (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TiffanyShiuan: - as the multiple reviewers have noted, it doesn't meet our tough corporate notability rules. It's not clear either of the sources is sufficiently independent as a general source. The latter one definitely isn't in terms of the article, because the bit of it actually about KKday is mostly the CMO talking - either direct quotes or indirect quotes.
I believe it is probably too soon for this company to have acquired the suitable coverage needed for a wikipedia article Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:19:12, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Lori Jo Underhill


Lori Jo Underhill (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This draft/sandbox was deleted for copyright infringement Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:14, 23 January 2019 review of draft by Pittsburghmichaels


I want to publish a wikipedia page on Kimber Kable. My first raft was denied by a wikipedia user so I would like help to make the article something that can be published and that is up to Wikipedia standards.

Pittsburghmichaels (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pittsburghmichaels. Wikipedia is not much interested in what Kimber Kable says about themselves. That's what their website is for. So throw away your first draft. The bulk of any draft should come from sources independent of the company. Think books, academic journals, magazines, and newspapers from reputable publishers, Stereophile and The Wall Street Journal, for example. WP:NCORP has more information about which sources help demonstrate notability and which don't. You'll also want a thorough understanding of WP:COI guidelines and the WP:PAID policy. WP:BFAQ#COMPANY may be helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I contacted Kimber Kable and asked them for information about their comapny that is not from their website. They sent me a PDF file. Is there a way to upload and cite a PDF file on wikipedia ?

@Pittsburghmichaels: Internal company documents may not be used, sources must be published. Moreover, materials produced by Kimber Kable cannot show that Kimber Kable is notable (is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article). Do not use information from them except for the most uncontroversial details, like what their address is. The meat of any article must come from independent sources, ones that are arms-length from the company. Most importantly, if you are editing at the company's direction and for any kind of compensation (which includes intangibles such as experience earned through an unpaid internship) then you are in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use. I left key information about that on your talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:07, 23 January 2019 review of draft by Akiraa20


Hello, I have noticed that the Ryan Hart Wiki page has been rejected with the comment from DGG stating "He does not seem to have come first in any notable tournament". This is completely incorrect and shows a lack of investigation on the reviewers part, Ryan has won 2 Evo championships (the biggest fighting game event in the world) along with countless other wins in large tournaments such as DreamHack series (largest computer festival in the world) along with many other notable events, he is also holds 4 Guinness world records and has accomplished within the Esports scene then the likes of Justin Wong (which has a wiki page). Please can this be checked again but by someone who is willing to read the information present.Akiraa20 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Akiraa20 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Akiraa20: - to be covered: rudeness, summarising, OTHERSTUFF and thoughts on EVO
Firstly, while nothing you've said is forbidden, unpleasant phrasing is probably not the best way to acquire another willing volunteer (flies, honey, vinegar etc)
As a note, when you've got 200 sources (or indeed, more than about 20), it's probably worth putting the best 4 on the talk page to save reviewers from the world's largest notability scavenger hunt.
That Justin Wong has an article is irrelevant as to this one - it's always possible that one shouldn't etc: if we base articles off others, it means our article quality has to go downwards. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a better phrasing of the reasoning
I am inclined to think you are right as regards EVO - I can't speak for DreamHack, and the guinness records won't qualify, but it certainly seems a suitably large tournament to satisfy. I don't have enough experience in this field to review it suitably, but it is worth another examination. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:15, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Sportsfan018


Hi, I got a rejection on my submission that the subject was not notable enough for wikipedia. The subject is a popular comic strip by an award winning author. I don't understand what the criteria for "notable" is. The reason i created the article was because I didn't find an article about it in the first place and wanted to contribute. I see all kinds of articles on wikipedia so not sure what makes one more notable over another. I included both primary and secondary sources. I understand not everything needs to be in wikipedia but this is a recognized comic strip by a known award winning author and its a bit disheartening since its my first contribution to wikipedia, i thought i was adding to the body of knowledge about a comic strip i like. Thanks Sportsfan018 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan018: - hi there. Notability is one of Wikipedia's most complicated areas - it's one of the reasons why we encourage new editors to get some experience elsewhere. For these comments I'm only commenting on notability - there are other reasons for declining a draft, so solving this may or may not be enough to qualify for article-hood.
Wikipedia has different thoughts on notability (which could be crudely summarised as "sufficient secondary source coverage in reliable/independent sources, as well as satisfying certain other restrictions). These rules vary - so an actor has different requirements to a company etc.
Reading all of the policies, in one go, to inform yourself would be enough to make you weep. The comic strip book is the easiest one to identify - Book notability - for this draft, the possible criteria are either 1 (multiple coverage in other sources, such as reviews) or 2 (won a major literary award). For the general comic strips, since they're on a website, are bound by Web notability - these are conveniently identical: enough coverage in other sources or a major award.
This is interesting as the National Cartoonists Society did give a Reuben award to Buni - this could well be considered as a suitable major award. It might be worth going to David.moreno72's talk page and asking him on it.
With regard to your sources, you need to find better ones: both the website itself and the NCS' site are helpful, but can't be used to prove notability because they are primary sources - Wikipedia needs in-depth, secondary, reliable/independent sources (newspapers, books, and some other sites etc).
In short - the draft may pass notability, however they may be other aspects that need to be fixed. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:50, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Alexander Geut


My current draft was declined because the subject seems to be insufficiently notable. Nevertheless, the statement is debatable. iTechArt is a really big company with a pool of almost 1500 engineers. It is well-known among famous enterprises, startups as well as accelerators and incubators. iTechArt has developed products for such famous companies as Convene, ClassPass, Fuze, Zefr, BuildingLink, etc.

I've gone through multiple reviews, as a result, the initial company's description has been reduced to a minimum. It may be the reason why the draft have been declined.

Also, there was a problem with the article's resources as they have been named irrelevant.

Could you please check the earlier versions of the article and help me decide what to include?


Alexander Geut (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexander Geut. I checked the sources cited in every version of Draft:ITechArt , and the coverage of it on Tut.by and Onliner.by. My conclusion is that the company does not meet the English-language Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which are much tougher than they were a year ago), so it is not a suitable subject for an article here. Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines and procedures, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So if you are fluent in Belarusian you could try writing an article for https://be.wikipedia.org. They may have looser inclusion criteria, especially for Belarusian topics. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:45, 23 January 2019 review of draft by StaringAtTheStars


Hello, I am requesting for a more experienced editor to check all currently used sources (none of the hidden ones, I haven't checked those out for myself) in this draft for verifiability. It would also be much appreciated if someone were to quickly proof the lead section only (the rest of the page is mostly machine-translated which I am currently in the middle of rewriting). Thanks, StaringAtTheStars (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StaringAtTheStars. I'm not sure you're going to get any nibbles here, where there is a six week backlog of submitted drafts to review, and thus not much time for proofreading, copy editing, rendering second opinions, etc. on unsubmitted drafts. You might be better off asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games or perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines. Reviewing just a few of the sources, I find that The Wall Street Transcript verifies the statement where cited. L'Express is a dead link for me. Le Monde is a reliable source, but if it's used to support a direct quote, the language of that quote can't be changed. See WP:NONENG for how to handle it. MCE TV is also a reliable source, but I don't see the date "August 14, 2012" in it, and I'm not sure about the word "dossier". It mentions the July 3, 2012 special issue, the resulting controversy, and talks about the magazine's subsequent clarification/sort-of-apology for using the word "excitant" where it could be understood to mean something that they didn't intend. So there's a bit of a source-text disconnect on that one. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:01:59, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Kaiyu9028

my draft got rejected when it was under review, just want to know why Kaiyu9028 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaiyu9028. Draft:BFG 50 was rejected and deleted for being a copyright violation of https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/large-caliber-rifles/u-s-a-large-caliber-rifles/serbu-bfg-50-eng/. I've left more information about copyright on your talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:22:47, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Johnw28

I am seeking for an article to be accepted. Name: Blu Leisure as an studio album

Johnw28 (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnw28. I assume you are talking about User:Johnw28/sandbox. The reliability of singersroom.com has been examined before at the reliable sources noticeboard. In the most recent instance it was described as, "more like a promotional vehicle than a news source". The blurb the draft cites there reads like a press release. The Hype Magazine is not a great source either; it appears to be based solely on the artist's social media posts.
Replace these two sources with three better ones that show the album meets one or more of the notability criteria for albums. The list Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has suggestions on where to look. Then add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft as described in Template:AFC submission/doc. If you can't show that the album is notable, then Wikipedia shouldn't have a stand alone article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:08:56, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Roberts.meme.circus


Roberts.meme.circus (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, so I can see that i was rejected for not having notability. I just want to know exactly what that means on Wikipedia so I can change up my draft, because SuperFly GamingPants is a real channel, created by me, and I need all the advice possible so it can be added to Wikipedia.

Thanks


@Roberts.meme.circus: Hi there. You can see the main Notability page (there are other ones for different subjects - including companies and web content.
The nutshell summary of the page reads:
"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."
Since you don't include any sources - let alone the need for sources that are: reliable, independent, in-depth & secondary (and several of them) - unsurprisingly the draft was rejected. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:52, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Roberts.meme.circus


Roberts.meme.circus (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Also, I was trying to upload pictures to my wiki, but it hasn't worked and the guide doesn't load properly, so i would like some help regarding that too.

January 24

03:16:40, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Jelliott4

I'm baffled as to why this article has been rejected for WP:GNG. Firstly, how can an American technological achievement be of suitable notability for German-language Wikipedia, but a direct translation of the existing German article is somehow inadequately notable for inclusion in the English-language version of Wikipedia? Furthermore, it's not at all clear how this article could possibly be construed as failing to meet the criteria laid out at WP:GNG. There are four bullets there (if we ignore the one that merely defines "presumed"): 1) Significant coverage--the article has four sources, three published books and one newspaper article--even by the most stringent definition of "significant coverage," I'd contend that the latter two clearly count. 2) Reliable--again, three published books (one published by SAE, no less) and one newspaper article. 3) Secondary sources--while two sources are encyclopedic in nature (tertiary source) and the newspaper article relies almost exclusively on firsthand quotations (arguably primary source), the aforementioned SAE-published book is clearly a secondary source. 4) Independent--it's almost axiomatic that books written by historians in 1973, 1996, and 2005 are independent of a one-off technological achievement that occurred 1878.
What am I missing here?
Thanks! Jelliott4 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Jelliott4 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jelliott4. Don't stress over the decline. First try to give the reviewer what they want. To that end I've added, to a further reading section, a baker's dozen of contemporary newspaper articles. You can get them through historical newspaper databases such as NewspaperArchive. If you don't have access through a library, WP:RX can get the article for you. You don't have to use all of them, but try to use a few to expand on what came from the books.
I also reorganized the original references. I don't know this particular reviewer's process, but the way the references were arranged there's a danger that a reviewer wouldn't even see the bibliography section. Many reviewers look first at the references section, and look no further if they don't like what they see. The former references section made it look as though all the content came from one author - Kimes. You can further improve the draft's chances by using inline citations to show what material came from Georgano and what from Donald. The guidelines say you don't have to do this, but since you cite Kimes inline, you clearly know how, and it may be more pragmatic to cite all of them inline than to stand on principle and argue that you shouldn't have to. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow; thanks, Worldbruce! And no, I don't have access to to all the newspaper articles you cited, nor to the original sources (which are just a copy of those cited on the original German-language Wikipedia article). But one of your newspaper articles was available online, so I added that as an inline citation where it made sense to do so. I guess I'll resubmit and see what happens.
Thanks again! Jelliott4 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:26:13, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Pennylwang


Dear Mr./Ms.,

Regarding my rejected edit, I understand it did not have any references, and now additional references have been added. However, after clicking the Publish changes, it is still rejected,could you kindly let me know if there's more I need to do? Appreciate your help. Penny Pennylwang (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Pennylwang: - Hi there. Two things of note:
You haven't actually resubmitted your draft/sandbox - "publish changes" means that you saved you edits (which is vital!). However you need to redo the process you used to put it back into the Articles for Creation queue for another review.
AfC tags (decline and rejected) stay there, so future reviewers can see what caused past versions to be declined, and so what they should focus their reviewing on. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Whispering - You should not have rejected the draft. You should have declined the draft. The Reject option is only for submissions that are not appropriate for improvement and resubmission. The submission was not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. That option should be specified for pages that are misuses of Wikipedia, advertising (the most common violation of the purpose of Wikipedia), attack pages, or vandalism. It was merely not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, but was a good-faith attempt at a submission. I have not evaluated whether it should be accepted; some film festivals are notable, and some film festivals are not notable. By rejecting the submission, you made it temporarily impossible to create a new draft with the same title. So do not reject a submission unless you think that there can't be another submission with the same title. (Preventing another submission is fine for garage bands, non-notable local companies, and non-notable people.) I have taken care of the name problem by moving the rejected draft out of the way. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pennylwang - I apologize on behalf of AFC for the mistaken rejection of your draft, which should have been declined. Your new draft is now waiting for evaluation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is at Draft:Golden Tree International Documentary Film Festival. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, one of the core tenets here at Wikipedia no original research isn't a reason to reject a draft? I reject anything that doesn't have sources. I can't tell if it's not original research or not if it doesn't have sources. Whispering(t) 13:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:08, 24 January 2019 review of draft by Otterlyhwi


Hi! I would like to ask for your help to review this article I have made. First of all, I'm sorry if my wording or grammar is a bit off. There is (2) things that I need more guidance, in which it's about my draft article titled Lee Dae-hwi.

1) How do I prove that the subject of the article is relevant enough in the songwriting area? Lee Dae-hwi has made his name in the Korean Medias that he has been active in making, composing, producing songs. He already made 8 songs (1 unreleased in music sites, but has been played on broadcast). As he already active as songwriter, it is noted that he still has not released his songs with himself as the singer. I have added the online news links for the references, but it seems that the last review I got is that it's still did not show significant coverage and not enough to prove his relevancy in such area.

2) How do I prove that Lee Dae-hwi's released songs has been released legally / How do i credit them properly? As I got the review that my article has not meet the Notability of musician, I need your guidance in which part(s) that I should fix. I need to know if I have to add more details for the songs' copyrights.

Lastly, Thank you so much for your patience in reading my questions. I would very much appreciate it if you could help me. --Otterlyhwi (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otterlyhwi (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:05, 24 January 2019 review of submission by 2409:4070:2093:54A7:C038:4361:BEA7:EF0B


Well he is a youth activist working towards various organisations, his profile may be used by other people to understand him better

2409:4070:2093:54A7:C038:4361:BEA7:EF0B (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:05:16, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Positivity2


We have added more notable information


Ralf Friedrichs ( Born in Germany October 31,1961) He is an Author of various books https://g.co/kgs/FNNVsV and https://g.co/kgs/bSdVvU and has exclusively written articles for TheFix online magazines https://www.thefix.com/living-sober/look-through-windshield-life-not-rear-view-mirror-life, https://www.thefix.com/living-sober/you-owe-it-yourself-be-great, https://www.thefix.com/living-sober/even-after-addiction-while-recovery-believe-yourself and the Sobernation magazine, https://sobernation.com/dont-ever-give-up-my-advice-that-will-inspire-you-forever/ inspiring millions around the world.He has podcasts Ralf Friedrichs Show on Iheartradio, https://www.iheart.com/podcast/966-ralf-friedrichss-show-30264070/?cmp=android_share and on Google Music, https://play.google.com/music/m/Iincn4f5jejfoeuysowxroi4spq?t=Ralf_Friedrichs_s_Show. His show Take Your Life Back Today Show has had over 2400 episodes on Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCufPHmusCuRRtfm7cvmdBFw.


Positivity2 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Positivity2: - as far as I can tell, all this is primary content - links to things he has written. Notability has to be established by secondary sources - for author notability and Web notability the usual form is secondary works about his work. This is often in the form of reviews. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:57, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Rosiedylan59


Rosiedylan59 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


As suggested, I have edited the article so that it only includes secondary sources citing the information provided. I've also made a few grammatical edits that help the article to read more like an encyclopedic entry. Please consider these changes and let me know if there is anything else I can omit or include to improve this piece! I look forward to your comments.

16:48:40, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Jeyabalajitm


I have updated the references of the source from various government websites, other public forums and books from different authors. Please re-review.

Jeyabalajitm (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:07:30, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Aslivker


I have added additional Notability by industry experts, leading business analysts and established community in API Management space. Also, I used very similar article as an example of a valid and published Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong_Inc.

Thank you for your assistance. I will appreciate any feedback to make this article accepted. Andrew Slivker Aslivker (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:42, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Anarulkhaled786


Anarulkhaled786 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarulkhaled786: - there functionally isn't any content in this. Its only source also would appear not be suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:15, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Tennisevaluation


Tennisevaluation (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Hello, I am makig a new article on Wikipedia and the question is if it will be automatically done for lets say wikipedia slovakia or other countries or I have to do this separately from each country I iwsh to have it in? Also my father was a famous athlete but then there was no intertnet he was representing his coutry and is hundrets of magazines an news a[ers and nothing on internet.. this way i see wkipedia as absolutelly ....you know....[reply]

@Tennisevaluation: - articles don't automatically translate across, as machine translating is too poor. Additionally different wikis do things in different ways (including what they decide to include), so something acceptable here might not be elsewhere.
If you created an en-wiki article, someone looking to create one in another language might find this one and translate it. That however is fairly rare. Others deliberately seek out articles to translate, but given our 5.7 million articles is presumably also quite rare.
The quickest route (all supposing you create a suitable article here first, of course) is to take a look at our translation advice page, though this is fairly contingent in speaking Slovakian, of course. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:35, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Potatowrite


I have updated this page to remove corporate language and rely on reliable sources.

Potatowrite (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


22:41:45, 24 January 2019 review of draft by Sikh Milly


Hello I please need some help regarding some page coding. I am creating an artist profile for UK Grime MC 'Subten' but the list of his Singles keep appearing at the bottom of the page under the References and I cannot seem to get the table in the right place. Guidance would be appreciated thank you. it's currently under Draft:Subten.

Sikh Milly (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:07, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Nickbaines1


Hi there, I was wondering if you could tell me what the submission on Judy Hall was missing to be included. The intial two times it was declined I was given reasons and suggestions of what to add. The third time the post was rejected. I would like to know what additional material is needed. DO you need me to reference all 45 published books? More personal bio details such as age, DOB, place of birth? Pictures?

I have a lot of extensive career information the subject's credentials in the Mind Body and Spirit market, though much of this is tied to published works, Amazon links (which I know is not allowed) and details that I cannot link to independent third party articles.

Advice on how to proceed, and on what is needed to legitimise this article to be accepted would be greatly received as this rejection didn't highlight anything for me to work on.

Best Nick


Nickbaines1 (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


January 25

00:34:55, 25 January 2019 review of draft by Julianhyde


It's been a year since the submission was declined, and Apache Arrow has been steadily gaining in adoption. 3,000 stars on GitHub are an indication of this.

Maryland database professor Daniel Abadi, who has no connection with the project but has done considerable work on database memory representations, wrote an analysis of Arrow's strengths and weaknesses in March and recommended the project. Do you think a paragraph summarizing his analysis would satisfy the "notable" and "independent" criteria?

I do not agree that the article is "written like an advertisement". The claims made in the article are goals of the project, and a piece of technology is defined by its goals and constraints.

01:28:57, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Athu1


Athu1 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I did not submit this page for an additional review. That was done by somebody else. Also, it had been mentioned to resubmit after filming started, which I did. I also gave sources to that. Many other film articles have come out including the same actor's movie Sarkar. Because of this, I request a re-review of this film article and to reinstate this as a draft rather than reject this.

06:49:14, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Suranyimeng


Suranyimeng (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:51:13, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Robinsonritchie


I am asking for an advice on how to publish a Biography of an Artist. I don't know how to do that. Could you please help me with that. Thank you Robinsonritchie (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:59:29, 25 January 2019 review of draft by Riga-to-Rangoon


Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi...i am trying yo submit this draft but am having problems with it...i have this link for a draft i made and saved but am not sure it reaches you? can you help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_Gustave_Brisch

Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:01:53, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Aondofasamuel


Aondofasamuel (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aondofasamuel: - as the reviewer said, there may be other issues with the draft, but the clearest is the lack of sources. Wikipedia articles are required to have sources that are: in-depth, reliable, independent & secondary. I suggest having a read of referencing for beginners

12:02:41, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Lawrencedudley-parallax


Hey, as this is a publicly traded company I'd like to expand on the information available on Wikipedia about it. The founder, Arnold Ziff, is considered to be sufficiently notable for inclusion so I believe that the PLC he founded should be as well.

Lawrencedudley-parallax (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrencedudley-parallax: - unfortunately Wikipedia specifically rejects inherited notability - the company would need to stand on its own merits. Additionally, there is functionally no detail in this draft and it currently lacks any suitable sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:03, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Spook Electro


Spook Electro (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spook Electro: - the reviewer was correct. The draft both completely lacks sourcing and also a list of genres and basic biographical details would not be sufficient content. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:22, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie

14:01:22, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie


Thank you for the sources. I’ve went through it thoroughly and made changes to the wiki page. Please look at it and accept or comment. You should accept this submitted article for the following reasons:

1) Uses only Verifiable- reliable third-party sources: Reputable online magazines: reuters.com tenextweb.com trendhunter.com entrepremeur.com

Local online newspapers: news.am armenpress.am

Government websites: gov.am

2) Has a Neutral POV- neutral tone throughout, no opinions just facts, no judgmental language, no loaded words, flattery or words that imply lack of credibility, no promotion, only facts

3) No original research- not opinion piece

4)Article content subject is notable, other similar wiki pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(software)

Jack Helie (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:09:32, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Tejasmaan


Tejasmaan (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir u tell how to make a articale

See WP:YFA and WP:N. Your article does not have a single source, which violates the verifiability policy. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 15:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:05, 25 January 2019 review of draft by Millipede


Hello, I was working on an article about American violinist Anton Miller and wanted to link to the article on violinist Franco Gulli, but that article exists in Italian and not in English, so I wasn't sure how to create the link. Any advice will be appreciated.

I think maybe I should direct this question to the Help desk . . . Sorry if I put it in the wrong place.

Millipede (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - reasons left on your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:33, 25 January 2019 review of draft by JohnLindam82


We are trying to publish company page following the guidelines for creating company pages. We keep getting declined due to the guidelines, despite referencing independent, reliable, third party sources. What would it take to get the page published. For example, would a major article in a state-owned news paper or other media with national coverage be sufficient?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnLindam82/sandbox/ozonetech

JohnLindam82 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnLindam82 - Who is "we", and what is your affiliation with the company? A user account should be that of one person, and any connection between that person and the subject of a draft or article, such as a company, is a conflict of interest and must be declared in accordance with the conflict of interest policy.
If you are spending corporate money to try to publish an article about your company, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia, you might make better use of corporate resources by improving your own web page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:40, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Associatekono

Template:PINTURA:PALABRA

Associatekono (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:45, 25 January 2019 review of draft by DMayumba


I have a number of sources that do not have an online presence as they are magazines from the 70s. I can cite the info as a journal but was wondering if I can insert images of the articles. If so, what is the best way to do so? Thanks!

DMayumba (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:00:02, 25 January 2019 review of submission by 2601:601:1501:3E90:5D72:37B9:12D1:2E91


2601:601:1501:3E90:5D72:37B9:12D1:2E91 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=880151834"