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 Perfect forever (talk | contribs) at 12:16, 13 February 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
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


February 7

04:55:27, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Shivkumawat


Shivkumawat (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:49:49, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Kavita singhania


Kavita singhania (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Your draft does not have enough secondary, reliable sources that are independent of the subject ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:18:19, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Vishnu vijay

The confusion between "Brian Humphries" (CEO Vodafone) & "Brian Humphries CBE" (Ex CEO EBAA) needs to be resolved. Google is misleading people by showing photo of one Brian and wiki page of another Brian. Thanks for the understanding. Vishnu .V (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vishnu vijay: As explained to you here, the existing article will remain where it is until a reviewer has considered whether your draft is suitable for Wikipedia. If they conclude that it is, they'll use WP:disambiguation to enable both articles to co-exist and to help readers pick the article about the Brian Humphries that they're looking for. There's currently a seven week backlog for drafts awaiting review. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:20, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Rizwan708


Rizwan708 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment left by the reviewer was:

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Facebook is not an acceptable source.

Please click into the links and familiarize yourself with our policies, or else your draft will be rejected again and again. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 09:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:15:11, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Smny2018


Smny2018 (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Hello,[reply]

I worked in two drafts 3 days ago and they have not been published till now. Can I know why? And when arevthey going to be published?

Regards,

@Smny2018: One has been published, but the other two, Draft:Languages of Saudi Arabia and Draft:The Two Holy Mosques Museum in Makkah have not been reviewed. That is because you've not submitted them for review. There is currently a backlog of about seven weeks so you may have to wait a while before these get reviewed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:16:27, 7 February 2019 review of draft by Klorathy

Hi - when using the IMDB template as for other actors in Wikipedia I see the following in my preview: Klorathy/sandbox on IMDb, so my user name rather than the actor's name - is that correct? thx, Bill Parslow Klorathy (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Klorathy Welcome to AfC help desk. I have moved your article to Draft:John Locke (actor) and have reviewed the draft. Unfortunately it does not meet the notability requirements at present stage. Pls read the comments on the grey panel at the top of the draft page and click on the links (blue highlighted texts)for further info. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:12, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Hjlresearcher16

What was/are the reason(s) was rejected for publication? Thank you. Hjlresearcher16 Hjlresearcher16 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjlresearcher16: The reviewer gave the following explanation: 'Fails WP:GNG, requires significant coverage in multiple independent verifiable secondary sources.' Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:42:40, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Bojkaergi

Please accept this i am new in word and i don't know many things for word so pls accept my first edit that i am doing !!

Bojkaergi (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:08:44, 7 February 2019 review of submission by IZinePro

I'm film Co-editor in Indian film industry I have edited many films. I have IMDb for source and some small articles.

if this isn't enough what I should do>

IZinePro 13:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@IZinePro: Please read WP:FILMMAKER to understand the criteria we use to decide which filmmakers should have articles about them and which should not. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Sandbox Is rejected And I Don't Know Why...

15:17:52, 7 February 2019 review of submission by BONGINKOSI


Moloi 15:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Can Someone Help Me Plz...

BONGINKOSI, Same reason as when you asked two days ago - you're writing about yourself. Autobiographies are frowned upon. And, to be frank, you're not notable. Cabayi (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:10, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Horncritic


I posted an article about Harmonie Ensemble New York on Dec. 11, 2018, and it was accepted. But the article doesn't appear in Google under results. It appears in a box to the right. Can something be tweaked so that the article will appear under results? An earlier article about Harmonie Ensemble New York was posted by someone else in Swedish in 2015 (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonie_Ensemble/New_York), but that is not the article I submitted. Many thanks for your assistance.

Horncritic (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After the page is approved at AfC it goes through another process of review before it is released for Indexing. Then Google has to index the page, which generally happens pretty quick. Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:52:50, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Meeplistener


Meeplistener (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have edited the article to conform better with Wikipedia standards by adding inline citations and removing excessive references.

@Meeplistener:  Done I have further improved it and accepted it into mainspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:35, 7 February 2019 review of draft by Harshita Catherine


Good day! I have done my article in my laptop later I checked the article in my phone to see whether it was approved. They were some red and green higlights which I realized were mistakes and changed them accorfingly. I have kept the appropriate reference for the article and corrected the format where ever necessary in my laptop as I couldn't do the same in my phone. But even after editinf the article it still shows me there are 6 edits which I have corrected already in my laptop. Is there something that I have to change ? Can you please guide me through this. Thank you!

Harshita Catherine (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshita Catherine: - Hi there. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean you made some edits and they haven't taken effect on the draft?
Usually this means you hit preview and forgot to save. It's probably the oldest mistake to make in Wikipedia (I still do it occasionally). Have you tried re-doing one of the edits and seeing if it "sticks" this time?
Have a look at the view-history tab - can you see an edit there that matches up with your changes? This should confirm if you actually made the change.
If you can see it there, but the mistakes are still in the draft, it's worth refreshing the cache on your laptop and phone - it may be remembering a prior incorrect version (though editing usually causes an automatic update on that particular device).
If it's none of those, please give any extra detail you can think of to help clarify it. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:00:02, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Shfilmmaker


I added new information and more broad such as the introduction, personal life, awards and honors, and filmography. Shfilmmaker (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:55, 7 February 2019 review of submission by Skates61

Hi, I'm trying to link to the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Daughters but I can only link it as an external, not internal link, because there is a %27 in the title, which is said to be invalid characters but that is what is in the Wikipedia title. should I attempt to change the other articles title to remove the %27?? why can't I make this an internal link like it should be? thank you.

Skates61 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skates61: - Hi there. If you mean you're trying to add an internal link (one of the blue words (like this) from a wiki page (draft or article) then you don't need to write %27 at any point. Instead you just need to write [[King's Daughters]] which will read as King's Daughters, or you can make the link map to different words - e.g. Daughters of the King can be written by using [[King's Daughters|Daughters of the King]]
I hope that solves the issue - let me know if not. Extra detail can be found at WP:WIKILINKS. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

03:20:37, 8 February 2019 review of draft by ElephantintheBoardroomAU

Can you help with a step-by-step procedure on how to edit my draft? Also if anyone can provide examples or specific detailed feedback of my mistakes, it'll be very helpful. I'm new at creating an article on Wiki and I'm very confused. Thanks in advance. ElephantintheBoardroomAU (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ElephantintheBoardroomAU (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ElephantintheBoardroomAU: Hi Welcome to AfC help desk. There is a lot of info below, kindly take your time and re-read if needed and do go to the links (blue highlighted texts for more info). Do pop to my talk page if you need further clarifications.
  1. Two accounts - If you are User:ElvisMartin45. First of all from you edits, besides the ATW edits, your first edit was Draft:Elvis Martin. The original creator for this draft article has an conflict of interest (COI) and also autobiography (AUTOBIO) If you are indeed User:ElvisMartin45, then you need to aware of COI and AUTOBIO guidelines and policies, which means
    1. Wikipedia do not encourage an editor with COI and AUTOBIO to edit/create on affected pages.
    2. Associated with the subject: If you are a friend, relative, co-worker, marketing agent, etc of the subject (Elvis Marting) then you have a COI here. You need to declare you COI on (a) on your user page and (b) on the article talk - pls see how to declare your COI -WP:DISCLOSE.
    3. Also, if you have 2 accounts in Wikipedia, pls do not use them to canvassing, or edit that fall under WP:SOCK for you will be banned from editing. I would advice you to stop editing one of the account completely and place "retire" on one of your account - see Wikipedia:Retiring.
  2. Edits - that is no step by step on editing (not sure you meant step by step to create an article here). I have sent you a welcome message, and there is a link on editing which you would have a read. In general,
  3. Sources - do provide source (inline citation - see referencing for beginners for info and how to provide inline citations) to support the content claimed as per source for verification.
  4. Superficial edit - For minor edit such as superficial edit (such as bold, replacing : to dash and etc) then sources are not needed.
  5. Draft article to be accepted - pls see the grey panel comments atop on the draft page to note what are needed to meet the notability guidelines for article to merit a page in Wikipedia.
  6. Always leave a edit summary (leave a brief description the nature of your edit) prior saving/publish your edit.
  7. 3RR - Pls do not violate 3 revert rule (revert more than 3 times on the same page within 24 hours even your edit is rightful/correct unless edits involve are considered vandalism edits) for you will be blocked. If there is a disagreement then invite the involved editor(s) to the article talk page for discussion and disagreement resolution.
  8. Copyright infringements - Pls do not violate copyright infringements (COPYVIO) and pls write the content in your own words as Wikipedia takes copyright infringements VERY seriously as it entails legal implications.
  9. Teahouse - WP:Teahouse - you could post any "edit" questions to Teahouse, and one of the friendly hosts will assist you accordingly.
Cheers and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:37:02, 8 February 2019 review of submission by Cody Alan Cox

Cody Alan Cox (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My name is Cody Cox. My article got declined I was just wondering why this was. If we can not get it published now what can I do to get this published. I would love to get this published. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Cody Cox

Don't use Wikipedia to write up glowing profiles of yourself. I've sought deletion of these pages. You are wasting our time. Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:28:33, 8 February 2019 review of submission by Prasantharyan

Prasantharyan (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted G11 Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:57:33, 8 February 2019 review of submission by Dansziel

I am requesting a re-review because I think the article is really relevant since there isn't much information about Africa. What do you think I should do to make it legible because I do plan on contributing more Ugandan articles in the coming future. Dansziel (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dansziel: - hi there. The draft was rejected on notability grounds, not relevance/importance (which we aren't equipped to reliably judge). It's a very clearcut case of failure to meet notability as the article as no sources at all, let alone sources that are: in-depth, reliable, independent and secondary (newspapers, books, journals etc etc).
Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:09, 8 February 2019 review of draft by Iiwannou


Iiwannou (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to create a user page with our university information. But it always shows me that it will be deleted because it does not meet the criteria. Can you help me please? I do not know how to proceed from now on. I removed all the promotion material and I added also citations ans links.

14:58:00, 8 February 2019 review of draft by Til1004


Hi,

I want to publish the article about empower, which is a PowerPoint add-In. I thought with about 1 million users the software is a relevant topic for wikipedia, as well as a lot of big companies use the add-in. Also there is already an article existing in the german wikipedia. Unfortunately the subission of my article got declined. Thats why i would be super happy about some help with improving the article.

Thank you!

Yours sincerely Til1004 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Til1004 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:31, 8 February 2019 review of submission by IOHKwriter

IOHKwriter (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have been discussing the Cardano page with 2 editors at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cryptocurrency#Deletion_of_IOHK-related_content. I believe Cardano is notable, or at least as notable as more than half of the List of cryptocurrencies. However, there has been aggressive deletion of any mention of IOHK, Ada or Cardano. This has left a hole in Wikipedia's coverage. The Cardano page should be given the opportunity to demonstrate its notability.

You are unlikely to get any AfC reviewer to approve a page on this topic. The area is awash with undosclosed paid editing, WP:COI and WP:PROMO. If you want a page you will likely need to move it yourself. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

00:42:57, 9 February 2019 review of submission by IWAAD NATION


I would like to re-edit and resubmit....is this possible....?

IWAAD NATION (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IWAAD NATION. The topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing will get an article on the subject accepted. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to write about yourself or to advertise, promote, or "get the word out" about anything. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:09:54, 9 February 2019 review of draft by Hawaiiaces


What additional information is needed to have this article published? How do we know which statements need inline citiations?


Hawaiiaces (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. See WP:V. Unsourced BLPs will be deleted. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:31:55, 9 February 2019 review of submission by Lurain11

Please explain clearly what is needed to get the page published. I have a few more edits to make and would like to submit. But before I do so, I want to make sure the page will meet Wikipedia publishing criteria.

Also previously, I receive a message from Worldbruce asking about conflict of interest. Please know that I have no external relationship with the organization.

Thanks. Lurain11 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lurain11: Please read Wikipedia:Your first article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:23:00, 9 February 2019 review of submission by Garyrich

Garyrich (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my article about heat exchangers for diesel fuel rejected

It is not an article just a question. Legacypac (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:22:32, 9 February 2019 review of submission by Handigan

What can I fix to get this article published? This is my first article and I am new to the process. Handigan (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Handigan: Please read WP:AUTOBIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BLP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:08, 9 February 2019 review of submission by E-Stylus

Thank you for reviewing the above draft. I'm responsible for 1 of the 4 draft submissions and added my COI disclosure to the talk page before editing. Per the stop sign icon, I'm requesting a re-review of the references in relation to WP:NCORP guidelines. Specifically, please see The Robot Report, Robotics Business Review, Styleintelligence Report and Technology and the Virtues. These articles, report and book seem to have significant coverage of the subject and appear to "include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". If these references establish notability, there is also coverage of the subject in multiple RS to verify some of the article's content. Please see The Boston Globe, Boston Business Journal, MIT, Bridgewater State University Undergraduate Review, WBUR, Washington Post, The New York Times and NASA Spinoff. Any feedback you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks. E-Stylus (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to accept it. A lot if RS coverage. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Legacypac. E-Stylus (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:49, 9 February 2019 review of draft by RonanODriscoll

Hi, I am trying to get a page reviewed and it was initially rejected. Now there is no more input after my improving the page. Can I appeal the decision to have it left in draft as the initial editor is no longer interested?

Here is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tralibane RonanODriscoll (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RonanODriscoll. Tralibane was moved from mainspace to draft (here the term "rejected" is used for something else). Now it's in the pool to be reviewed, which you can expect to happen within the next two months. You may continue improving it while you wait. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce. Thanks for responding. Is there any way to know how much more editing is needed? I would hate to wait 2 months to have it rejected again (call it what you will, it was still rejected) and be left wondering what the reasons were.
@RonanODriscoll: Articles for creation is an iterative process. It's unfortunate that the backlog is as large as it is, but don't let that discourage you. Contrast the draft with Banagher and Lurgan. The draft need not be as long as them to be accepted, but those examples may give you ideas about the range of sources to look for and what else you might be able to write a paragraph about. Consider asking for advice at the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland. That project is also a good place to find existing articles to improve while you wait for the draft to be reviewed. See Wikipedia:Community portal for more ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:32, 9 February 2019 review of submission by Appushere


Hi Dan, As per your suggestion, I have removed the youtube and wikipedia links as citation. I have included more reliable citations and references. Request a re-review. I sincerely hope the article will be published. If there are any more corrections to be made, please let me know. Thank you.

Appushere (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Appushere (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:26:47, 9 February 2019 review of submission by M416p

hello sir!@K.e.coffman: this article is available on other languages as well, so i think it confirms the natability. M416p (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:11, 9 February 2019 review of submission by RobertGerrard


ROBERTGERRARD 19:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

February 10

02:18:27, 10 February 2019 review of submission by Goleuddydd Am Magh Fada

Goleuddydd Am Magh Fada (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC) why did you decline my article meany[reply]

05:32:29, 10 February 2019 review of draft by Sagarshah28


My article is marked as advertisement, I have written this article from a neutral point of view.

I understand as a human there are chances that I might have added few words that seems like adding personal thoughts on the subject. I request you to pin point the areas where I can improve and make this article completely neutral.

Please note that all the information (including the age and name of parents) are taken from the third-party media sources like forbes & Entrepreneur.com.

Sagar Shah 05:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sagarshah28 Welcome to AfC help desk. There not only a few words here and there which makes the article read like and advertisement but you might want to rewrite the article - pls read this three links for more info Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, WP:PROMO and neural point of view. In addition, content claimed needs to be support by independent, reliable sources (pls read WP:IS and WP:RS) where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth, personal thoughts of the subject have NO place in the draft article. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:00:52, 10 February 2019 review of draft by Kakonone3


I do not understand what "Username Needed" means by "Needs things from multiple reliable sources about him personally, not his work."

- There are already included several prominent sources about this composer, including personal information and his work, see references with Ricordi.com and imdb.com among others.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Maintz & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Nemtsov -> where are more / better "things from multiple reliable sources about him personally, not his work." here in these accepted articles? I am not able to find a difference here.

- There already exists an accepted German Wikipedia entry about this composer for several years which is structured the same way and uses the same references / sources. How come that this article was accepted but not this draft here?

- Frankly, I do not know how to further improve on the already updated draft. I hope, that with these remarks the draft finally gets published.

Many thanks for your help.

Kakonone3 (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kakonone3.
  • IMDb is not a reliable source.
  • Ricordi is part of Universal, so it has a vested interest in promoting Wick, who has released on one of Universal's labels. It is not independent.
  • Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or that it has been in any way "accepted". It is not a good excuse to create similar 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.
  • Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Also, as above, the existence of an article doesn't necessarily mean it should exist, it could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet.
The sources that are arms length, reliable, and secondary do not contain much depth about Wick. If he meets any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, ensure the draft makes clear which, and support that statement with the deepest independent, reliable, secondary sources you can find. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:38, 10 February 2019 review of submission by Aalimaslam


Aalimaslam (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:47:05, 10 February 2019 review of draft by Tapir-sc

I am aware, that the nes article should not be am orphan. However, I can not link from other pagers to "my" new page, as this ist not yet existant/published. This looks like a catch 22 to me. Of am I suppoes to link to the new page AFTER it is finally published? Thanks, Tapir-sc (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tapir-sc. You are correct, link it after the draft is accepted. Being an orphan page is not a big or urgent problem. It will have no effect on how the draft is reviewed. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapir-sc (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:22, 10 February 2019 review of draft by 68.103.78.155

The 2019 Conference USA football article needs to be moved into article space because the schedule was released last month. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 Pls add independent, reliable sources to support those content claimed which have no sources. Note: home page, user generated sites, marketing and press releases, interviews and etc are considered NOT independent and / or reliable sources. Sources from major newspapers would considered good sources. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:38, 10 February 2019 review of submission by Jakewildrick


Jakewildrick (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


February 11

02:08:14, 11 February 2019 review of submission by FarstinNorwell


FarstinNorwell (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:57:28, 11 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Cimfalab

Hi, thanks for the review. But I can't get how can I improve my draft. I am referencinng the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sider_(Automated_Code_Review) I think my draft is like the above page. Please let me know how to ensure the notability. Cimfalab (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:54:00, 11 February 2019 review of submission by 122.168.95.13


122.168.95.13 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:57:03, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Sewadhamankitgram

Sewadhamankitgram (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:33, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Erikven96

I have submitted a draft for review 7 months ago. Nothing happened. Today I have submitted it again and it got rejected within two hours without any explanation. Can someone please tell me what is wrong? I have been trying to get this entry posted since last June. I must be doing something wrong. Thank you Erikven96 (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erikven96 Hi, I believe the rejected draft is User:Erikven96/sandbox/Tatiana Gelfand. Pls read the comment from the reviewer (click the blue highlighted texts for further information) and read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. For reliable and independent sources - pls go to HERE. If you still have question AFTER you have read the links provided, then come back here and ask specific questions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Erikven96. The way you left your sandbox in July 2018, it was not submitted for review. You can tell by the presence of the bright blue "Submit your draft for review!" button. Had that button been clicked, it would have been replaced by a large yellow "Review waiting" box, usually at the bottom of the draft.
The explanation of why the draft was rejected today can be found in the comment section below the pink box with the stop sign. Creating a new article is much harder and more time consuming than novice editors realize (even if it isn't accidentally left unsubmitted for seven months). If you're interested in improving the encyclopedia, I recommend gaining experience by editing existing article for a while. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CASSIOPEIA:
Thank you for informative and helpful response.
I have corrected those issues, but unfortunately the original editor keeps rejecting my article.
I have read the explanation on the importance of having secondary and independent sources beyond just sites that belong or controlled by the artist, so I have added Imdb (that lists the credits for movie theatrical work) and Amazon (where books to which the artist contributed show credit for her work), also a listing of a scientific research paper that she has co-authored (listed on researchgate.net! with numerous domestic and foreign citations), as sources which are definitely secondary and are independent of me or the artist (I wish they weren't :) ) but still getting kicked back with the same canned explanation as the first one was.
Directorial work is not critiqued or even recognized outside of the mainstream, and the relatively small circle of big name (mostly movie) directors. There are millions of artists who have significant and verifiable body of work, and for whom having a Wikipadia page is crucial in their effort to establish themselves and put out legitimate and searchable summary of their accomplishments. This is what I am trying to help some young and talented artists.
I have put forward everything that is available online of Tatiana Gelfand's extensive body of work, and it seems like it is still not enough for the person who keeps rejecting it even though there are other pages who got accepted with much fewer (as little as three) and questionable references.
Would you have any advice that you could share with me so I can get this article accepted?
Thank you for your help
Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikven96 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erikven96, General info: First of all, you need to WP:PING the editor who you intended your message is for so they would receive a notification of the message. Secondly, pls add additional " : " (colon) from the previous message prior starting your message for indentation to section communication threads. Lastly,pls sign your post when you finish your message. In addition, pls read the links from the Welcome message I had sent you to understand the guidelines and policies and useful info which would be beneficial to you.
As for the article, if you have read what I had forward you the links, then you would know, IMBD can NOT be used to contribute to the notability of the subject which Wikipedia required. Secondly, Wikipedia is NOT a platform to WP:PROMOTION and lastly, if no sources could be found that talk about the subject in length and in dept then the subject would not merit a page in Wikipedia. Note: Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CASSIOPEIA:
I was not trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. Having a verifiable and independently searchable summary of one's body of work is not in the realm of promotion.
I did read the links you have sent. Possibly not everything since navigating this side of Wikipedia is extremely difficult for someone who is not well versed in the importance and meanings of pings and semicolons and for whom "#FA0" is not a color but a random sequence of characters.
I understood what you are saying and I have to admit that hearing this is extremely disappointing. I imagined Wikipedia to be something more than a celebrity registry, and finding out that notability and merit are measured by how much people talk about a subject and not the actual and factual essence of it, and that lack of that is a more important factor than providing a repository of judgement free online information, is definitely putting Wikipedia in a new light for me. I clearly see now that my intentions and understanding of it were misguided, and my articles indeed do not belong here.
Nevertheless I appreciate you taking the time, and clarifying these matters for me, and I wish you much success for the future.
Erik
Hi Erikven96, Pls do not be disappointed as many new editors did not know the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and had created draft articles which later were deleted or rejected. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (1) which the subjects of the articles need to pass the notability requirements (2) content need to be supported by independent, reliable sources for (3) verification, (4) Written in neutral point of view, (5) free of copyright infringement and (6) no Original Reseach. Wikipedia is not a repository or directory - see full list of what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and one of things which most new editors do not aware is Wikipedia content need to support by sources for verification and not the true - see Wikipedia:But it's true!.
I encourage you to start editing existing articles to gain more experience prior attempting to write an article to gain further experience where you would check out Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help which most of us have started this way. Do pop to my talk page if you need further assistance. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:12:18, 11 February 2019 review of submission by ChrisMacharia

There is a Wikipedia article about Article Video Marketing. I felt that having a definition about article videos can help me write better Wikipedia articles about the concept of Article Video Marketing. Please note that the definition of the term "Article Videos" does not exist anywhere else. So its impossible to have a reference for it. But if we add the entry "Article Videos" and let the community develop the concept, it will help in many ways. It will be the first definition online and will become the basis of what "Article Video Marketing" really means. I am open to suggestions. Please help me here. Thanks. ChrisMacharia (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers topics that are covered by WP:RS reliable sources not topics someone wants to invent/popularize/develop. Ping User:ChrisMacharia Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:02, 11 February 2019 review of submission by ChristinFrohne

The article was rejected with the reason of "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", so I read the guidelines for notability on Wikipedia again and I am still convinced that the topic is very relevant according to the guidelines. The article is relying on 16 different sources, which show the relevance of the topic. After the last review, I added two more reliable sources (No. 11 and 14), which have been published during the last few weeks.

I would be grateful for having the article re-reviewed and to get a bit more detailed feedback, if there is still anything to improve.

Thanks very much for your help

ChristinFrohne (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, your draft has been rejected four times by two reviewers (one of which was myself, to disclose), and you received negative feedback at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Re-review_Draft:Eclipse_Theia. All three editors questioned the notability of the topic, and two noted that the article is overly promotional and a likely violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING given you are a disclosed employee of a connected firm. We are approaching the need to cite WP:COITALK, as noted by another editor.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:29:41, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie


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) 10:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Helie:. This is the third time you've asked this question. Nosebagbear replied comprehensively on 29 January. In case English is not your first language, here is a graphical explanation:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
play.google.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Brief description by the company or based on its marketing materials
itunes.apple.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Brief description by the company or based on its marketing materials
TrendHunter.com Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Doesn't have the characteristics of a reliable source, language sounds company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials
Reuters (x 3) Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN All three pieces are press releases
interestingengineering.com Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Blog posts are often sponsored and self-published sources are generally not reliable
The Next Web Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A single-sentence mention in an article about a broader topic
news.am Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN The one paragraph that is not quotes from the company is not significant
www.gov.am Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN A first-hand account of a meeting, without interpretation or analysis
Entrepreneur Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Three sentences in an article about a broader topic
armenpress.am Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN A first-hand account of a visit, without interpretation or analysis
Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and is not a good excuse to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
Paid editors are expected to listen to volunteers and respect their time. Continuing to push the draft without radical improvements could result in you being blocked for disruptive-editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time and even providing a graph! My first language is English... I don't know why'd you make such assumptions just because I'm resending a question. And I sent out the same question once again because I hadn't heard from anyone, I hadn't seen the previous reply. But again, thank you for taking your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Helie (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:40, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Hannahpartridgeig

Hannah Partridge is Born on February 1995 come from in East London with his Mum and Dad and my brother Matthew and one of cat is Justin the cats , Then we are live on the Isle of wight in Newport at the same time, My Education are St George's School Studio 7 Dance and Performance Arts School The Isle of Wight College and Blue Sky Arts Isle of wight then i`m will become a Actress in 2016-present My Fame are Babe station, Social Media You tube, comedy, Clara who, Doctor who, and The Generation Game, I have got a learning disabilities for my life in sometimes as well,Clara who's Hannah Partridge and Matt Smith's Pal friend Student St George`s school and I.O.W College,St George's School Class of 2014 Newport Isle of Wight,Studio 7 Dance and Performance Arts School Class of 2016 Belper The Isle of Wight College Left in 2014 Pathways Programme Newport Isle of Wight Blue Sky Arts Isle of wight Class of 2025 · Dance and Drama Wootton Isle Of Wight United Kingdom Explore Talent - Acting and Modeling Actor 16 November 2016 to present Newport Isle of Wight at Isle of Wight college,and I.C.T Business social media stars I am was a live sit in Newport, Isle of Wight Current city,and I`m has got Married to Snake Partridge in since 6 August 2002 at Sandown on Isle OF Wight, I`m called Me as Hannah Partridge The Challenge one at Sex on the beach Challenge balls, I`m has got a Graduated from St George's School In 2004 into 2014,and I`m has got a Left The Isle of Wight College in 2014 into 2020 as well,and I`m has got a Graduated from Studio 7 Dance and Performance Arts School In 2016, Started new job at Explore Talent - Acting and Modeling in September 2016 as well, I`m has got a Started studying at BlueSkyArts Isle of wight in Wootton , I`m would to live Moved to Southampton In the Future by 2027 as well. Matt Smith and Hannah Partridge are stared by 15th August 2018 after Cowes Week on Isle of wight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahpartridgeig (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:40, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Teamsgnr123


Teamsgnr123 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14:46:38, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Micheal September

I'm still learning how to write on wikipedia, it's a bit difficult for me, but I will try to make sure anything further I submit, will be the standard that Wikipedia admin have set. Micheal September (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:28:20, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Arazani


Arazani (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected my information with respect to Wikipedia policy, but it is deleted. Please help me in this regard.

You simply don't read what reviewers are telling you. Currently we are considering if we delete the page. A reviewer already rejected the topic. Legacypac (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:43:41, 11 February 2019 review of draft by Aamirsaahil

Hi, I've removed the non notable sources from the draft and added reliable sources. I have also improved the article. Please review my article. Thanks Aamirsaahil (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is waiting for review. I'll copy your comments to the draft. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:44, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Commanderx88121


Commanderx88121 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


publish this shit nigga

No. Play nice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user earned his promotional page a free trip to MfD so we can delete his self promotion attempt sooner than later. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:07:23, 11 February 2019 review of draft by Grillage 2


Grillage 2 (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have worked with you folks before and have been to a few of your NY meetings. I am working on a book on New York Bridges for the last 26 years and have copied information from your sites of New York's bridges to give the public basic information about each bridge. I have corrected some areas from corrections from engineers that I personally know and from other books from other fellow authors and photographers that I know. Is it okay to publish this info as some of it is word for word but I am very willing to make note that some of the information IS from Wikipedia. Thank you!! Dave Frieder

Not an AfC issue but here goes. Good luck on your book. What is written at Wikipedia is licensed for reuse under a creative commons license. You should review that license with your publisher. If it were me I'd rewrite the material in my own words. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:14, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Hannahpartridgeig


Hannahpartridgeig (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not remotely resemble an encyclopedia page, so I have deleted it. Please don't do that again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:31, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Olasope


Olasope (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC) I have made some changes to the article, particularly regarding copy editing, notability for biographies and additional citations. Please help re-review the article and guide me on how I can make it better.[reply]

User:Olasope I checked your changes and the overall page. I agree with the rejection. You are nowhere near meeting the WP:GNG. I suggest stopping your effort to promote yourself on Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


February 12

01:09:26, 12 February 2019 review of draft by Mmaselli


I respectfully disagree with the reasons behind not publishing the article about William Horrmann and the Horrmann Castle as not only it is a pretty well known Castle on Staten Island. Also, the references provided are all from 3rd party such as the local newspaper or historical archives and not from family blogs, etc.

Mmaselli (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this was a poorly thought out decline. The subject appears to be a notable historical figure. I've commented on the draft and asked another editor to take a look at improvong the page Legacypac (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mmaselli, I agree with the decline (sorry Legacypac). What is the subject? It starts off as a biography of the man, moves on to the brewery business, and ends up with the house. Would you stick {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox company}}, or {{Infobox NRHP}} on the article? You need to decide what the article is about and structure it accordingly. Cabayi (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:13:05, 12 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Grillage 2


Grillage 2 (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC) Hi! I am a bit confused on how to insert the information you requested as this will be a hard cover book. It will NOT be on the internet![reply]

This makes no sense. We can't accept your page on the Brooklyn Bridge Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:38:04, 12 February 2019 review of submission by Nicoledomingo.newscorp

Nicoledomingo.newscorp (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like advertising. May be worth mentioning in the article about the parent company but will not be approved here. Go read WP:COI and comply Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:30:30, 12 February 2019 review of submission by Volker from YAJA

It was the first version of the page. While it has been rejected, it is open to improvement. As the author and co-founder of YAJA I would like to have some input as to how exactly I can improve the content in a way that will suit Wikipedia's guidelines. Volker from YAJA (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Most of the references in your draft are primary sources, which does not add notability to the subject. Please also see your talk page for how to disclose a COI as you are clearly affiliated with the subject (as a co-founder). ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:35:38, 12 February 2019 review of submission by Dyna Dyna


Dyna Dyna (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Both the drafts you started are a single sentence. The one on the singer is an ad for the singer's instagram not an article. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:01, 12 February 2019 review of submission by JulienL92


I'd like the page to be re-reviewed as there have been added a few more notable references, as requested/recommended

JulienL92 (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JulienL92: - hi there, 2 things.
1) It's great if you react to the decline reason and add sources. However all you need to do is re-submit it and it will be re-reviewed. If you think the original review as wrong then ask here.
2) While I was here, however, I took a look at the two sources. Neither is in-depth enough and I don't believe the first is independent - it seems to be coming from the individuals, even though it's within a publication. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:31, 12 February 2019 review of draft by LITERATURASHISPANOAMERICANAS

Hi, I created the page Ana Galdos under the username account, LiteraturaHispanoamericana. I could not login in again (I did not submit an e-mail address the first time) so I created a new account LiteraturasHispanoamericanas. Could you consolidate or move this two accounts into one? Carmela

LITERATURASHISPANOAMERICANAS (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:08:35, 12 February 2019 review of draft by Porcellumripam


Moderator rejected this page on the grounds that "the page reads like an ad". Would be gratefull to have this eleborated on in order to know which paragraphs are causing offense. The key reasoning behind the page is that it is important for the public to easily find clinical trials for cancers, and this in turn means that such wikipedia pages are highly valuable.

Porcellumripam (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:24, 12 February 2019 review of submission by Shamar54

Shamar54 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A blank draft. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:06:31, 12 February 2019 review of draft by NathanPeters406


Hi there, I am writing as I am confused on the notability criteria for my attempted article for Mission Springs Brewery. I used multiple Wikipedia articles as references for this article and made sure I matched the quantity and quality of sourced articles for the Mission Springs article. Please explain why the following articles were accepted and published as they contain the same if not less, quantity and quality, of sources for the Mission Springs Article, I had previously submitted. I do not believe that these pages are any more "notable" than the one I have submitted. If I completely missed something, my sincere apologies, please suggest any recourse that you think would be appropriate for me to improve this article, thus improving Wikipedia. I appreciate your time and suggestions. Thank you very much,

Nathan

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Brewing_Company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brewing_Company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_Brewing_Company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_49_Brewing_Company

NathanPeters406 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NathanPeters406: I think the main problem with your draft is with the source material you have used. In general, you should use sources that are as independent as you can find. In the case of Mission Springs, there are two dedicated articles in the Vancouver Sun here and here that could be used. On your draft page, if you click "show" next to the "Editor Resources" panel, there should be a link to "news" - click on that and you should get a list of other news citations like the Vancouver Sun - use those to write your article and resubmit, and it should be accepted. Russell Brewing Company uses such sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very popular regional brewery. Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

02:58:37, 13 February 2019 review of submission by 216.10.217.201


Because I have published the page , but have no idea if it is live yes or not So that's the reason why I submitted it. 216.10.217.201 (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted twice now as SPAM Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:55:38, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Your suraj

08:55:38, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Your suraj


{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Please approve my website for god's sake. This is my project work in college. I won't get good grades until I get this approved. I don't have any COI, I have not exaggerated or undermined the subject. Also, I have only re-written what the references I provided, have mentioned. Please re-consider.

Your suraj (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:03:37, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Heris


This article is about a TV show, whose reference is naturally mainly from its original channel's website. A similar show Car SOS is in the same situation, which has main reference from NGC UK. So, why should this one be rejected?

Heris (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:52, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Silencer17

Hi, really struggling with understanding the notability requirements for this page. The objections have been either that the subject isn't notable or that there aren't sufficient notable sources - and yet the company has been featured at length in numerous respectable sources that are amongst the most important covering the UK tech sector - from Wired (who named us one of Europe's hottest tech companies) to profiles in the Sunday Times, Times, UKTN, Techworld, Computer Weekly, City AM, Evening Standard - etc. These aren't insignificant sources - indeed there aren't really more important ones. In addition, the Market Research Society award cited is one of the most important global awards in the market research field.

From my perspective - and I appreciate I have a conflict of interest that I have declared - Streetbees is generally recognised as one of the most important, well-funded and disruptive start-ups in London, and it's backed by some of Europe's biggest investors, and this is backed up by by numerous independent, credible sources. Which from my perspective means the absence on Wikipedia is confusing. I appreciate there has been a recent crackdown in company pages, but I'd really appreciate someone to take a look at the sourcing and tell me if they still don't think it's credible? Or am I just getting it wrong?

Any advice would be much appreciated. Silencer17 (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:51:15, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Perfect forever


Perfect forever (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:16:38, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Perfect forever


Perfect forever (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=883122705"