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 Zninja-rs (talk | contribs) at 15:59, 19 April 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


April 13

14:53:44, 13 April 2019 review of submission by Krutika Samnani


This time my draft was good enough with the article supporting content, then why did it got rejected? Krutika Samnani (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krutika Samnani, To meet our criteria you need
  • significant coverage (paragraphs or a whole article)
  • from multiple,
  • independent (not paid, press release, company site, etc)
  • reliable sources. (big newspaper or similar publisher with good editors)
Right now, the only one that qualifies is the newspaper article. You'd usually want at least three. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:21:51, 13 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Qzekrom


My AfC submission was rejected because it did not meet the notability guideline for organizations. I claim that the news articles in The Atlantic and The Ringer establish notability because they provide significant coverage of the organization, are secondary sources, are independent of the organization, and are reliable. In particular, even though the Ringer article doesn't only discuss CS+Social Good, it "is more than a trivial mention." What gives?

Qzekrom 💬 theythem 22:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qzekrom. Your question "What gives?" is best directed to the individual reviewer. My own observation is that the bulk of any article should be based on arms-length sources. The Atlantic and The Ringer are indepenent, and you make a good argument for them satisfying the notability criteria for organizations, but not much of the article's content comes from them. Most of it comes from the organization, the university, and the student newspaper (which some reviewers will discount because it's written by people still learning the trade of journalism).
Try to squeeze more out of The Atlantic and The Ringer, rather than placing them in a "Futher reading" section and leaving the effort to the reader. That section is intended for publications that were not used to build the article content, but which editors still recommend. This may seem like a cheap trick, but link The Ringer in the citation. It's a new source that many reviewers will never have encountered before. Make it easy for them to see that it's legit.
Try to replace non-independent sources with more-independent sources, the organization with the student newspaper, for example, notwithstanding its own weaknesses. You might be able to use this article. It's another student newspaper, doesn't say much about CS + Social Good, and may get what it says a bit wrong, but it shows that the organization has had an effect on the course offerings of another university. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

01:28:28, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Zayna Palmer


Zayna Palmer (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


How can I improve my article?

Hi Zayna Palmer. The first decline explains, in the gray box within the pink box, and in the comment beneath it, what sources the draft lacks. The subsequent rejection is another reviewer's assessment that the sources requested cannot be added to the draft because they simply don't exist. You can prove them wrong by adding multiple, independent, reliable sources containing a significant depth of information about Robles and her work.
Creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time-consuming, and frustrating things a novice Wikipedian can attempt. I suggest setting the draft aside for a while. There are millions of easier and better ways to improve the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. If you return to the draft later, you will do so with more experience editing Wikipedia, and more may have been written about Robles in reliable sources by then. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:26:44, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Lardofdorkness

Hello,

I'm having some difficulty getting my draft approved, and would like to better appreciate the nuances of the standard(s) the reviewers have noted, specifically with respect to another existing article. This was my first attempt at publishing a new article, so I thought I'd start with something that seemed simple: The first of Bruce Kulick's three solo albums, which was the only one that didn't have an article already. It made sense to me to emulate an article for one of the other albums in the trio, so I chose the one on his sophomore solo effort, Transformer, as the model for mine.

When I submitted it the first time, it was declined by StraussInTheHouse for not meeting notability guidelines. I inquired about this and made further edits, after which SITH cheerfully suggested I submit again, so I did.

This time it was declined by AngusWOOF, whose comment was "Need more album reviews." When I asked for more details about what would suffice, the explanation was that the article needs a paragraph section summarizing some of the major reviews by music journalists.

Admittedly, these have been hard to come by, and so far the only thing I've been able to find that might qualify is the one I suggested when asking AngusWOOF for guidance. I can certainly add a blurb citing that, but AngusWOOF seems to expect reviews (plural). Furthermore, the Transformer article has no such "review section," which raises questions in my mind about subjectivity in interpreting and enforcing the guidelines, as well as the role of consistency (both in support of guidelines in general, and in content across similar/related articles such as these) in the development and maintenance of that which ultimately gets published. Separate reviewers have proffered differing opinions about what passes for notability as it pertains to the Audiodog draft. Other closely related, extant articles appear to exhibit the same dearth of substantiation that mine ostensibly does. This is confusing to me and I am seeking a satisfying explanation more than I am arguing for acceptance of the draft.

Honestly, my stake in this particle subject (the Audiodog album) is pretty small: As I said, I just wanted to try my hand at creating an article with something I thought would be fairly simple (given the ready example I had in the Transformer article), and thereby fill a little void I happened to notice in the artist's discography. The amount of time I put into developing the article content is not unreasonable, but the time spent considering its relative merits has begun to feel inordinate. I'm tapped out of ideas, so if the fact is simply that Audiodog doesn't belong here, I won't cry if you put Old Yeller out of his misery.

Sincerely,
Lardofdorkness (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lardofdorkness. I see that working with AngusWOOF you were able to get the draft published. Congratulations! For future reference, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources lists sources that Wikipedians have found useful in writing about albums.
To address your more general question, although it is natural to learn by example, it is safer to work from the official guidelines, in this case WP:NALBUMS. 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, it may mean only that no one has gotten around yet to fixing it or deleting it. Existence is not a good reason 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.
If it troubles you that existing article haven't kept up with the guidelines, by all means pitch in and help correct the problem. With 98-99% of all articles rated less than "good" by the community, improving, merging, and deleting existing articles is a large part of most Wikipedians' editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce -- Thanks for your congratulations and the additional pointers and references. It's been an informative experience. When I started this thread it was due to the mixed messages I'd gotten from two different reviewers, and the uncertainty of what it might take to satisfy the second reviewer. As you saw, we worked together to improve it enough to get it published, although I'm sure it's still squarely in that "less than good" category. That number is astounding, btw! As for pitching in, I do what I can. I try to correct whatever errors I may notice while using Wikipedia, and I make monetary donations. I tried my hand at creating an article from scratch, and it seems that may not be my forte. So I'll keep doing what I can, and leave it to the real Wikipedians to get the good above 2%. --Lardofdorkness (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:24:27, 14 April 2019 review of draft by Zanestearns


Hello. How can I add the table on the right side of the article with the song, date, artists, etc. information for potential readers to reference. Thank you!

Zanestearns (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:04:43, 14 April 2019 review of draft by Otterlyhwi

I want to ask for assistance regarding my article titled Draft:Lee_Dae-hwi. It was declined twice with reason that the subject of article did not has significant coverage or individual notability for it to get an article. The deletion discussion was happened in 2017, and now in 2019 I believe that the subject is already significant enough because he has more solo works than before. I have edited the article from time to time for it to match the recent informations, but the feedback i last got in January was the same. I need help in proving that the subject is relevant enough to get it's own article. For reference, the subject's labelmate Park Woo-jin already has it's own article and moreless has the same background as Lee Dae-hwi. If it's my mistake on wording the article, please kindly tell me what to fix. I hope you can help me, Thank you.--Otterlyhwi (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Otterlyhwi (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Draft:Lee Dae-hwi. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:42, 14 April 2019 review of draft by Heubergen


Hi, I'm trying to improve this article but would need some help regarding the reason for the review rejection. Can somebody point me in the right directions what I have to improve? Heubergen (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:59, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Chinics


Could you please indicate which areas are against the purpose of Wikipedia. These could be removed and could the non-sensitive issues be maintained? Chinics (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chinics. Reviewers are prepared to reconsider the rejection of the topic. It would be helpful if you could clarify a few points with regard to your citation of sources, as I've outlined on the draft.
(P.S. It's inadvisable to start multiple discussion threads about a topic. Help Desk volunteers are busy, and may take a few days to answer; please be patient. You may correct or expand on your post while you wait. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.) --Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chinics I have removed the invalid rejection and returned the draft to the review queue. Please attend to the issues pointed out above and also in the review comments on the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:50:30, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Chbang

I am requesting a review of this wiki, because it is my first wiki and I'm still learning the rules. I believe The Clap (band) is a notable topic and should be reviewed and accepted in the wikipedia.

Do I have too many citations that are considered "not notable". Can I keep those citations, as I feel they are important to the topic? Chbang (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chbang, I think the main problem is that those sources aren't reliable for neutral information (not fact checked or trying to sell you stuff), so any information based on them may be suspect. Having too many of those also clutters things up badly. I'd suggesting picking 3 or 4 of the best/most important, maximum, and moving them to the external links section. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:44:38, 14 April 2019 review of draft by VincentBudd


VincentBudd (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I write re. the rejection of my article on Paul Mann. The editor has stated how he/she cannot verify the sources of my references. I'm simply at a loss here. How do I do get an editor to be able to verify the sources listed? They are listed. You can look them up. The sources are numerous. Has the editor actually read the text rather than just looked at the headings? The specific (numerous) sources are in the text if the editor can be bothered to read it!!! The listings in the headings are just added for extra information to that section. Do you simply want me to erase the heading references? Cheers.

19:47:14, 14 April 2019 review of draft by VincentBudd


VincentBudd (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Paul Mann has been rejected on the grounds that he/she cannot verify sources?! I suspect he/she has only seen the heading references and not the specific references in the text.

@VincentBudd: I declined the draft for the reasons explained on it. I also left a welcome basket of links on your talk page. You may find particularly useful the ones about how to create your first article, the Manual of Style, and maintaining a neutral point of view. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:20, 14 April 2019 review of submission by DashaDG


Hello! Thank you for reviewing my article. I understand that this product has not so many posts about it out there in the Internet, but it already has 3 big posts written about it and I think it is a very interesting and needed product, so I am sure there will be more in future. I will keep looking for more information and will improve the article as soon as anything appers. This is my first article in Wikipedia, so could you please accept its submission. Thank you. DashaDG (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DashaDG (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:40:26, 14 April 2019 review of submission by Eravenst

I have edited the draft page to remove anything that may be considered biased or advertising and there was a comment by a reviewer that the sources should be more reliable, however the sources include the international scientific journal 'Nature' as well as reputable publications like Canadian Architect, The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and the Vancouver Sun so I'm unsure how these aren't reliable enough? Any help is much appreciated! Thank you! Eravenst (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eravenst: The initial version of Draft:MGA Michael Green Architecture almost exactly matches Draft:Michael Green Architecture, yet you don't credit its author, Krystalyee009. Please explain what is going on. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

03:00:53, 15 April 2019 review of submission by Chbang


I am requesting another review, since I asked for advice and made corrections , from the advice given (see note from Alpha3031 below) Chbang (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:00:53, 15 April 2019 review of submission by Chbang

Draft:The Clap (band) Chbang (talk · contribs) (TB) Draft:The Clap (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I am requesting a review of this wiki, because it is my first wiki and I'm still learning the rules. I believe The Clap (band) is a notable topic and should be reviewed and accepted in the wikipedia.

Do I have too many citations that are considered "not notable". Can I keep those citations, as I feel they are important to the topic? Chbang (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Chbang, I think the main problem is that those sources aren't reliable for neutral information (not fact checked or trying to sell you stuff), so any information based on them may be suspect. Having too many of those also clutters things up badly. I'd suggesting picking 3 or 4 of the best/most important, maximum, and moving them to the external links section. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

05:13:16, 15 April 2019 review of submission by Tamir.te


The artist page I am trying to add has no international reference, yet. Many other Mongolian bands, and artists have English wiki page with no verified reference. Why is this not getting approved?

Tamir.te (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamir.te: - the rules about notability have changed immensely over time, and it can take a long time for us to apply it to all the older articles. Many of our newly deleted articles are for musicians and bands that do not have references and were only allowed in when the rules were less strict. The fact that there are still articles with poor sourcing does not mean we should allow others - the page WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good explanation of why. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:54, 15 April 2019 review of draft by EnochLi


EnochLi (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how long will it take to draft my article i hope soon because Attack an castle is my first article

@EnochLi: We are an encyclopedia, not a game guide. None of your minecraft-related topics are suitable for inclusion. JTP (talk • contribs) 13:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:33, 15 April 2019 review of submission by 27.96.95.197


I am still unable to find what is causing Wikipedia to delete this article? Khalid Salamat is well known name in Marketing Industry in UAE.

27.96.95.197 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@27.96.95.197: - the article was rejected because there were not suitable sources - your two sources are either written by the subject or is acting as a marketing statement about him. Please have a look at this for the types of sources we prefer. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:01, 15 April 2019 review of submission by Madoro Ishii

Draft:Yōmei Bunko

I was told that the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources. Is that because the references were in Japanese? Should I put English texts or if I omit the Japanese words and put only the reference titles in English, it won't make problems. Please let me know. Madoro Ishii (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: As the reviewer of this translation of https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%99%BD%E6%98%8E%E6%96%87%E5%BA%AB, would you elaborate on your decline so that the submitter can take corrective action? --Worldbruce (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you import all the sources from the Japanese Wiki and remove the 'edit' from the page, alonside [1].___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Madoro Ishii: The Japanese version of the article has five more inline citations, numbers 14-18. The reviewer would like you to copy those notes or references to the relevant places in the translated article. They may be in Japanese, but it would be good to at least add an English translation in parentheses afterwards, as you've done with some of the other references. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:38, 15 April 2019 review of draft by Alislaura


My article was rejected because it didn't show sufficient coverage of the subject by secondary sources. Meanwhile the first image of a black hole has made headlines around the world. Many of the newspaper articles (FAZ, reporting on the findings make reference to the BlackHoleCam project, as do the scientific papers published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Would these references be sufficient to remove the reasons for declining the article?

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7#references https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/weltraum/schwarzes-loch-zwei-jahre-bis-zum-bild-16134544.html http://www.prometheus-tv.de/news.php?id=22324 https://www.sardinienintim.com/2019/04/12/erstes-foto-schwarzes-loch-sarde-nuoro-chef-black-hole-cam-astrophysiker/ https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/04/the-black-hole-cam-technology-a-one-way-door-out-of-our-universe/

Thanks for your help.

Alislaura (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alislaura. No, these references would not be sufficient. There is only a small amount of information about Black Hole Cam in each source, and much of that information is the same in each source. There isn't enough information to add more than a sentence or two to what Event Horizon Telescope already says about the project, "key theoretical aspects of the project were developed in the EU-funded Black Hole Cam project, lead by Falcke, Michael Kramer, and Luciano Rezzolla." --Worldbruce (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:35:31, 15 April 2019 review of submission by Bogdanisaimir


Bogdanisaimir (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:30:01, 15 April 2019 review of draft by EnochLi


EnochLi (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why is'nt it going to review?

@EnochLi: - it isn't going to review because it isn't even attempting to be the encyclopedic article that is necessary for wikipedia - instead this is more like a short review essay on mods. In any case, we have an article not just on Minecraft but Minecraft mods - however, your edits will need to be better constructed to remain - I'd advise suggesting them on the talk page first. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:49:58, 15 April 2019 review of submission by EnochLi


EnochLi (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


please

DUPLICATE - see above Nosebagbear (talk)

10:01:32, 15 April 2019 review of submission by EnochLi


EnochLi (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me to make my minecraft article better?

Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything you or I want to say about anything. It is only interested in what reliable sources have published about a subject. Wikipedia is also not a place for "how to do something". Theroadislong (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:34:47, 15 April 2019 review of submission by Waeltely


Hi,

Rayshad Rauf is an emerged playback singer who has entered in the malayalam film industry in India. He is also popular now among the expat community in the UAE for his consistent artistic profile and is an example to many who work hard for a living, parallel keeping their passion alive. His achievement of entry into the professional movie industry is a must showcase not only because he is now a playback singer but also an inspiration to those who struggle to keep their passion alive.

Please refer to his latest news link on Gulf News - https://gulfnews.com/uae/how-a-dubai-boy-became-a-viral-malayalam-playback-singer-1.62906164

Please reconsider and help publish his profile as this will help us achieve in communicating positive inspiration about like wise relevant individuals in future as well.

Thank you. Waeltely (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not yet sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not the venue for promoting him. Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:49, 15 April 2019 review of submission by Khalid2c


KHALID MOHIDDIN (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:55, 15 April 2019 review of draft by Publicationaccess


We trust this message finds you well. This is just a courtesy inquiry. We have have made edits in accordance with the comment on March 28th, 2019 regarding the subject draft. Sources are updated. Of course continued efforts will be made to improve the draft. We would like to move the draft into the main article space. Thank you so much for taking the time to assist. Have a great week. Publicationaccess (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Publicationaccess (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Publicationaccess: Who is "we"? JTP (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:33, 15 April 2019 review of draft by Karen Sandstrom


Any chance you can help me get the Grafton J. Nunes pages moving forward? It seems to be making no progress toward review. Thanks. Karen Sandstrom (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just declined for notability issues, as well as a potential concern about undisclosed paid editing Nosebagbear (talk)

14:05:02, 15 April 2019 review of submission by Asheprajwalvasist

why my page is declined..? Asheprajwalvasist (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is explained in the decline notice, your draft has no sources so cannot be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:08:28, 15 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Hairydreams


Greetings,

My name is Pooya Khorramyar and I am publishing my music under the pseudonym of Hairydreams. I already wrote the article in my sandbox and cited it as much as possible. Even for the websites that are no longer alive, I took my time and found the specific link form the Web Archive Organisation and linked them respectively.

However, my music is only published on the online platforms (such as Spotify and iTunes), and Wikipedia does not recognise them as a valid citation.

I highly appreciate if you help me to edit my article in the way that it be acceptable for Wikipedia and I don't face any issues of validity in the future.

Having this article on Wikipedia is very important to me as it gives my fans a credible reference to refer to.

Regards, Hairydreams (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:24, 15 April 2019 review of submission by Scharrlib


I'm hoping to get some help with regards to my draft page for ScHARR - The School of Health and Related Research. The last entry says I have zero chance of getting my page published, but this conflicts with previous messages asking me to edit my page and remove any elements which may seem like advertising, which I now understand. I worked on the page, so am a little concerned why it was rejected after the first reviews did not reject it. The reviewer said that: "departments are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field". The School of Health related Research is as notable as York's Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Reviews_and_Dissemination In the 25 years since it started (same year as CRD) it has published over 10,000 peer reviewed academic journal articles and is a world leader in the areas of Health Technology Assessment and Health Economics and helps form the NHS decision making. We are larger and more successful academically than some of the departments currently listed under Sheffield, so not sure why we can't be accepted. Also, we are a school not a department, so I think that fits in with Wikipedia's standards. Any help would be really appreciated.

Andy

Scharrlib (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:21, 15 April 2019 review of submission by Haimantirakshitdas


Haimantirakshitdas (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


April 16

01:23:11, 16 April 2019 review of draft by NEGUS1010


Does the article still need work for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Calboy? Please let me know what needs to be changed for submission. SHALOM 01:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC) SHALOM 01:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi NEGUS1010. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for about 7 weeks. About 500 drafts have been in the pool longer. Reviewers will reach your draft eventually. Please bear with us. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XAG(Company)

Request on 06:57:05, 16 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by SamTurner923


I wanted to create an entry -- XAG (company), but it failed many times. I looked for some news and quoted it. news:Nation's drones enabling UK farmers to reap rich dividends http://www.ecns.cn/business/2018-08-03/detail-ifywsspt3617679.shtml

so i need some help! SamTurner923 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:30:47, 16 April 2019 review of draft by Kyrawalenga

I would like to know what I can do to make this article better. The feedback was that it reads like an advertisement but I don’t see how. It‘s facts about a brand new company that was formed in March with a merger between two companies that both have Wikipedia pages... Please advise me as to what I can do! Or if I should start with a completely new article. Thank you.

Kyrawalenga (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kyrawalenga. Start with independent, reliable sources that contain in-depth information. An example for this company is [1]. The company is too new for much to have been written about it in arms-length sources, so set the topic aside and revisit it in a year or two, by which time more sources may be available.
Creating new articles is one of the most difficult, time-consuming, and frustrating things a novice Wikipedian can attempt. There are millions of easier and better ways to improve the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:40, 16 April 2019 review of submission by Eklavya Sakpal


[1] In first article I didn't mentioned the reference.

References

  1. ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9147787/

Eklavya Sakpal (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eklavya Sakpal. IMDb, being user-generated, is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:23:55, 16 April 2019 review of submission by Caitlinmcstravick


Caitlinmcstravick (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Is it possible to have more details on why this submission was rejected?

@Caitlinmcstravick: - hi there. A good place to start would be the reviewer's talk page User talk:Dreamy Jazz - just hit new section and remember to hit save after you've asked your question. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:44, 16 April 2019 review of submission by Robertkove


Sully Dunn is worthy of a page and has over 1,000,000 views on YouTube. He is an original artist that has had a career for nine years. Robertkove (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertkove: - hi there.
All your current sources are primary - facebook, youtube, soundcloud etc - they don't demonstrate the notability of the individual. You need in-depth secondary sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:31:14, 16 April 2019 review of submission by RobinEMiller


We've updated our source list to show more widespread 3rd party acknowledgment of NorthBay VacaValley Hospital. In addition, we have added links to other wiki pages in order to show the notability of this facility. RobinEMiller (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RobinEMiller, are you in any way affiliated with the hospital about which you are writing? It is unusual for an individual contributor to refer to him/herself as "we", as it implies shared use. SITH (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We" refers to a friend helping me with the coding. Former journalist, so I think coding is weird... no offense :-) RobinEMiller (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)RobinEMiller[reply]

Request on 19:08:56, 16 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Osayomore81


Hello,I like to see if another writer can use the sources I have provided to complete the article I drafted. I have a conflict of interest as the article is about a family member. I have an external article by NPR as credible source, plus numerous online articles and works of the person I am writing about. Kindly allow me know how to proceed. Thanks

Osayomore81 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osayomore81, if you would like an article to be created, you can add it to the list at WP:Requested articles. SITH (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:02:47, 16 April 2019 review of draft by TomBaileyMusic


Hi there, I would like to change the title of my Wiki page to Tom Bailey UK (musician)

TomBaileyMusic (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TomBaileyMusic, I note that you have blanked your draft, please can you confirm that you want it deleting, as usually blanking a draft is taken to mean you want it to be deleted. If not, please ensure you state your conflict of interest on your userpage. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TomBaileyMusic, I see the Draft:Tom Bailey (musician, born 1993) was created, so redirected this one to there. You can welcome to request deletion on the old name if you wish. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

03:13:26, 17 April 2019 review of submission by Will0596


Will0596 (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have made some updates and there have been some references added to this.

Hi Will0596. The references you added are a self-published blog (by a blogger, moreover, who was financially compensated for blogging about AfroSeeds), and a group blog. Such blogs are not reliable sources and may not be used as references. There don't appear to be any independent reliable sources about the topic, so no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. If you're interested in writing about manga, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. Or visit Wikipedia:Community portal to find other ways of improving the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:29:16, 17 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Iokepang


I believe that the previous draft was rejected. Hence this is a completely different draft and not a duplicate.

Iokepang (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iokepang, you can still work on the original draft. Just because it has been rejected doesn't mean you can't still work on it and then ask for advice if you think the reviewer's feedback will change after you've made such edits. If it's on the same topic, it's considered the same draft: please stick to one page per topic. SITH (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:48:12, 17 April 2019 review of draft by 75.157.110.40


75.157.110.40 (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I have written up about International Sail and Power Academy recently and was rejected by Wikipedia. I have written about International Sail and Power Academy as "fact based" and from "neutral" point of view from their website to emphasize the brief history and what ISPA offers as an certifications. I am very surprised to hear that it sounded like "advertisement" and "Conflict of Interest" to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has pointed out that my article was in "conflict of interest". Is this because I have used company email address to create an Wikipedia account? Would it made difference if I have used my personal email address?

I have read other sailing organization's Wikipedia articles and I believe majority of them are written in "advertisement" and shows large amount of "conflict of interest" in my opinion.

Please advise what exactly needs to be changed to be published on Wikipedia.

Thank you 75.157.110.40 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

75.157.110.40 (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ISPA2018. You may be right that articles about other sailing organizations are promotional. There are many poor articles on Wikipedia. That isn't a good excuse to create more of them. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.
To have any chance at all of being accepted here, Draft:International Sail and Power Academy needs to be scrapped and rebuilt based mainly on arms-length reliable sources, not the company's website, and not at all on a site that provides product/service reviews for pay. It doesn't matter in the slightest what email account you use, but editors who like yourself have a conflict of interest are almost never able to write neutrally, never able to produce an encyclopedia article. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:48:27, 17 April 2019 review of submission by Bollinmoor


Hello! I am writing my first article in the English version of Wikipedia. My draft was rejected. I need help from the team. Please give an example of a non-neutral point of view in my article. I also need help, why my cited list of references and notes does not meet the criteria. Thank you!

Bollinmoor (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I;ve requested the draft be deleted. It is obvious advertising. See WP:PAID and WP:COI before you continue User:Bollinmoor Legacypac (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:04, 17 April 2019 review of submission by Sonofautumn


Sonofautumn (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Need help structuring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofautumn (talk • contribs)

09:46:19, 17 April 2019 review of draft by Acharyamanishji


Please let me know if there is any issue with my content. SO, that It get approved.

Acharyamanishji (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM/Self PROMO tagged for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:18:13, 17 April 2019 review of draft by Azzabiddle


My article was declined on the basis that the subject already exists on Wikipedia, however as noted in the original submission it is actually a translation of the original article from English into Spanish which does not currently exist for that page. Azzabiddle (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azzabiddle, thank you for your submission. This is the English Wikipedia, so we only accept articles written in the English language. However, you are free to submit your translation to the Spanish Wikipedia which can be found at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Portada --SITH (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:48, 17 April 2019 review of submission by Tucker501


Yes, this hotel is very significant in Springfield. Did you read the history? It has a long history tied to the State Government. It's major competitor, the Wyndham, does have it's own Wikipedia page. Tucker501 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:06:49, 17 April 2019 review of draft by Valibrarian


My draft was declined and I would like advice on how to improve this article in Wikipedia. The original article was out of date and I have new information and research to contribute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Libraries_in_Second_Life_and_Virtual_Worlds

Valibrarian (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:46:39, 17 April 2019 review of draft by LorriBrown


LorriBrown (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I submitted a draft article LorriBrown/Joan Almond to AfC yesterday and it was rejected by @I dream of horses: (due to conflict with another Joan Almond draft article). I am hopeful that I can get this submission re-considered for the following reasons: 

   the LorriBrown/JoanAlmond article is well researched with more content than the MarkZusab/JoanAlmond article at this juncture;
   the MarkZusab/JoanAlmond aricle does not appear to have been submitted for AfC review as indicated by  @I dream of horses in her rejection;
   the articles where created almost on the same date;
   I am hopeful that MarkZusab (and have reached out on their talk page) will be amiable to collaborating on the LorriBrown/JoanAlmond article and help to develop and contribute new content to this article - rather than duplicating the research already accomplished in the LorriBrown/JoanAlmond article; and
   it is unclear if MarkZusab will direct post his version of the JoanAlmond article to AfC or post direct to the main space and it is unclear when they may be ready to do this.

I do understand that the LorriBrown/JoanAlmond version of the article may not be perfect but; however, I do think it is a good start and may be more constructive to proceed rather than to transfer content over the the MarkZusab/JoanAlmond article if this decision holds. Thank you for your consideration.LorriBrown (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LorriBrown. I see that some history merging has taken place since you posed this question. Do you consider your question resolved, or is there still an aspect of it that is outstanding? --Worldbruce (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce|Worldbruce I am sorry but I don't understand the meaning of your message. What history merging was that? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

04:23:44, 18 April 2019 review of submission by Philosodad


In what way are the sources for this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kelly_Weinersmith not independent or reliable? One is a recognized media outlet and the other is a University page. Neither is related to the subject directly or to me. If these are not independent or reliable, what is?

Philosodad (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philosodad. The university page is reliable, but not independent, because the information on it was supplied by Weinersmith. So it doesn't help establish notability. Space.com is independent and reliable, but not sufficient (not adequate support). Multiple reviews of creative work are expected. From the edits you've made since posing your question, I see that you're already tackling the problems the reviewer pointed out. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page. They may help you continue to improve the draft while waiting for the next review. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:52, 18 April 2019 review of submission by Ankurshva


I've made necessary changes. Please re-review! I've also included more than enough references. Ankurshva (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankurshva: hi. Unfortunately, I am sticking with another editor's rejection of the topic in February, and with the 2 previous declines of the topic as being non-notable. The draft also requires major cleanup; it is not written in proper encyclopedic prose, contains an essay-like "Introduction" section, and many of the references cited are either trivial or duplicates of each other. In addition, you should read WP:PAID for how to correctly disclose any paid connection to the company, assuming you have one. Thank you. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:15, 18 April 2019 review of submission by BorgFabian


Hi I need guidance on how to make the BLP I posted as acceptable. I have cited COI deceleration and the article reflects voluntary efforts to achieve equality for an entire nation, which carry Head of State endorsement and a nomination for national medal of honour Gieh ir-Republika.

Please guide as I would like to learn

With best regards

Fabian

BorgFabian (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:37, 18 April 2019 review of draft by 71.202.0.54


What part of my submission for "System call interposition" doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article? There are hundreds of papers written about it: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22system+call+interposition%22&btnG= It's an important topic that I was surprised didn't have an article already, which is why I created one.

71.202.0.54 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@71.202.0.54: Thank you for your contribution. Novice Wikipedians writing their first articles are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources, which contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites one. To gain an understanding of which sources to use, I recommend that you spend some time at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:24:30, 18 April 2019 review of submission by Musiclover849


Why did this get rejected?

Musiclover849 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Hi Musiclover849. The reason the draft was rejected is given in the pink box on the draft and a corresponding mustard yellow box on your talk page. Those link to further information. More specifically, the draft fails to show that the subject meets the notability criteria for musicians, and in the reviewer's evaluation, no amount of editing can fix that problem. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:27:22, 18 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Musiclover849


Why was this rejected? I am trying to place the historical musical figures for Auburn, Alabama into the wikipedia page, but it is rejected?

Musiclover849 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Musiclover849. The reason the draft was rejected is given in the pink box on the draft and a corresponding mustard yellow box on your talk page. Those link to further information. More specifically, the draft fails to show that the subject meets the notability criteria for musicians, and in the reviewer's evaluation, no amount of editing can fix that problem. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:58:43, 18 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ztanjiayi



Ztanjiayi (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


April 19

02:12:57, 19 April 2019 review of submission by CCFBROWN

The article was denied due to insufficient content, would it be accepted if more information about Scott Neeson and his NGO were added? CCFBROWN (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DCmax1k

04:29:49, 19 April 2019 review of submission by DCmax1k


I would like to publish this article for a streamer of the name DCmax1k. It was rejected because the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. What would make this better? DCmax1k (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:04:28, 19 April 2019 review of draft by RevinCBHatol


There are sources around the internet for a list of episodes, but I can't find the perfect one. Please help. RevinCBHatol (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC) RevinCBHatol (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:52:09, 19 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Md Mohsin Ansari



Md Mohsin Ansari (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:04, 19 April 2019 review of submission by Md Mohsin Ansari

Wanted to know my article will get approved. As I'm new to this platform

Md Mohsin Ansari (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Md Mohsin Ansari, greeting. You page Draft:Troop Messenger was rejected and pls see the comment on the draft page by the reviewer. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:57:59, 19 April 2019 review of submission by 71.202.0.54

Can someone help me write the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:System_call_interposition - SCI is significant enough to warrant a wiki page, and there's numerous independent, reliable sources at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22system+call+interposition%22 I'd appreciate if you can let me know how to improve it, or if you want to just go ahead and improve it that is good too.

71.202.0.54 (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:33:55, 19 April 2019 review of submission by Parblo


Hello. Our page is created for digital art fans and newbie artists to see about our brand. Can you please help me edit this wiki page. We have done the best I can. Can you please tell me what we need to fix?

Thanks.

Parblo (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So terrible interface. "You asked why this is so complicated. The reason is because this is an encyclopedia, and material in it must be verified by independent reliable sources. You should not submit unreferenced drafts. If you have substantial 3rd party independent published reliable sources, add them and resubmit. If not, wait until you do. In the meantime, you might like to learn how things aredone hereby adding sourced information--together with the references-- to existing articles. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) "

I was thinking it is a free encyclopedia. Thanks for your service.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=893182108"