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 Karan raghavan (talk | contribs) at 06:27, 28 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 21

12:23:28, 21 April 2019 review of submission by AzerbaijanPeople


AzerbaijanPeople (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AzerbaijanPeople: - APOLOGIES! Copied the wrong name for my ping, I don't know if yours is notable, but it definitely wasn't lacking in all content as my previous statement said! Nosebagbear (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:52:38, 21 April 2019 review of draft by Tanyatap meliam


Tanyatap meliam (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Tanyatap meliam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 20:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:58, 21 April 2019 review of draft by 66.87.152.181


Hi - curious as to why the page for “Stephie James” I created was not accepted. There is clearly plenty of coverage on the topic, as it existed as a red link on Michael Bolton’s Wikipedia page - Michael Bolton is obviously a very famous figure and another artist mentioned on his page should be eligible. I think you’ve made a mistake.

66.87.152.181 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot be inherited, I have removed the mention of her from the Micheal Bolton page as it was unsourced. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:42:47, 21 April 2019 review of submission by Crocatoot


Crocatoot (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

04:18:52, 22 April 2019 review of submission by 96.48.126.147

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING A RE-REVIEW ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. --> group meets criteria stated in Wikipedia guidelines “2 or more members of group must be notable”.

96.48.126.147 (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:20:03, 22 April 2019 review of submission by 96.48.126.147

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING A RE-REVIEW ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. --> page meets Wikipedia criteria “2 or more members of group must be notable”

96.48.126.147 (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 96.48.126.147. You are referring to Mike Hindert (the article edited by MikeHindert and Merrifield Records)? And? Anthony Burulcich, Marshall Gallagher, or Patrick McWilliams? The draft was deleted for being exclusively promotional, such that it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be neutral. The good news about that is that if, as you say, the band meets WP:BAND criterion #6, someone without a conflict of interest may be able to write an acceptable article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:42:22, 22 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Amr247rn


Hello, I was working on Draft:Constantine_Mavroudis through many revisions as I am a first time author. My last editor deleted my work, saying it was promotional. I am just new; and I am feeling defeated. I read a similar submission on Redmond Burke, also a congenital heart surgeon, and it had the same tone as my submission. I have had great feedback from previous editors and am completely willing to make suggested changes. I am gracefully asking for my article back from deletion if this is at all possible. I am hoping not to start over from scratch as I had a lot of good help up to the point of deletion. Thank you. Amr247rn (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amr247rn (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amr247rn. See the essay Why was the page I created deleted?. You can follow the procedure outlined there to ask for the draft to be undeleted. But it was deleted for being exclusively promotional, such that it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be neutral, so the deleting admin has effectively already told you that if you wish to continue writing about the topic you should start over from scratch.
You've been working on the draft for two years, and have never edited another article. Rather than rushing to recreate the draft, take some time to reflect on whether you're here to build an encyclopedia. If you are, you can find constructive ways to help at Wikipedia:Community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:41:01, 22 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by RevinCBHatol


05:41:01, 22 April 2019 review of submission by RevinCBHatol


I have found some sources for the draft, but it's almost impossible to submit the draft. Please help me in such advice. RevinCBHatol (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCES: http://www.aikatsu.net/aikatsufriends_01/story/

RevinCBHatol (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:02:51, 22 April 2019 review of submission by Elurevad76


Hi, I'm wondering why this article has been declined for publication. It seems relevant in light of other entries of this nature such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_(cryptocurrency). Please advise so I can bring the article up to standard if required. Cheers, Dave Elurevad76 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elurevad76 The draft was rejected (unlike declined, rejected is meant to be final) for not being notable, and moreover, for being contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Most likely, the reviewer had in mind not an advertising platform and neutral point of view. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why reviewers aren't swayed by comparisons with other topics. "Relevance" is not one of the criteria for determining whether a subject should be included in the encyclopedia.
General sanctions covering all content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies were implemented in May 2018. My impression is that those sanctions have damped down the creation of new articles in the domain. It's best to take the long view. There is no deadline. In a decade or two it will have become clear whether Cardano has the lasting importance that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia, or is merely a footnote in the dustbin of history. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:06:57, 22 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Bvbemarking


I am creating a wiki page for a school and the school anthem are picked up as copyrighted eventhough it was referenced. how do I change this?

Bvbemarking (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bvbemarking. The school anthem is the least of Draft:Hoërskool Ben Viljoen's problems. Articles should be based mainly on independent sources (not the school's website). If the draft were trimmed down to what comes from third-party sources, it would be blank. So start by finding what has been written about the school in reliable sources like books, newspapers, and magazines. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines for more advice. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The username Bvbemarking is a violation of the username policy, "bemarking" is "marketing" in Afrikaans. Thus there are also COI and PAID issues that need to be cleared up. Pinging Worldbruce, Theroadislong and Whispering as involved reviewers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:18:50, 22 April 2019 review of submission by TylerJGaffney22

Essentially this is my great grandfather and I believe he deserves recognition for his discoveries, it most definitly is true that he discovered this mountain as it is well known in my family and on the wikipedia page for Mount Isherwood, which he is credited with the discovery of the mountain, thank you. TylerJGaffney22 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TylerJGaffney22. Having a mountain named after him is considerable recognition, and he's mentioned in Mount Isherwood. It may not be possible to find sufficient independent, reliable, secondary sources to construct a biography that would meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.
What has been written about his work as a geophysicist on the U.S. Antarctic Research Program (USARP) South Pole-Queen Maud Land Traverse II, 1965-66, and on the Marie Byrd Land Survey 1966-67? Was he the son of Clara May Isherwood? Was he from Verona Pennsylvania? Was he a machinist's mate third class in company B of the 30th US Navy Construction Battalion, serving in the Americas during WWII? Your family and a genealogical librarian might be able to help you piece together his life story, but it's likely to be based on primary sources, so unsuitable for Wikipedia. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, such as FamilySearch, which has different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:17, 22 April 2019 review of submission by Digohaha


Hello, I submitted this article for review 2 months ago and I was wondering how much longer should i wait for a review? Can someone Help Me?

Thanks in advance!

Digohaha (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another source in English, whilst references don't have to be in English it might help to establish notability if you could find more? Also read WP:BAND. Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:20, 22 April 2019 review of submission by Laylalayladogdog


Laylalayladogdog (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:42:46, 22 April 2019 review of submission by Ryozzo



This is a history of the tax law that affects a large portion of New York State.

It has been modified over many months with input from to conform with wikipedia standards.

Can you tell me why you/StraussInTheHouse writes: this is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

I would love to modify it to not be contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is written about in the New York Times and it simply was not documented in wikipedia for a long time but it is a part of history and should be documented similar to the tax laws in California etc.


Is it better placed in a wikimedia project? https://wikimediafoundation.org/our-work/wikimedia-projects/ Ryozzo (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryozzo. Wikipedia is the correct Wikimedia project in which to pursue this. It might help to find a community of editors within Wikipedia who would be interested in the draft. I know you haven't had much luck finding experienced co-authors so far, but you could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, or if you're in NYC, Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/About. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:52:34, 22 April 2019 review of draft by Meweiu


Is this source considered primary/secondary/tertiary? Is it considered reliable/unreliable? White, J.T., National Cyclopedia Of American Biography

Meweiu (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meweiu. The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography is much like Marquis Who's Who, in that most of its content was provided by the person profiled or their family (and it doesn't say what is independent). So editors are likely to consider it comparable to a self-published source - reliable only for uncontroversial details. It would not help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

05:12:19, 23 April 2019 review of submission by 123.255.250.210


123.255.250.210 (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:47:14, 23 April 2019 review of submission by MJKLB

07:47:14, 23 April 2019 review of submission by MJKLB


MJKLB (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJKLB: - there don't appear to be anything stated here to suggest notability, and in any case, there aren't any secondary sources to show it. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:29:25, 23 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by ChiaraCantilis


Hi there! This article was declined because it's regarded as an advertisement. Would you allow me to explain the purpose I had for this article?

The goal of this article: to have an up-to-date summary of a series of clinical trials to fight retinal eye disease. I think it's important for stakeholders in the medical and ophthalmological world to be up to date about these developments - the statuses of these clinical trials change every few months. Other scientists can build on these advancements. Not the goal of this article: to make people buy Oxurion's product, enroll in one of their clinical trials, ...In fact, updating the information here on Wikipedia gives people a reason to not visit Oxurion's website or subscribe to a newsletter. ;-)

Moreover, this new page is a new translation of this page in Dutch which has existed for years and has the same content: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxurion A similar German company, Aliaxis, has similar information on its Wikipedia-page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliaxis

Could you please give me some advice on how to alter this article so that it wouldn't be regarded as an advertisement anymore?

Thanks in advance, have a great day,

Chiara

ChiaraCantilis (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:ChiaraCantilis#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 Dutch Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa.
Moreover, the existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or that it should exist. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. 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.
The bulk of any draft should be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources. The draft cites no such sources about Oxurion. The fact that it is traded on Euronext Brussels does not in and of itself make the company notable, but it makes it more likely that the necessary sources exist somewhere, perhaps in the pages of the Belgian business press. Given your conflict of interest and difficulty producing something that doesn't come across as corporate spam, I strongly urge you not to try to write the article yourself, but to follow the guidance at WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:02:39, 23 April 2019 review of submission by Ayman2121


my article was rejected by david moreno and i cannot seem to understand why this happened - please can you make it very clear as to why the article was rejected please Ayman2121 (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ayman2121. The topic does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Most companies don't. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:55:51, 23 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Sudhakar naidu 118



Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudhakar naidu 118: What is your request?--BoothSift 04:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:27:41, 23 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jrpmd1221


Hello,

It is my first time creating an article with Wikipedia and I need some clarification on the process and struggles I have had. I created Draft:Steuart_Pittman which was taken down due to lack of citations, so I solved that issue by updating the page and including citations from various sources demonstrating why the public figure has generated enough coverage to have a Wikipedia page. I have since clarified in my profile that I am an employee of Anne Arundel County Government and am creating this page at their request, as they have previously done with other public county employees/elected officials. I have also submitted an email to the address for Wikipedia permissions regarding the copyright of the content on the following website: https://www.aacounty.org/departments/county-executive/bio/index.html I and Anne Arundel County Government permit others to use this material under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). The Wikipedia page that has been created for Steuart Pittman has our permission to use content the above website we have created. I was careful to ensure the Wikipedia page was worded differently than the bio on the county website and were found from other sources and covered different material, but as they are both bios of the same person it has been taken down for copyright, and we would like to ensure our county page gives permission to users to use that biography content and it is able to be used on Wikipedia. I wanted to check in first before I recreate the article or make any changes to ensure I am going about this process correctly and not violating any rules. I would greatly appreciate it if you could clarify this process for me and assist me in what my next steps should be. Thank you!

Jrpmd1221 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrpmd1221: If I understand you correctly, you've initiated the procedure in WP:DONATETEXT, choosing not to put a license statement on https://www.aacounty.org/departments/county-executive/bio/index.html, but instead emailing permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Either way, you're giving everyone and anyone, not just Wikipedia, the right to reuse the text you license, including with modifications and for commercial purposes.
If you recreate Draft:Steuart Pittman, place {{OTRS pending}} on Draft talk:Steuart Pittman. So long as you do that, you should not have copyright problems if you use in the draft any of the text that you've licensed. An encyclopedia has a fundamentally different purpose than the county web page, so it's unlikely that you will be able to use much of the text fom there anyway. It sounds like you understand that you need to reference mainly reliable secondary sources that are independent of Pittman (e.g. not the county web site), although you may use the county web site as a source for a lesser portion of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:00:04, 23 April 2019 review of draft by Tha Maji


What did I do wrong? He is a real person, those sources are good, he has a decent career will plenty of connections? What is the problem? Is it because I am new? Did I mess up the formatting? I am a huge Wikipedia user as a reference and I'm just getting started and adding people I know that should be on here because they have done lots of stuff but don't know how to wiki edit and I've been meaning to learn this since wikipedia started. I've been online since Jan of 95, been reading the internet since then, I can add a lot, just need help.

What do I need to do to fix this page and get it live? I think it looks pretty good. Tha Maji (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Maji (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tha Maji. The reviewer's comment was "Instagram and IMDb aren't WP:RS, please replace". They might also have said that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source either, per WP:DAILYMAIL. Since you didn't understand, I removed those sources for you, along with the content sourced to them. While I was under the hood, I checked the remaining sources and removed those that failed to support the content where cited, and then most of the unsupported content. Finally, I removed external links, which aren't allowed in the text. One is okay in the external links section, but seldom more. There's not much left. The subject is clearly not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want my draft deleted

Hi, I created draft:Rajputs of Nepal however I now realise that the quality of the article is not up to par. I have incorrectly mischaracterised most of the sources and a lot of the content that is correct would be better placed in the Rajput article as opposed to a separate article. Could it be deleted so I could try and make it again at a later date? Thanks213.205.198.130 (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CSD submitted Nosebagbear (talk)

21:26:07, 23 April 2019 review of submission by Jordanslp312


Siraj meets notability requirements as he has made significant impact in the study of minor planets, most notably because of his discovery of the first known potentially interstellar meteor, which scientists have been searching for since at least 1940.[1]

Jordanslp312 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Opik, Ernist (1940). "Analysis of 1436 Meteor Velocities" (PDF). Annales Academai Scientiarum Estonicae. 1: 87.

22:02:39, 23 April 2019 review of draft by TravelGM18


Hi, thanks for your note. How can I rework this for Wiki? I've seen other "Tourism" pages and other Visitor Convention Authorities with similar pages. I'd appreciate any tips or advice on how to make this work. Thank you! TravelGM18 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TravelGM18. Wikipedia contains low quality articles and high quality ones. If you're using an example to create a similar article, be sure to use the best available one. Tourism in Malta is the only article in the domain rated good or better by the community, so I strongly suggest you follow its pattern, adjusting as necessary for differences between Malta and Miami Beach. Note that the "Arrivals by country" subsection and table was added after the article earned its "good" status, and might or might not be considered an improvement by reviewers. The safest course would be to not mimic that piece. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:42:16, 23 April 2019 review of draft by Ezamusic


Ezamusic (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I cant see the pictures which I uploaded togeth4r with the article. How come they have dissapeared?

Secondly, how do I make sure the title of the article doesnt show "sandbox" etc.


thanks Isa

Hi Ezamusic. The draft was deleted for being unambiguous advertising, so I suggest you edit a different topic. There are 5.8 million to choose from. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help improve the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:30:55, 23 April 2019 review of submission by MoODy TeeN

why was my article deleted? It was about someone I know and therefore I can't have a citation from somewhere else because she isn't famous MoODy TeeN (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MoODy TeeN. Unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, and similar sites, this is not a place to write about yourself or your friends. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you can't cite a reliable, published, secondary source about your topic, then it isn't suitable for Wikipedia. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, ones that have different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

01:32:51, 24 April 2019 review of submission by JarodHunt

I submitted a draft article about a subreddit with over 2 million subscribers. /r/atheism. I was told by someone that a subreddit is not notable enough for inclusion on wikioedia, but he then said "i could be wrong though." Note there is a reddit for the donald trump reddit, which only has 700,000 subscribers. Home come a donald trump reddit gets a wiki and an atheist one doesn't? Is wikipedia full of trump supporters?

JarodHunt (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JarodHunt Greetings. Link here your page - Draft:/r/Atheism.
Wikipedia is not affiliated with any political groups. In Wikipedia notability defines as the subjec is "worthy of notice" and it does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, popularity or how many subscribers they have in utube, reddit or tweeter. The topic needs to receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the topic/subject in length and in dept and not only passing mentioned. Independent reliable sources such as from major newspaper would be suitable. Sources such as from home page, official website, press releases, interview, user generated sites, sources associated with the subject, marketing articles and etc are considered NOT reliable and / or not independent for such they can NOT be used to demonstrate/contribute to the nobility guidelines which is required. Do read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for further detail. If you would provide the above requirement, then you could rework on the article and try again. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Than you CASSIOPEIA - this subreddit has been covered by Buzzfeed, Mashable, the Daily Dot, Patheos, Vox, and about two dozen other tech websites. Many of these articles are linked in the draft. What do you people want, a front page article from the New York Times? Are we now only including stories that have been carved into the moon with a giant laser?

JarodHunt (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JarodHunt. Have you discussed it with reviewer Boothsift? Their comment suggests that they are open to other points of view. An argument based on subscriber numbers is unlikely to move anyone, but you have another argument in the extent of coverage and the general notability guideline. If you put your case with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you may be able to persuade them to undo their rejection. Such a course is more likely to bear fruit than engaging in hyperbole with editors who didn't review the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JarodHunt: No, we won't accept a front page article from the New York Times due to copyright issues and no, we are not all Donald Trump supporters or atheists. Your reasoning makes no sense. Reddit and Wikipedia are two different sites, with different notability standards. On Reddit, anything is notable enough. So I don't care if there's a Reddit for a sub Reddit because we have stricter guidelines. Thank you--BoothSift 23:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:21, 24 April 2019 review of submission by Adamszala


Hello DGG,

I believe this person deserve to be on wikipedia because he is very young entrepreneur who achieved many things in his short age, maybe I haven't add enough sources but If you say I can add more.

Adamszala (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adamszala. If you wish to address a specific editor on a talk page, use some form of notification template, such as {{U|DGG}}, which renders as DGG.
Quality is far more important than quantity. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources that contain significant information about their subject. Three is enough if they're good. The fact that each source in the draft is cited exactly once suggests that none of them contain significant coverage of Hnetinka. If they did, you would be able to cite them at multiple points throughout the text. As noted by various reviewers, the draft also has severe focus (are you writing about a person or a company) and tone problems. You may find it helpful to gain experience by editing existing articles for a while. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected this article for 2 reasons. One of them, by far the most important, is that it is an apparent attempt at promotionalism The other, is that there is no indication that he isnotable either in an ordinary sense or in a WP sense. . "Being an entrepreneur and the owner of three companies, [he] is now one of the successful American businessmen" This was followed by 10 points attempting to show the success of the companies--which might at best make for articles on the companies, but does not speak to his own notability But let's look at them: 1. "[one of the companies] ... plan to best Amazon in the same day delivery service. "that's plan, not succeed or eve n have a minimal realistic chance. 2. " [another of his companies] opened 40+ e-commerce delivery fulfilment centres and working with the delivery partners including Deliv, UberRUSH, Coyote, AxleHire and Dynamex." that's a fair start for a new business, but nowhere close to importance. 3. and then "[that 2nd company] facilitated the shipments of goods worth $1.7 million." which is absurdly trivial. 4. then a local newspaper published what is obviously a press release about a local firm, based on an interview with the subject himself, making remarkable claims for innovation in what is basically merely running a delivery service for other companies. Such claims for first in the world need much more reliable sourcing than that. 5. It signed a deal to distribute for another company. 6. It added a shopping cart function (in 2018), 7. It becames a minor service provider for an actually imortant company, as claimed by himself. 8. He gave a talk at a conference. 9. It discarded its previous business model, based on not owning the warehouse, and opened a warehouse, 10. It raised $7 million in a funding round.
The contributor has made 4 tries in 14 days, and still not produced anything acceptable.
(but it is not the case that citing each article only once is a bad thing. It's what most articles do for most of their references. It's what I do. What would actually be unacceptable would be using multiple references to prove each minor point. ) DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:40:15, 24 April 2019 review of submission by Rwunderlich


I am self publishing this page as I am a candidate for US Congress. I am the author and the source.

I think I can use my website, which contains my military record to source some of the information; however, much of the information is not sourced as I lived it. So I have a bit of a conundrum. Thanks

Rwunderlich (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwunderlich. An article about you may cite your own website for a relatively small amount of information, so long as it is uncontroversial (where you grew up and went to high school, for example), but the bulk of any article should come from sources independent of you. Wikipedia is by its nature a trailing medium. An article won't be accepted here until the subject has gained significant attention by the world at large over a period of time, as evidenced by coverage in independent reliable sources (think books, newspapers, magazines, and their web equivalents). It's possible that you may not gain the necessary attention unless you win the election. Moreover, Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. Forget about writing about yourself here, and concentrate on your campaign. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely concentrating on the campaign. Getting everything in place. I can't start too early as the election is in November 2020, so I am just getting things in place. I can save this draft and as I start doing interviews and talking events, I can source the page and republish. In the mean time I will continue to edit. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwunderlich (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you will not succeed in getting an article just as a candidate unless you receive a very great deal of national-level publicity (which is conceivable, however unlikely, in an election year like the next one). What will get you an article is being elected. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:01:31, 24 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Wikilrcs


Hello, Thank you for the follow up on our article (Wikilrcs, Robert_J._Vallerand). In the first paragraph, we mentionned a few references or sources. Is it the way it is supposed to be? If so, what can we do to improve the rest of our content? Thank you so much for your help, Michael Wikilrcs (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikilrcs: Who is "we" or "our"? Wikipedia only allows one person per account. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at hte actual draft, which I declined: It's a BLP, so each statement of fact in the article must have a reference. He's a university professor, so the routine facts of his degrees and appointments can be sourced from an official CV, but they must be actually sourced, and this must be indicated in the article itself, not just listing sources at the botttom. As the decline notice said, see WP:REFBEGIN for the method. As for his potential notability here, it would depend upon the extent of influence of his work, as specified at WP:PROF. He has written one book, for OUP, and this counts a good deal. It would count much more if there are also references to substantial 3rd party independent published reviews in reliable sources, His papers whow very high citations--some areover 1000, and this is normally sufficient. List the 4 or 5 most cited, with the citation figures,from google scholar. Don't just refer to an outside list. He has some significnat awards. Give exact references to the evidence for them.
f you make claims for having done something important, you need references to substantial 3rd party independent published reliable sources saying so. Avoid vague statements. Readers of an encyclopedia don't care how many students he's taught-- they care about whether any of his doctoral or postdoctoral students are notabler themselves, in the sense of having WP articles about them.
Try to make the article less personal, and more encyclopedic. Accomplishments in high school or as an undergraduate do not belong in a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:30, 24 April 2019 review of submission by Futiledevicess


I got one article rejected before claiming that there was 'unambiguous advertising' and would like to know why. It was a page about an art exhibition held in a museum, then does including the exhibition catalogue mean advertising already? I thought that would just provide more information if readers would like to know or read more about the exhibition.

Futiledevicess (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Futiledevicess. Being unambiguous advertising is one of two reasons Draft:From China to Taiwan: Pioneers of Abstraction (1955-1985) was deleted. An exhibition's catalog may be used as a source for an article about an exhibition, but the bulk of any such article should come from arms-length sources, such as reviews by art critics or art historians. Often there aren't enough independent sources about a specific exhibition to justify a separate encyclopedia article about it. Instead, the exhibition catalog might better serve as a source for expanding articles about the art movement, history, or artists involved. If you're interested in writing about art, you may wish to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts or a WikiProject aligned with your regional interests. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:08, 24 April 2019 review of submission by Kit Lewis Research


Hello, I don't understand how the topic of this page can be 'contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia' when it describes a test many students rely on to apply to university, which has been developed by a major university and is used by a number of others. It seems entirely reasonable that students and universities should be able to find out about this through Wikipedia. If content such as this is permitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_Language_Tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF_Standard_English_Test I can't see how my own page violates any of Wikipedia's principles. Please can you review this decision or advise me appropriately. Many thanks

Kit Lewis Research Kit Lewis Research (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kit Lewis Research: The reviewer read it as a guideline on how to take the test, rather than an encyclopedia article about the test. I think if you add more information about the test itself and shorten the test-taking process to one section, it'll be better. You can also contact the reviewer, Theroadislong about this. --BoothSift 01:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:23:30, 24 April 2019 review of draft by Azurerae


When creating the page, a typo was made. It should be Simone_Maria_Arnold_Liebster And/or the married name or maiden name may need to be removed as I'm not sure if Wikipedia uses one, the other or both for page name. Azurerae (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azurerae, I renamed the draft to Draft:Simone Arnold Liebster as per her common name published on her book [1] and per this online article entry. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

03:44:13, 25 April 2019 review of draft by Vijayrva

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Shall I create and publish a page without references? Once published, I shall later work on to add more references & supporting documents & links.

Vijayrva (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vijayrva: No, references are required. --BoothSift 04:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:11:48, 25 April 2019 review of draft by Mohitkumardeaf


Mohitkumardeaf 10:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

There isn't actually any content here - I'd imagine it was accidentally submitted, I'm not sure what the editor was actually hoping/asking for here. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:10, 25 April 2019 review of draft by RHall1970


I have created a draft page for 'David Rees' - but this needs to be changed to 'David Rees (chemist)' as there is already a David Rees page. I'm not sure if or how to do that - can you help? RHall1970 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhall1970 Best that you do it yourself. It is easy. Go to your draft: David Rees talk page, at top choose More (it is a drop down) choose move page. It will default to draft David Rees add (chemist) and next blank space explain why you are moving the page.Oldperson (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RHall1970:Pinging you to above response. I mistyped your user name. Oldperson (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Oldperson! I think I need to wait for my account to be autoconfirmed before I can move it - hopefully that will happen in a couple more days — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHall1970 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All set RHall1970. User:Whispering(t) 22:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Whispering! RHall1970 (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:17:23, 25 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Akonyetobin1


I am trying to create an article for a school which i could not find on wiki, but it keeps getting rejected..

Akonyetobin1 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Akonyetobin1: For one, you need better references. Google Search is not one --BoothSift 23:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

07:41:02, 26 April 2019 review of draft by Akarnikos


Can we please get help on publishing this page asap thank you.

Akarnikos (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" user accounts are strictly for single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:50:12, 26 April 2019 review of submission by Jjwap00


Hello Wikipedia,

I am wondering why my page about the CEO of Wikipedia is being declined. Please kindly let me know what I can do to get this page live, and why this page has been stated as being contradictory to the purpose of Wikipedia?

Thanks very much Jjwap00 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jjwap00. The sources the draft cites are ones that don't mention McIvor, are press releases from organizations he worked for (and thus not independent), or merely quote him briefly. Sources of those types do nothing to demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia). Wikipedia may not be used for advertising. Most likely, the reviewer saw the topic as purely promotional, but if you have a question about what was in the mind of a particular editor you should really talk to that person. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:23, 26 April 2019 review of draft by George Klaudiny


Review submission delays. Hello, I'm new at Wikipedia and I submitted a page of a film Angel of the North for a review, about a month ago. I would like to ask if this is an ordinary delay or if I did something incorrectly (as I was given a prompter response and a kind assistance from other Wiki-users and admin, previously). Thank you for your answer. George Klaudiny (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)George Klaudiny George Klaudiny (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George Klaudiny. The draft is in the group of submissions that have been waiting 3-4 weeks. The current backlog is 8+ weeks. You may continue improving the draft while you wait, or check out Wikipedia:Community portal for millions of other ways to help improve the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Request on 09:38:20, 27 April 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by SHISHIR DUA


To use my knowledge to the best and give a decent information an to update and create pages for your fabulous organization


SHISHIR DUA (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editor accidentally added their message to the hidden text (I've uncovered it), but it doesn't actually explain what they want from us with respect to the draft. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: The draft was blank so maybe that's what they meant, you have to add content.--BoothSift 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:12, 27 April 2019 review of draft by BCNJamez


What to do if the references are limited on the internet? Is there a minimum requirement for number of references?? The article i am creating is for a popular international supermodel. There are multiple articles on her.. But most as references wikipedia is not accepting.. I really cannot and am not able to find more "acceptable" references.. Please help me out

BCNJamez (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BCNJamez. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of their topic. The sources do not need to be on the internet. Sources for topics suitable for the encyclopedia can often be found in libraries. If you can't find sources which demonstrate that she is notable, then write about something else. The world will not come to an end if Wikipedia doesn't have an article about a particular popular international supermodel. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:17, 27 April 2019 review of draft by Telmo E Silva


I would like my article reviewed by someone else other than KylieTastic, taking into consideration similar articles that have been approved and published in the past.

ClicData is a company and I am its founder. I believe that ClicData has a place in Wikipedia, that it is a notable company and is no different than thousands of others companies and products currently published on Wikipedia.


Telmo Silva (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Telmo E Silva. The {{UserboxCOI}} declaration of your conflict of interest is misplaced. It belongs on your user page, not the draft page. There is a different template that goes on the talk page of the draft, but that has been taken care of for you.
I see that another reviewer has already obliged with a second evaluation of the draft. It is entirely possible that thousands of companies and products currently published on Wikipedia should not be. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or that it has been in any way "approved". It is not a good excuse to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. 123 articles have been deleted in the past 24 hours, and others have been redirected. I think that's a fairly typical day's work. You can help by not adding material that volunteers would have to delete. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:29:27, 27 April 2019 review of submission by Ajg2345


The Band MewithoutYou has released 2 albums called untitled - one is an ep called untitled that is lowercase and the other is a full length album that is Untitled with a capital letter. Both of this article and the one for the main LP are correct to the best of everyone's abilities please re-review this for clarity and content so that they can be added to the main MewithoutYou wikipedia page so people can find the proper information about the bands albums.

It is unclear to all involved why we keep getting the error messages that we get. Ajg2345 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajg2345: - hi there. The error messages you are getting are because the reviewers think the EP doesn't have enough notability to warrant its own wikipedia article.
NALBUM (album notability) sets out how you can demonstrate its notability through one of several ways. By far the most common is 2 or more reviews of the EP/album, but the reviews must be independent, reliable and in-depth. SputnikMusic doesn't meet this set of requirements. There's a good list here of review websites accepted (or generally accepted) as meeting these requirements. Some are only legitimate if done by a staff writer, not a "contributor". Nosebagbear (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:47:12, 28 April 2019 review of draft by Cyberfan195


Cyberfan195 (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberfan195: What is your request?--BoothSift 05:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:15:07, 28 April 2019 review of submission by Karan raghavan


Karan raghavan (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


05:20:45, 28 April 2019 review of submission by Karan raghavan


i have checked all the information and everything is correct.if you do not belive me i have added references below to prove my claims.Most of them are videos by the epic artist(Sri Raam).He gives a lot of information about himself in his channel Karan raghavan (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Karan raghavan: Why did you make two requests? Also, while primary sources are great, we require secondary sources as well. Hope this helps--BoothSift 05:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:03, 28 April 2019 review of submission by Karan raghavan


Karan raghavan (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)i have checked all the info and gave appropriate sources. there is one problem. Sri Raam is not that active in social media.He only posts his drawings on instagram.The only place he shows his face and gives information about himself is his youtube channel.i have given a link to even his youtube channel.all the things i have have wrote about him comes from the information given in his videos.i have given a link to all the videos that i have gotten information from.Thank you[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=894493024"