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 Mandii.c (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 5 June 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


May 30

01:07:58, 30 May 2019 review of submission by Fanssnap

So a young famous LGBT Activist from Saudi Arabia, who gets arrested several times for being himself and all the big media write about it, is not "sufficiently notable" for Wikipedia? But the Wikipedia pages about pornstars are notable? Clearly Wikipedia want to hide this topic like the people who arrested this young man. Fanssnap (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micromobility is sufficiently notable

02:38:59, 30 May 2019 review of submission by DavidLevinson


Micromobility had 3.4 million hits on Google search, numerous magazine and link articles, but no Wikipedia entry. The article should be restored.

dml (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dml (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidLevinson: WP:SOFIXIT. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:13:12, 30 May 2019 review of draft by Sussex Wolves


Sussex Wolves (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All my work is correct. Why do you keep deleting it. I can not give you references from books as it doesnt come from book but does come from various websites and from my attending racing meeting. I have been attending meetings and football matches for over 50 years and having many records I am putting of your site. Do you want to me to reference myself?

Hi Sussex Wolves. Correctness is a good quality, but not a sufficient one. All Wikipedia articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, published sources. Content is not based on editors' personal experience or knowledge. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you may add it. The essay "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth" may clarify this. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So therefor I can go to a football match and see a 0-0 draw a record it. I put it on Wikipedia as a 0-0 draw but that's not god enough. But something could have happened 500 years ago and someone told someone who told someone who told someone who told someone and that is good enough for Wikipedia.

or 'correctness is not sufficient one'

I could write something I know is wrong but because its previously been referenced as correct it ok to add it.

I have also put on two other pages recently - Staffordshire Senior Cup 1899-1900 and Staffordshire Senior Cup 1899-1900, the second of which was removed by yourselves. Now to get the info I have used up to 25 different newspapers from the time which as far I am concerned thats reference enough but Wikipedia does not agree. I could have reference a couple of books some of the info came out of but I didn't because the Author is a proved to make thing up but because it has a bsi number it would be ok with Wikipedia.

Sussex Wolves yeah, personal experiences aren't really admissable in Wikipedia. We want reliable sources to talk about the subject, and we summarise these points. Wikipedia is strictly against WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:03:07, 30 May 2019 review of submission by Scharrlib

I had made changes to the page as per suggestions. I believe that this page has merit to exist on Wikipedia as The School of Health and Related Research is a health research school with international esteem comparable with other University of Sheffield schools that are included on Wikipedia. ScHARR is not a department, but a school. It is also comparable to other UK health research schools such as The University of York's that exist on Wikipedia. Both inform national health policy and deliver international standard teaching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Reviews_and_Dissemination

Scharrlib (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:36:25, 30 May 2019 review of draft by Gumswick55


Hi. Could someone review my draft? I’ve been waiting for more than a day. Thank you.

Gumswick55 (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently rejected by Theroadislong. Perhaps the stake that sticks up gets hammered down. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:00, 30 May 2019 review of submission by Rob-ALVB

Hi, I'm trying to launch a wikipedia page for my good friend and independent musician Decora. Not sure what I should edit to get this published. Maybe it's the type of references being used? or the way it's worded? This is my first entry to wikipedia. Was hoping to get this up and running for him earlier this year. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! -Rob

Rob-ALVB (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:27, 30 May 2019 review of submission by SteveJBishop

This copy is based on TicketMaster's own page so the text is structured in that way - why is there page not banned as promotion when this is? This page is factually correct and provides base structure of information. There are links out to the site and referenced but that is the same as ticketmaster - if this is a problem, let me know and I can update it but given other pages exist in the same structure I am confused as it is inconsistent policing? SteveJBishop (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:SteveJBishop#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:41:28, 30 May 2019 review of submission by 42.107.200.138


42.107.200.138 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 16:50:43, 30 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Fasil Mp


Fasil Mp (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:56, 30 May 2019 review of submission by Fasil Mp

This is a biography and I want know more people about this biography in Wikipedia Fasil Mp (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fasil Mp Editors may create a user page containing limited autobiographical information for the purpose of collaboration with other editors. If that was what you were trying to do with User:Fasil Mp/sandbox, then you do not need to submit it for review. Simply write at User:Fasil Mp.
It is draft articles that need to be submitted for review before being published as encyclopedia articles. If that is what your sandbox submission was intended as, then please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space, blog, or social networking site. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:12, 30 May 2019 review of submission by Ryan Mindo



Ryan Mindo (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:23, 30 May 2019 review of submission by Wanderguides


I've struggled with understanding what moderators are classifying as "significant coverage" regarding this post. Based on my review of the WP:SIGCOV guidelines, several of the sources linked qualify for inclusion and are directly related to the content in the wiki page. What is not specifically being addressed here? Wanderguides (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderguides (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wanderguides. Most businesses are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia article. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative.
WP:SIGCOV is the general notability guideline. For what significant coverage means in the context of companies, look at WP:CORPDEPTH. Picking five of the cited sources at random:
  • Diginomica #1 is a primary source interview where the CEO talks about the company without independent analysis by the interviewer, so it isn't independent and isn't secondary.
  • The Globe and Mail and VentureBeat #2 are independent, reliable, and secondary, but are fundamentally routine coverage of a round of capital raising, which is trivial coverage, not significant coverage.
  • pehub.com is a press release, so not independent.
  • Deloitte #2 is "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', 'fastest growing' or similar lists", which the corporate notability guidelines explicitly exclude as trivial coverage.
--Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:27, 30 May 2019 review of submission by Fasil Mp


This is a biography and I want know more people about this biography

Fasil Mp (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no content apart from your name age and occupation, I'm afraid you are not yet notable enough for an article, but be assured that once you are someone will write an article about you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:53:59, 30 May 2019 review of submission by Fasil Mp


20:23:56, 30 May 2019 review of submission by 223.230.140.171

  • 223.230.140.171 (talk · contribs) (TB)
    • No draft specified!
    • Shamsheer vayalil alma mater is not shown on his profile on google. It needs to be indicated on his profile.

223.230.140.171 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eagleash fixed the problem. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:39, 30 May 2019 review of draft by T1aacref

HELLO, HOW DO I ADD A PICTURE ON MY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE? THANK YOU! T1aacref (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T1aacref. Please don't write in all capital letters. It is seen as shouting.
Unless you took the picture yourself, start with Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. To further understand what the copyright holder has to give up, you may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you can't get permission, you can't use the image. Once you have the correct permission, adding an image is a two-step process: upload it, then use it in on a page.
Go to Commons:First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes Wikipedia:File names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, Commons has its own help desk.
Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial explains how to use it on a page. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

00:35:34, 31 May 2019 review of submission by MuchTime

MuchTime (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a page for an individual and a company that I work for. I get that this would be an obvious COI, I am wondering what the chances of it ever being accepted?

Also IMO the company and individual should be on Wiki, as there are others with far lesser bodies of work that are. They, being similar entities, also seem to have far less references, and perhaps ones that are there are not all that reputable compared to the present Wiki standards. My question is, is it defensible to compare the notoriety of my entities to old submissions as a baseline or has the current standard of evidence been raised?

MuchTime (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MuchTime. Most businesses are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia article. The notability criteria (inclusion criteria) were toughened last year to keep out even more. Right now, Wikipedia has little or no appetite for new articles about extant companies, and that extends to biographies of their living founders or executives. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative.
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 is in any way "approved" or meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. It isn't a good excuse to create more inadequate pages. 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. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:30:48, 31 May 2019 review of draft by FowDay

Discrepancy between guidelines provided to me by a reviewer, and existing articles on Wikipedia.

I found that I was told that the three main inline citations did not meet Wikipedia's standard. However, I went through several Wikipedia pages on motorsport personalities. I noticed that a lot of these Wiki pages only contained one single inline citation, which led to the racer's Driver DB page. It is widely acknowledged that Driver DB is the most accurate record of motorsport on the internet. And I wondered why it was okay that the only verifiable source of a racer's accomplishments was accepted via Driver DB in some cases, examples below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Theobald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rg_Bergmeister

And not in other cases - like the draft article that I am currently working on.

FowDay (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FowDay. 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 is "okay" or meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. It isn't a good excuse to create additional inadequate pages. 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. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:14, 31 May 2019 review of draft by Shaista.ameer

Because I am not exactly getting why my page is getting deleted again and again I am not understanding the mistakes.

Shaista.ameer (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:BenchMatrix is just a blatant advert, it has no sources at all let alone independent reliable ones. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote your business. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:17:11, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Tollywoodcorns

Tollywoodcorns (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can i please know why my article was declined

As per the decline notice... your draft has no sources, we need significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Theroadislong (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:08:32, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Thakur Golu Singh

Thakur Golu Singh (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just need the reason why my article got rejected...

The decline notice tells you this. It has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:10:31, 31 May 2019 review of draft by 89.138.228.20


Can you please review it again?

89.138.228.20 (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong has obliged. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:48, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Theaniketyadav

Theaniketyadav (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:14:07, 31 May 2019 review of draft by Sanderson462

Resolved

Sanderson462 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:27:46, 31 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Liewhz

Hi, I guess like everyone who gets declined, I'm trying to better understand the concept of significant coverage. If I'm writing about the piece of animation software that we developed, and makes use of inbetweening technology, what will we need to provide that shows significant coverage? For example, we have had users post 1 - 5 hours videos of them using the software and exploring the functions on Youtube. Does that count? While they're not journalists, they're definitely human beings who took the time to stream their use of the software online for their viewers.

Some scenarios just so we can understand what's acceptable / unacceptable:

  • If we have had a magazine interview us about the software and its use in the animation industry, but it's in Japanese and not English, it's still not going to be accepted? Or the fact that we're the interviewees mean that it's not independent?
  • If we have had a magazine interview an animation studio that uses our software, but it's in Japanese and not English, is it going to be accepted? In this case, since we're not the interviewees, I guess that's considered independent?
  • If we have had a journalist/reviewer try our software and write about his experience in the magazine he's working for, but it's in Mandarin and not English, is it going to be accepted? In this case, since we're not the interviewees, I guess that's also considered independent?
  • We have all the 3 above cases, but since they're magazines, we're not quite sure how we can include them as sources on the Wikipedia page. The magazine company just provides an overview on that particular issue online. What's the acceptable way to display such physical sources? Or maybe none of the 3 above cases are considered as significant coverage?

Thanks for your help in this. Liewhz (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liewhz: - hi there, I'll have a look through the scenarios and give some comments. My comments are purely based off your writing, rather than my own assessment of your sources:
The users posting long videos, that would be Sig Cov, but they wouldn't be secondary sources and almost certainly wouldn't meet our requirements for WP:RELIABLE
The language isn't an issue, but with you being the interviewees it would generally fail WP:INDEPENDENT. There can be exceptions if the publication talks lots (several good sized paragraphs, at least) about you before starting the interview
3rd party interviews are an odd case - firstly you'd need to be able to demonstrate that the studio didn't have any particular bias that encouraged its mentioning it. If it didn't, then it could be a potential source.
Assuming a reliable publication (editorial control etc), the journalist reviewer would be a good source.
Sorry, I'm a little confused - are you saying that the magazine gives the whole article, but with only a summary online? Concerned about giving a concrete answer if I misunderstand your statement. As an extra note, all all these magazines from the same company? If that's the case, then they'd only count as 1 source for notability purposes. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Nosebagbear, appreciate your response! I'll provide more information below. The magazine citations I mentioned are from different publishers. To cite them as sources, is linking to their online magazine overview sufficient? We can't link to the actual articles because they do not make it publicly available online.

CACANi has been mentioned in animation-related magazines, including Animation Magazine,"The Animag 250: Software Companies to Watch". Animation Magazine. 2015-06-17. Retrieved 2017-01-26. CGWORLD Japan (issues 209,"月刊CGWORLD vol.209（2016年1月号）、12月10日（木）発売。全国書店ならびにワークス オンラインブックストア他にて好評発売中！ | CG・映像の専門情報サイト | CGWORLD.jp". CG・映像の専門情報サイト | CGWORLD.jp (in Japanese). Retrieved 2017-01-26. 212"月刊CGWORLD vol.212（2016年4月号）、3月10日（木）発売。全国書店ならびにワークス オンラインブックストア他にて好評発売中！ | CG・映像の専門情報サイト | CGWORLD.jp". CG・映像の専門情報サイト | CGWORLD.jp (in Japanese). Retrieved 2017-01-26.), and INCG."INCG數位影像繪圖雜誌2016第26期-金石堂網路書店". 金石堂網路書店 (in Chinese (Taiwan)). Retrieved 2017-01-26. Liewhz (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liewhz: A URL in a citation should be a deep link to the online location where the referenced content can be found. If the text of the publication is not online, do not substitute a link that is merely the magazine's or publisher's home page. Links that require registration or subscription are okay, as are offline sources. For ones that are not easily accessible and for foreign language sources, it's good practice to use the |quote= parameter of the citation templates to briefly quote the source you are paraphrasing, as described in the "Additional annotation" section of Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Worldbruce (talk)

18:15:36, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Veena srivani


Veena srivani (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:22:13, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Veena srivani

i am a beginner. so, i took time for learning wikipedia editing and i just came to know that i have to add reference list. i have added the required possible reference list, please accept my re-review proposal, so that i can know that this draft is eligible or not. Veena srivani (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:31:59, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Ilyasshas

Hello, I have recently published a page about a musical artist and it says that it has been declined because there not enough sources although I have put about 11 references, and 2 of them are in French because the artist is a moroccan/american citizen therefore in morocco their official language is french which makes sense why the articles are in that language. 

any idea on how to appeal the rejection?

Ilyasshas (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:24:13, 31 May 2019 review of draft by ChristieChan1231


It keeps saying that it's declined on April 26th, but I am currently working on it on May 31st. I want to know what's wrong with the article I've written and what I can do to make sure that it doesn't get declined again.


ChristieChan1231 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft reads exactly like a an advertisement and is in no way neutral..."an innovative company that makes moving around light, fun, and entertaining by creating trendy, compact, easy to carry products" totyally inappropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

12:17:48, 1 June 2019 review of submission by MoudgilAman

MoudgilAman (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:48, 1 June 2019 review of submission by MoudgilAman

  • MoudgilAman (talk · contribs) (TB)
    • No draft specified!
    • I had published my article be referring the rules i could understand over wiki tutorials. Furthermore, i followed some already published articles to understand the format and structure of the submission. Can you please help me on what i can do to improve my published text.
Your draft reads like an advert and has no sources. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:16, 1 June 2019 review of submission by DavyBoyForest

Hi I created an article on Aboyne Canoe Club but Theroadislong rejected it: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are numerous articles from the press (in written form) documenting events and the existence of the club which should prove the article sufficiently 'notable'. However, the majority of these press articles are documented on Aboyne Canoe Clubs website available at https://www.aboynecanoeclub.co.uk/about-acc/acc-history/press-articles/ these documents substantiate Aboyne Canoe Clubs history but are themselves only available digitally through the clubs website. Does this constitute a conflict of interest as they are external sources documented only on the clubs website? It is for this reason that I did not originally include them as sources when creating the page. Aboyne Canoe Clubs large membership, the existence of a club building and SCIO charity status would I thought have been suitable conetent to justify the existence of a wiki article online? I apologise for the time taken to answer my queries- I am new to editing and creating wiki articles. Thank you!

DavyBoyForest (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DavyBoyForest. First consider the WP:AUD section of WP:ORG: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, ... national, or international source is necessary." If no such source exists, then the club is of only local interest, and should not be the subject of a stand alone encyclopedia article. It could be mentioned in an article about the locality - a town, or the river - so long as it is not given undue weight compared to other organizations that serve the area.
If a regional or broader source exists, such as an article in an Edinburgh or Glasgow newspaper, then the draft may cite it and local press stories. The purpose of a citation is to allow the reader to find the source, so only cite an article if you can identify, at a minimum: the title, the publication in which it appeared, and the date. The page number is also highly desirable, as is the author, if identified. Print sources are fine, leave the url parameter of the citation blank if you can't find an authorized copy online. Do not link to the club's website, as they are almost certainly violating copyright by republishing any articles about them. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:35:20, 1 June 2019 review of draft by Acovert


The user who made the original submission (TheodoreJamesII) asked me to create a page for Rony Zeidan. Please delete his draft and allow me to resubmit mine. I have blanked his draft and he has given me permission to have it deleted.


Acovert (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:29, 1 June 2019 review of submission by MoudgilAman


MoudgilAman (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:29, 1 June 2019 review of submission by MoudgilAman


Hi MoudgilAman. Most businesses are not suitable subjects for stand alone encyclopedia articles. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information.
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 is "within purview" or meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. It isn't a good excuse to create more inadequate 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.
Publishing your first article at Wikipedia is overrated. See Wikipedia:Community portal for much easier and more useful ways of improving the encyclopedia, or try Citation Hunt for a gamified way to contribute. After you've gained a few months of experience editing existing articles, you'll be better prepared to create your first. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:35:00, 1 June 2019 review of draft by DeanHH!


DeanHH! (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you recommend on how to get a published review of the film when they are all archived from the journals that wrote them?

19:47:24, 1 June 2019 review of submission by DanStallman

I am asking for a re-review because I have changed the content. In my opinion the person has notability, the person has contributed to the science of Hydrology as is evident by the numerous citing's of his works by other scientists. Again in my opinion, I have removed the content that suggested an obituary. (If not please let me know)

Possibly you can give me advise as to how to change the article so that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" and how "Wikipedia has no firm rules".

Please advise, Dan DanStallman (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:17:52, 1 June 2019 review of submission by Kufa444kufa

cause i think Ashlee Nyathi as a know person in Zimbabwe and he just need to edit like photos and some info only. Kufa444kufa (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:19:26, 1 June 2019 review of submission by Kufa444kufa

Kufa444kufa (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:13:56, 1 June 2019 review of draft by Athousanddaysbefore


Hello, I just wanted to check on the submission of this article. It's been quite some time since this was revised to show solid notability, so I wanted to kindly ask if there's any more that may be able to be done here. My goal is to highlight and document Austin artists that have accomplished significant achievements outside of the city itself. Thanks so much.

Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Athousanddaysbefore. The draft was most recently submitted 6 weeks ago. Other drafts have been waiting 14-15 weeks for a review, so it's likely to be a while yet (although substantially less than a thousand days). If you're interested in improving Wikipedia, there are plenty of other backlogs you could shorten while you wait. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

Creating a User Page

03:43:41, 2 June 2019 review of submission by Vincent.perdiguez

May I know how to create a user page in my name for the first time? Because the draft I published was denied. I thought it was good enough. May I know also the do's and dont's. Thanks. Vincent Perdiguez 03:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't need a permission to create your userpage. Click this link, add the contents you want and hit save. You can find the rules for userpages here. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:11:47, 2 June 2019 review of draft by 2409:4072:31E:D496:C64D:D1F8:5B20:C591


2409:4072:31E:D496:C64D:D1F8:5B20:C591 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

01:40:32, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Theoloniusfearguskelly


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

wha do i have o fix?

Theoloniusfearguskelly (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Band Camp, Spotify and YouTube are not accepted references. What is needed is referencing to content written by other people about Theolonius Kelly. This may be a case of WP: TOO SOON. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:58:13, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Franklin187


Hi everyone, I submitted an updated article for Benjamin Schnau for review but still haven't heard back. I improved it as I was asked to. It would be great if you could pls review it and get back to me. Thanks in advance.

Franklin187 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Franklin187. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for 3 weeks. The current backlog is 14-15 weeks, so get a tub of popcorn and settle in. The draft cites spectacularly poor sources (including flixlist.com, tornadomovies.co, horrorfuel.com, filmaffinity.com, manilaupmagazine.com. jjschreibt.de, and golfregional.de). While you wait, replace those with reputable sources such as books, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekley, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, etc. If you can't improve the sourcing, the draft is unlikely to be accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:05:22, 3 June 2019 review of submission by James Denesuk

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:58, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Nirvanth


Nirvanth (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharvaani1706 (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi,

Please let me know how to make it relevant or notable enough to get it included on Wiki. Thanks a bunch :)

Hi Sharvaani1706. See Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers#Picking a topic, particularly the "Pick something notable" subsection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:25:06, 3 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Rafaeljvieira


Concerning the note that the topic is not notable enough:

The educational learning content provided by Kenhub is licensed by professors in several universities and used by their students[1][2][3]). This suggests that it meets the criteria of quality content within this industry.

Kenhub may be deemed “non notable” based on comparison to e-learning giants which rule over the North American market and spill their influence worldwide. However, European e-learning platforms are rising in popularity, and I think their influential rank should therefore be judged within their own distinct category. As an example, Bettermarks GmbH, which was listed as one of the Europe's 20 fastest growing and most innovative e-learning companies by RealWire in 2014[4], today (03/06/2019) has 100,000 active users monthly[5], while Kenhub has just as many.[6]

Looking more closely at this report, we can note that none of the listed companies are medical content based. Again, when we compare this to the previously stated numbers, it’s clear how significant a role on the medical education market Kenhub GmbH has.

Two weeks ago to this day, Kenhub had ~1,040,000 registered users worldwide. Today, the number is ~1.061.000. [7] So, not only one million people use it, but the number of users is also growing.

Based on the above arguments, I would kindly ask you to reconsider your decision and allow me to edit the article draft in order to write it from a neutral point of view. Rafael Vieira (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/profund/Wirtschaftskooperationen/Kooperationen-mit-Ausgruendungen/index.html
  2. ^ https://www.tagesspiegel.de/themen/start-up-des-tages/start-up-des-tages-kenhub/13898892.html
  3. ^ https://biblioteca.med.up.pt/wordpress/📌estude-anantomia-com-kenhub/
  4. ^ https://www.realwire.com/releases/Europes-20-Fastest-Growing-and-Most-Innovative-e-Learning-Companies-Named
  5. ^ https://gust.com/companies/bettermarks-gmbh-2
  6. ^ https://twitter.com/kenhub/status/639412177967841280
  7. ^ https://www.kenhub.com/en/success-stories

Rafael Vieira (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rafaeljvieira. I have considered your arguments and the draft, and concur with the reviewer that the subject does not meet the notability criteria for companies (is not suitable for inclusion). In time it may become notable, but if it does, you, because of your conflict of interest, will not be the right person to write about it. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:29, 3 June 2019 review of submission by Zoë Böhme


Zoë Böhme (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:12, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Klichnerska

Hello fellow contributors. As I'm trying to publish the article on crowdshipping. The page has been revised several times and was edited by others. Please, help me to make the page suitable for publishing. There is a Russian version of this page: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3 and I'm trying to connect both. Please, edit this page as you see fit, so it gets published. Thank you.

Klichnerska (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:51:26, 3 June 2019 review of draft by 68.103.78.155

I Created The 2019-20 Minnesota Timberwolves season article but it's now in draft space how long will this take to put it into draft space. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC) 68.103.78.155 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you Answer me. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 Greetings. You need to add at least 2 more independent, reliable sources which the sources talk page the subject specifically "2019-20 Minnesota Timberwolve" and not only "Minnesota Timberwolve". Sources from major newspaper would be good. We have almost 4K draft articles waiting to be reviewed and yours is in the pool and the backlog is about 6 weeks. Pls be patient. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:40, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Qwertyvg

How do I delete this draft

Qwertyvg (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyvg: As the sole substantive contributor, you may place {{Db-g7}} at the top of the draft to have it speedily deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:10:37, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Cyberfan195

Because i need help for my creation of this! please? Cyberfan195 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:49:35, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Cyberfan195

I just want somebody else to handle this business. Cyberfan195 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:55:02, 3 June 2019 review of submission by Dabura3011

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

This draft has been re-edited to remove 'fluffy' information and all research has proper references from reputable newspapers, magazines and other publications (including Forbes, Australian Financial Review, Winetitles, The Advertiser newspaper, The Business Times and InDaily).

While it has been flagged for notability, I believe the subject is notable enough as: 1. He is the owner of an NBL team and, 2. Is the CEO of an ASX-listed major Australian company which manages over $6.9 billion worth of shopping centres[1].

I believe that 38 references over 15+ years indicates verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources and it is not temporary notability. It is written from a neutral point of view, with both negative and positive events covered, and multiple secondary sources. I removed previous overtly positive comments from other reputable CEOs about his work, despite having reliable sources for the comments (a Forbes article: [2])

I request for this to be re-reviewed and would love feedback if it is rejected again on how to prove notability.

Dabura3011 (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Vicinity Centres". Wikipedia. 16 May 2019.
  2. ^ Orr, Deborah. "Recolonizing Raffles". Forbes.
 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Dabura3011#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dabura3011: Thank you for your disclosure. When you took over editing the draft, you addressed the notability problem. What remains are concerns that the draft is unambiguous promotion which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. By rejecting it, reviewers are conveying that the effort that would be required to fix it dwarfs the effort of blowing it up and starting over.
I cannot recommend that you or BPPR start over, because your background in PR and the fact that one of his companies is paying you to produce the article mean that six months down the road your second draft would almost inevitably end up in the same situation as the current one, unusable by Wikipedia. Instead, request that an independent volunteer write the article:
  1. Go to Wikipedia:Requested articles and find the best category under which to list your request.
  2. Describe the very basics of how Kelley is notable, no more than a couple of lines. Be up-front about your conflict of interest by mentioning it in the request.
  3. Choose the best 3-6 independent reliable sources that contain substantial information about Kelley, and provide links to them in the request.
  4. Optionally, on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, post a link to your request, and make sure to mention your conflict of interest so that people reading your post understand where the request is coming from.
Wikipedians are always looking for things to write about, so someone may start an article based on your sources. It often takes a year or two, and won't be the same as the text you produced, but what you produced isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

00:08:14, 4 June 2019 review of submission by 98.177.218.1


98.177.218.1 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Please explain what needs to be done on the Diamond Diva Princess page for publication. There is sufficient amount of notability and many references have been cited, including many independent of the subject. Others with less notability and references have been approved pages on Wikipedia. Please help with suggestions on how to improve the page for publication.98.177.218.1 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not notable, so no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:49:01, 4 June 2019 review of submission by DanStallman

I think I requested this previously, but don't see it here so I am assuming I did not "Publish changes" correctly. Sorry if I did, please disregard the second request.

If not, please re-review the content under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_W._Stallman

I have removed all of the wrong content. Thank you, DanStallman (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DanStallman We need multiple in-depth independent coverage of him in reliable sources I'm not seeing any such sources in your draft. Theroadislong (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:38:19, 4 June 2019 review of draft by Stephane Malhomme


- Hello, thanks for reviewing my first (and probably last) contribution. In good faith, I do not understand what "this reads like an essay not an encyclopaedia article" means. Not being funny, I just have 0 idea what that means in this context. An essay? EIoT is growing very quickly but still a pretty new field. I have cited the most established sources I could. - I presented what I thought was a balanced view of key benefits, but also key limitations of EIoT how is that not "neutral"? Honestly here again, I have no idea what I am supposed to understand by this. - Very disappointed, I spent large amounts of time preparing this the best I could. What else to say, not sure. You have related articles like this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsea_Internet_of_Things that seem a lot less neutral to me. No? - I spent TONS of time going through all the training. Maybe Wiki is just not for me. Please reply, if not, frankly, feel free to delete my account. Thanks.

Stephane Malhomme (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephane Malhomme: Do not be disheartened. I hope you stick around and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. This could be the makings of a good article. You've clearly put a lot of effort into your draft. I think that may actually have worked against you. If you write a lengthy article and then try to retrofit the type of citations that Wikipedia requires that will lead to frustration. It is better if, for each statement you write, you add a citation at the same time that clearly shows where you sourced the information from. Otherwise readers have no way of knowing whether the material is factual. You might have just written it from your own knowledge, which we consider original research. Are you willing to work on it further, under my guidance? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk @Curb Safe Charmer Thank you very much for your reply and sorry for my little tantrum there, I had spent a lot of time on this and was pretty disappointed. Sorry though. Thank you for your feedback it is very helpful. I have had a look around and may have found a few more sources I could include. If not, I figure, I might just need to leave it at that I am really not sure there are that many authoritative media / research I can quote on the topic. The editor got back to me with a great, detailed message, that was very cool, I told him/her that I'd try again, and went back to Google Scholar to find other, solider sources. That one I just found now seems interesting https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2014EA000044 Thank you very much (really) for your offer to work together. The community has been great. Leave it a bit more with me, I'll try and enhance, and resubmit. That feedback did inform me in more detail as to best practices. Might take you up on the offer if it gets turned down, or just park it until there are enough authoritative links online I guess. Thank you! Stephane Malhomme (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephane Malhomme: One approach to consider is what we describe as WP:TNT. This means cutting the article back to its bare bones - little more than a couple of paragraphs that define the term, supported by solid references that show that the term is in use by authoritive sources. You can then submit that for review and it will almost certainly be accepted into Wikipedia. You can then incrementally build on the article, likely with contributions from others who are interested in the subject who will click through to it from related articles. Your lengthy draft will remain in the article's history where you can cut and paste parts of it as and when you can find sources. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:22, 4 June 2019 review of submission by Gill Searle

I have been trying to make a page for F&R Products who are well-known for their water chillers all over the world. F&R Products have a history since 1947 and are one of the oldest bespoke water chiller manufacturers in the United Kingdom. Should I be referencing other Wikipedia pages i.e., Water Chiller or Chillers or Cooling Tower? What should I improve on the page please?

Gill Searle (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gill Searle Most businesses are not appropriate subjects for an encyclopedia article. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information.
The draft cites two trade publications and a blog, none of which do anything to establish that the company is notable (suitable for inclusion). Contrast this with the sources for Oliver Typewriter Company, for example. Notice that it cites books, academic journals, magazines, and newspapers. Without such independent, reliable, secondary sources, no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:13:41, 4 June 2019 review of submission by Nadiamoore

Hi there. I'm struggling to address this point left by the previous editor: "Requires more independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject, and that show the organisation has been notable over a significant period of time not only Nov 2017." I have searched for more references that show our longevity, but cannot find any. Articles relate more to the work we've done as an organisation. Can you suggest where I can insert more references on the current piece of writing I've tried to submit? Thank you. Nadiamoore (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:59, 4 June 2019 review of draft by Mianvar1

I noticed that a draft page I did, "Draft:Dona Nelson (artist)", is up for submission review, but the page is already up as "Dona Nelson". When I originally created it, I didn't realize that a draft already existed for the subject. When I realized, I worked into that draft and hen moved it to article status. "Draft:Dona Nelson (artist)" should be deleted. Thank you for your attention and sorry for the confusion.Mianvar1 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Mianvar1 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:06, 4 June 2019 review of draft by Rory Fellowes


My article about Peregrine Edward Launcelot Fellowes is currently available in something called Everybodywiki Bios & Wiki. I am still finding secondary sources to support the article but wonder where it is now and how I can continue to edit it. Can you help? I've been told it is not sufficiently encyclopedic, but since there are any number of articles about little known actors that do not offer a lot in the way of source references and such (other than the films they made or the songs they sang) I'm not sure where I am going wrong. Also, the two references I do have so far are in red, which do not link to the Wikipedia pages they reference. Should I add <ref>?

Rory Fellowes (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rory Fellowes: His was clearly a life well lived. However that in itself isn't enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The draft would need to be amended with references that (a) demonstrate that multiple reliable, independent publications have written in depth about him, and (b) to indicate where the statements made about him in the draft were sourced from. Your personal knowledge of him is insufficient - other readers need to be able to establish that what is written about him here is true. Adding those references inline would be best, using ref tags. Regarding your comment that there are lots of other articles that are poorly sourced, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to understand why that reasoning holds little weight here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:57, 4 June 2019 review of submission by Bismark S. Sosu

This re-review has been requested because the issue of my earlier article not being 'notable for inclusion' has been addressed sufficiently, by the inclusion of more notable news links and other credible sources. The profile build on Richard Gorab has been very well worked upon as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bismark_S._Sosu/sandbox/Richard_Gorab with reference to independently verifiable news outlets and educational platforms

Bismark S. Sosu (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Bismark S. Sosu (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bismark S. Sosu: I have reviewed the draft. The references provided do not indicate how Gorab meets the WP:NBIO criteria. The sources you've cited are either associated with Gorab, based on news releases from companies he works for, or are Gorab talking about himself or giving his opinions. This draft is not suitable for Wikipedia. I suggest you give up on it, and that Mr Gorab should use LinkedIn to promote himself instead. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:18, 4 June 2019 review of submission by Bismark S. Sosu

After the last review, changes have been made to the tone of the article to make it as objective as possible. Bismark S. Sosu (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to you above. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:50:09, 4 June 2019 review of draft by Fayiz123


Fayiz123 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayiz123: - you only have 1 section, titled "References", but you don't actually have any references. Additionally, because it's about a living person, any sources you add will need to be inline refs (the little blue numbers by specific facts in other articles). You can find our how to do them in referencing for beginners, or a wider tutorial at the wikipedia adventure tutorial. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:16:46, 4 June 2019 review of draft by Ee2mba


Ee2mba (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me advice on what citation I can use.I get the information from the Wikipedia article of that car and I know all the Acura models.

Ee2mba Good day. Each of the car listed in the article has a page in Wikipedia, that makes it so much easier to find sources. All you have to do is to go to the individual model article and find the source and provide inline citation next to it. It would be better if you would put them in a table format. For referencing (inline citation) see WP:REFB and if the sources are from internet, then use the "horizontal" Template:Cite Web template. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:43:13, 4 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Gingersnap1996


Hi! It said my article was declined because it was not sufficiently notable for inclusion but did not say why. I don't understand why or how to fix it. What are the next steps to get it approved?

Gingersnap1996 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Gingersnap1996 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gingersnap1996. Rejection of the draft is meant to be final, to convey that the subject is not notable (not suitable for inclusion), so no amount of editing will make the topic acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:33:16, 4 June 2019 review of draft by CompadredeOgum


CompadredeOgum (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently a blank page Nosebagbear (talk)

23:11:44, 4 June 2019 review of submission by Esolischi


Esolischi (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


23:24:54, 4 June 2019 review of draft by BruceAllanClark


BruceAllanClark (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not submit and "Article for Creation" whatever that is. I aked to have two recent publications of mine to be added to the Bibiography of the article about me, Bruce Allan Clark, in Wikipedia. Why can you not address my actual request? Bruce Clark

Actually you did submit an article for creation, you also asked on the talk page of the article for a book to be added, I have done this for you, please remember we are all volunteers here and promoting yourself is not encouraged or welcome. Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

00:39:19, 5 June 2019 review of submission by Chatzos

Chatzos (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

trying to post an article about the formation, mission and locations of an existing Jewish organization. The name is Chatzos, or Kollel Chatzos

We are not familiar with how to post on Wikipedia and how to place sources in the article, and it's rejecting us for that reason. It's quite confusing the process.

Any help would be appreciated.

Chatzos Greetings. Your article - User:Chatzos/sandbox - was rejected there are no sources to supported the content claimed. Pls note for a page to be merit a page in Wikipedia main space (1) the subject needs to be notable. (2) the content need to have multiple coverage by (3) independent, (4) reliable sources, whereby the sources (6) talk about the subject in length and in dept. (7) the content needs to be free of copyright infringement (write in your own words and (8) free of WP:PROMOTION. Lastly, the article needs to write in neutral point of view. Pls read the comment on made by the review of proper attribution on the article and also the comment on the grey panel. Pls read WP:Your First Article and WP:GOLDENRULE to understand what are needed to write an article besides what comment given above and referencing for inline citation. I could suggest you to change you username as it is the same as the subject (an organisation) which conflict with Wikipedia WP:Username policy. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:14:17, 5 June 2019 review of submission by JunoSanghera

Hello, I want to understand the reason behind deleting my article on Priyadarshi Ranjan JunoSanghera (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JunoSanghera Good day. You draft article content violated copyright infringement - see HERE. You need to write the article in your own words and not copy and paste the content from other articles. Wikipedia takes copyright infringement violation very seriously as it entails legal implication. Pls also read WP:Your First Article and WP:GOLDENRULE to understand how to write an article in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CASSIOPEIA I thank you for your tip and help on my article. I will frame the article in my own words. Appreciate it.--JunoSanghera (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JunoSanghera Welcome. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:57, 5 June 2019 review of submission by 183.82.2.194

183.82.2.194 (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC) 11:02:57, 5 June 2019 review of submission by 183.82.2.194[reply]

I have a dream to invent a new instrument for formers.many of farmers are effecting of snake bites.by using this instrumrnt we can avoid snakes. 

  At a certain range snakes get irretation.This range have to incert in a stick.By this ve can avoiun snakes near by me.this stick contains of 4 feets.It was an chargable device.it consists of let torch and this device.its an ieon stick with a grip which was easy to carry.

11:46:01, 5 June 2019 review of submission by Kaf2000


I think this topic is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. For those living in the south, this news permeated the media for this particular officer was well known and respected, and his death caused a shock to many. He not only died in the line of duty, but he dedicated over 3 decades to serving his country and community. It’s big enough that they are talking about dedicating a building in his name in the city historical city of Savannah and promised that his family will be taken care of for all the years to come.

Kaf2000 (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaf2000. There is no deadline. Don't rush to create an article about something in the news. Most people in it are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, we can afford to take our time, to wait before creating a new article until the topic's long-term significance is unambiguously established. Reconsider the matter in six months or a year. If you spend the interim editing existing articles, you may develop a different understanding of notability than what you have on your second day of editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:08, 5 June 2019 review of draft by 68.103.78.155

I Created The 2019-20 Dallas Mavericks season article last week. And it is currently in draft space. but when will this become a article. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:40, 5 June 2019 review of submission by E-Stylus

Is it within WP:COI guidelines for an editor with a COI to move a draft into main space after addressing the decline reason submitted by the reviewing editor? I worked on improving the tone of the above draft, however the content refers to independent, reliable, published sources to meet verifiability guidelines and establish notability. I asked for a re-review from the reviewing editor and the AfC help desk, but received no response. Thanks. E-Stylus (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC) E-Stylus (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:42, 5 June 2019 review of draft by Nateperreault


Hello, I would just like to know if there is anything else (excluding the addition of references) that I could add to help get the page published. There are 3 other pages for teams (Essa Stallions, Grey Highlans Hawks, and Seaforth Generals) in the CPJHL and I believe the Muskoka Anglers pages is not drastically different.

Nateperreault (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:55, 5 June 2019 review of draft by Harvey Logins2


Harvey Logins2 (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Review Article

23:11:41, 5 June 2019 review of draft by Mandii.c

Hi, I created a draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cremation_in_Japan, but I decided to work on the article in my sandbox. The article in my sandbox was declined because the draft page of the same name exists. Could you please advise me on how to delete the draft I created at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cremation_in_Japan? Thanks for your time. Mandii.c (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Mandii.c (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=900475670"