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 Vikash16 (talk | contribs) at 12:13, 27 August 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


August 20

Request on 08:56:22, 20 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by The Blessed Overcomer


Hello. I would like to know why my submission was rejected. Is there anything I need to correct before trying to submit again?


The Blessed Overcomer (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blessed Overcomer: - I don't know if you view something as being there, but to me it is a blank page (and no indication of otherwise in the history) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:53, 20 August 2019 review of submission by Benjamin Quintela Saldanha Aguiam


3enjamin.A (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


ok

thank you

12:49:55, 20 August 2019 review of submission by 185.85.154.232


185.85.154.232 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@185.85.154.232: - the reviewer was correct, you have no sources that aren't associated with the subject. You need reliable, independent, in-depth sources that are from secondary media (newspapers, books etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:54, 20 August 2019 review of submission by 192.176.203.10


Lots of sources provided with correct links and as much information filled as possible. 192.176.203.10 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:13:09, 20 August 2019 review of submission by Elifnurk


My submission was rejected by mistake as I have been informed on a live help chat. Now I have also edited the article based on the timeline. Can you please re-view the article and inform me? Hope everything is order now. Thanks Elifnurk (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elifnurk: - I've reviewed and accepted the article. If you can neaten up the credit list that would probably be helpful, as it's taking up a lot of space atm. The easiest method might be to find another film composer with a long set of credits and duplicate the formatting (make sure to clear out the old content!) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:37:09, 20 August 2019 review of draft by Marlynblues


The dutch internal link Spaanse doesnt work while the english version Spaanse works.

The dutch wiki page for spain: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanje

How can I get my dutch internal link to work

Marlynblues (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marlynblues. If you wish to write in Dutch and link to Dutch wiki pages, please write at http://nl.wikipedia.org. It is possible to link to other language versions of Wikipedia from en.wikipedia.org, but it would be a bad idea to link to Spaanse [nl] instead of to Spain. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

08:02:24, 21 August 2019 review of submission by Omer Canon


I want to ask how should I get this page published. From my side, this page is ready to be reviewed and published. Below is the link to my page.

Omer Canon (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need guidance in order to get this page published. This is finalized and ready to be reviewed and published. Please help me and let me know the process. Thanks

Omer Canon (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Omer Canon: Do you have a specific question? The draft is in the review queue now. Due to the volume of submissions and everyone being a volunteer, it can take months for drafts to be reviewed. However, I can point you to WP:SYNTH -- the article is basically an essay combining multiple topics, all of which are covered on Wikipedia in one form or another already. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz I selected this topic from the list of Most Wanted Articles... Though I do not have any particular question, I just want to know that is this topic acceptable or not? Thanks Omer Canon (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure why this page is linked to so many times. I looked at a couple histories of article linking to it and it looks like these links are extremely old and were never discussed. I think the "most wanted pages" can be deceptive like this. I'm pretty sure that an article like this wouldn't remain in this form due to multiple concerns. It could may be a list or an outline if all the relevant topics are added. But there is already an Outline of industrial organization. And, there are many categories (like Category:Production economics) and navboxes (like Template:Microeconomics). And, of course, each individual topic has an article. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Hellknowz Well... so what am I suppose to do now? Please guide me accordingly. Thanks for your prompt response.

Omer Canon (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omer Canon. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. You don't have to do anything else to make that happen. The backlog is 5 months, so it may not be reviewed until next year. If comments here, on the draft's talk page, and at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 15#Production, costs, and pricing foreshadow the review, it will be declined.
While you wait, you could work through the list of articles at Special:WhatLinksHere/Production, costs, and pricing, evaluate each red link to Production, costs, and pricing, and determine whether a link to an existing article would be better than one to what you've written. For example, in Management, would it make more sense to link the word production to production (economics) (using a piped link)? Through this exercise you might discover that the draft is not as wanted as the list suggests. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:55:19, 21 August 2019 review of draft by RhoderoPat


Is there anything or feedback related to the review of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GOMYCODE ? it took too long without notice and no idea about the progress?

RhoderoPat (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhoderoPat. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for 1 month. The backlog is 5 months. Most businesses are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia article, see WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:44, 21 August 2019 review of submission by 67.251.198.90

I would like to start a page about my work as an actor and writer. I believe I cannot write it myself because it is autobiographical and a conflict of interest. May I merely start a page and allow other users to edit it? External links: www.imdb.com/name/nm1249604/?ref_=rvi_nm davidlavine.com 67.251.198.90 (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@67.251.198.90: The relevant read is at WP:AUTOBIO. You can disclose your conflict of interest and still edit it yourself. It's almost always not a good idea, but it's not forbidden, especially for drafts. There are very many drafts, so the odds that someone else will come to edit aren't any better than that someone else will create the article and edit that. And before you start, make sure you have multiple independent reliable in-depth sources to satisfy the notability sourcing criteria. There is some extra leeway given by actor-specific criteria. Without these, the article won't get accepted (and might even get speedily deleted because of COI and poor sourcing for a biography). This means no profile, credit or directory entries, personal websites or social media accounts, passing mentions such as articles for related topics, interviews without publication's commentary, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:26, 21 August 2019 review of submission by Maraviva

I'd like to request some more specific help with my draft. I am a current employee of the company that the article is about and I've done my best to avoid bias and conflict of interest. I have read the Wikipedia policies on this topic and I neutrally believe that the company deserves to have a presence on Wikipedia. As a new editor, I understand that I may be subject to more scrutiny as other editors attempt to assess how well I adhere to Wikipedia standards.

After submitting it for review for the first time, the draft was declined for not being adequately supported by reliable sources. I'd like to know which of the sources I've used are not considered reliable.

I'm more than willing to remove anything that isn't supported but I need to know what that is first.

Thanks!

Maraviva (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maraviva: - Technical.ly Delaware doesn't look particularly reliable - lots of focus on companies and an employers section generally indicates that it would be against their interests to be negative towards a company.
What would you say your 4 best sources are for proving notability, that is, they're: in-depth (on the company itself, not an owner or funding etc); reliable (reliable publications); independent (non-biased and not interviews) and secondary (newspapers, books etc)? Drop them on your talk page and I'll have a look at them and give you some feedback on if they're any good. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Thank you! I've posted to my talk page. I look forward to your response. Maraviva (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:28, 21 August 2019 review of draft by Jm2474


I need to make my page "less promotional" in order to post it. I am trying to post an article about MossRehab, a rehabilitation center in the greater Philadelphia area. I am unsure of what parts of my article are promotional and am requesting more clarity for what I should change. Thanks! Jm2474 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jm2474: As the reviewer said, one of the biggest immediate issues is the "Core Services" section -- it is wholly not appropriate because it is unsourced. At best, a source could support a couple sentences about the services. In general, services is not encyclopedic content. Then there are various small issues. We don't include addresses. Content based on primary (center's website) should be minimal to none. A lot of places need more neutral language, but this is really hard to give general advice about.
However, the reviewer also noted that the article may not pass Wikipedia's notability threshold with multiple in-depth sources focused on the subject. I quickly looked through the sources and only a couple appear to talk about the subject and I am not sure if it's substantial enough. Most sources are passing mentions or focused on related topics and not the center itself. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:21, 21 August 2019 review of draft by Nsctrl


Article about Uri Refaeli has been moved to Draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsctrl) due to not having enough sources and citations as written to remain published.

The article was written with cooperation of Uri Refaeli and affiliated parties. Could you advise please if this fulfills requirements for "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE&redirect=yes) and if not how can this article be improved considering that it is supervised by and based on life events of living person? Thank you :)

Nsctrl (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsctrl: Self-published sources can be used for some basic facts for article content, but not to show notability. By self-published sources we also mean something that we can verify -- an article, a blog, social media post, book, whatever. But use of such sources is kept to the minimum. You need to add multiple reliable independent in-depth sources to satisfy notability criteria for the draft to get published. We need independent sources, so we cannot use anything the subject has said directly or otherwise for that. It is highly discouraged for someone to write or help writing their own article, although not forbidden. Anyone with conflict of interest should also disclose it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


August 22

02:18:07, 22 August 2019 review of submission by 207.172.201.232


207.172.201.232 (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the few legitimate blockchain/smart contract development projects.

05:39:10, 22 August 2019 review of draft by Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill


Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my draft article by using wikepedia guidelines and given for submission. But no reply after several days. When will my draft be published?

05:40:46, 22 August 2019 review of draft by Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill


When will my draft be published?I have been waiting for several days.

Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Note: The draft was reviewed since the message was posted. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:56:12, 22 August 2019 review of draft by Batasananda


Batasananda (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:52, 22 August 2019 review of draft by Batasananda

10:08:15, 22 August 2019 review of submission by 41.203.73.124


41.203.73.124 (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Seyiace amg is a well known artist who really need wikipedia page because of disclaimers


Balogun Oluwaseyi Temitope (born February 7) better known by his stage name Seyi Ace is a Nigerian rapper, performer and songwriter. Seyi Ace is an Indigene of Ondo State but was raised and lives in Lagos. . He was signed to a Record Label (not mentioned) where he released he’s first few songs like Igboro. . Seyi Ace started commercial music in 2015 and has been releasing different jams ever since. . Seyi Ace has records like Weed and Dow which recorded over 100k streams on spotify. He released Waka On Stage in 2019 featuring Payper Boi produced by Seriki Poly . Seyi Ace has left he’s former Record Label and is currently with AMG (Ace Music Gang) where he released Record Label featuring Oladips and Davolee which was produced by Seriki Poly. . Seyi Ace has performed in different stages and shut down shows across Nigeria. He has performed alongside DMW signee Idowest and many others.

.

He was on University tour with Cowbell and performed to thousands of people at the Cowbell show. He performed at Obafemi Awolowo University and many others. . Some of the artists he has worked with includes Magneto, Oladips, Davolee, Seriki Poly, Paper Boi and many others. Unreleased records are yet to be produced too.

.

INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT OF SEYI ACE instagram.com/seyiace



https://usquotidian.com/2019/08/20/biography-of-seyi-ace-music-and-career/

13:00:16, 22 August 2019 review of draft by ASD0202


I want to know that should I submit this draft? Whether it will be published or required more content and references?

ASD0202 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ASD0202: The threshold for notability is having sources to satisfy specific criteria. Considering there are a lot of links in the article and it would take a full review, can you show us 3 sources that are 1) independent (not written by the subject or affiliated with them, no interviews), 2) in-depth (no passing mentions, brief notes, no related topics, no profiles or directory entries) and 3) reliable (published in reputable sources such as books, news outlets, no blogs or content farms, etc.)? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:23:31, 22 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by ShahSherinRenishbhai


My article is rejected in review stating there there is a lack of additional references and reliable secondary sources in the article. However, there are no more reliable sources that can be added to state the authenticity of the article. The information is acquired by primary research about the person on whom the article is! Also the relative links available online are also added in the references list. So, I seek guidance of what to do next to get my article published.

ShahSherinRenishbhai (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShahSherinRenishbhai: - some individuals (and subjects in general) just may not have enough secondary sources (yet) to demonstrate notability and warrant a wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia we aren't based off primary sources except for basic descriptive facets like demonstrating names etc Nosebagbear (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Re-review

I submitted a page on my employer at Draft:OANDA that was rejected by @Scope creep: for being “contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia” and because it “ Breaks Terms of Use.”

This feedback is confusing because I was transparent about my affiliation with OANDA and thought submitting company pages was allowed.

I was really hoping someone could give me honest, independent, objective feedback on whether OANDA qualifies for a page under the notability criteria based on the four citations provide.

AnnaBittner (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous post: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_August_15#19:12:27,_15_August_2019_review_of_submission_by_AnnaBittner. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reject-worthy foul here. Disclosures have been made, the draft has been improved, reliable sources are cited. ~Kvng (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have a director of marketing writing the article and then when it is rejected the marketing manager comes in adn makes a requests for a re-review. Three seperate people examined it and found it would likly fail NCORP. It is run of the mill brochure article that is here to advertise their business and all the coverage is press releases and blogs. Of the four refs there 1 is about an individual, 1 is name drop, 1 is promotional adverting and the other one is searching for another ceo. A very poor Wikipedia article. Is there not a rereview page?scope_creepTalk 00:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK but there is a plausible case for notability here and we don't forbid COI contributions if properly disclosed which they now are. The stated reasons for reject don't hold water for me. I can understand rejecting a crappy draft if no improvements were being made with each submission but it has been improved considerably based on feedback from reviewers. ~Kvng (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaBittner, Kvng, and Scope creep: Hi I have moved this Draft:OANDA request to Re-review message from AfC talk page to AfC help desk. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the disclosures are now made, there doesn't seem to be a ToS/PAIDCOI breach. The USA Today source is fine, the Globe and Mail fails SigCov on OANDA itself. FinanceFeeds doesn't look independent. I couldn't make a clear decision on Finance Magnates. If it is judged independent then it would, just, meet the minimum requirements for WP:NCORP. I had a look for additional sources and found squat worthwhile, so it's somewhat contingent on that in my view. Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Finance Magnates is sufficient; it's not in-depth because it focuses on a single event even if the company is the context. Even if we consider it solely about the company, it's very brief. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: and @Hellknowz: I suspect Nosebagbear may have crossed some wires in which source he was referring to for each comment:

  • FinanceFeeds is the source whose independence would establish notability when combined with Globe and Mail

Do I have that right Nosebagbear? I don't mean to put words in your mouth - figured there was a mixup of which sources you were referring to. AnnaBittner (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnnaBittner and Hellknowz: - I was being somewhat confusing. I did actually feel it was financemagnates that was the possible, but on re-reading I agree with Hellknowz that it's not sufficiently about the company itself. I would say financefeeds list of involved CEOs (though not OANDA) makes it non-independent, but if someone can dispute that it would be sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My sourcing findings were similar. Borderline. We're basically having an AfD discussion here which means this subject does not clearly fail WP:NCORP. A (brave) reviewer could not be legitimately faulted for accepting. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1, indeed, I remember a discussion early in my AfC reviewing days as to what probability everyone was using as their passmark "80% change of passing AfD" etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Regarding the involved CEOs you mentioned for FinanceFeeds, they are all listed under "Contributing Editors". The article in question is written by "a professional journalist ... with 23 years of industry experience in the high technology sector"[1] who works for the publication. OANDA has no connection to FinanceFeeds; in fact, they recently wrote a piece about OANDA that was fairly negative in tone. Not trying to be pushy or anything but seemed like relevant context. AnnaBittner (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do seem to be pushy as that is twice now you have mentioned it. Most of the coverage is run of the mill from the Globe and Mail and that is only newspaper that is covering it in depth. The rest are blogs, MarketPulse for e.g. and since this is deemed an Afd discussion even though its not, it wouldn't pass WP:SIGCOV, never mind WP:NCORP. There is no coverage for it and what is there is the usual run of the mill business news, I couldn't identify a single decent secondary source or WP:THREE secondary sources. scope_creepTalk 18:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: based on the discussion here, would you object to us converting your reject to a decline? ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite edit comments, it looks like this was not rejected after all - declined. Authors are able to improve and resubmit the draft for additional review. I hope scope_creep honors our informal AfC policy and allows any resubmission to be worked by a different reviewer. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course I would object. How bad does an article need to to be before you reject it. It was rejected not declined. scope_creepTalk 16:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find rejection unnecessary. I did not support adding it as a reviewer option. ~Kvng (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

05:58:18, 23 August 2019 review of submission by Torsew

Now that the "ToyMakerz" page has been published, I'd like to complete the series information with an episode list. Torsew (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Torsew: I have resubmitted the draft after leaving a comment on the approval of Draft:ToyMakerz. @AngusWOOF: for your notice. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:06:29, 23 August 2019 review of draft by 78.142.182.181


Hi, I am writing because the article in question was made on 14:51, 14 May 2019‎ and is still in pending review and hasn't been reviewed yet. Is there anything we can do to speed up this proceess? 78.142.182.181 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:42, 23 August 2019 review of draft by Biologyfishman


Biologyfishman (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I am trying to write my first wikipedia article. Its been rejected twice.

The reason provided is a copy-and-paste 'reads like an advert' with no substantive advice on how to improve the article. As a professional editor, I find this frustrating and disrespectful. I am trying to make a contribution because I frankly feel that this personality whom I have personally met. He has a ton of TV shows and books and a huge following, and I've followed him from day 1 on his bus ride to antarctica, there are a lot of articles written about him. I believe he is much more notable than many of the other Andrew Evans' on wikipedia, yet there is nothing here on probably the best known one. I am concerned about the apparent request to eliminate primary sources all together from the article.

I respectfully request some constructive input on how to change this article to meet your requirements.

thank you,

Brian

@Biologyfishman: This same question has also been asked at the Teahouse. We ask editors to please not post the same question in multiple locations as this wastes the time of volunteers. Hugsyrup 11:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice the double discussion, but I left the comments below regardless and left a note at the TH. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Biologyfishman: Hi Brian. We have thousands of article drafts and very few volunteer reviewers so please excuse the process when the templated responses inevitably end up being impersonal. I assure you that your article has received more attention than most. A lot of writers find that Wikipedia article writing is quite different to journalistic or academic writing in many obvious, but also many subtle ways. It's really hard to explain how exactly, but the best description (I can think of) is that this is an encyclopedia foremost based on sources and the writing is as neutral as possible with no flourishes. This naturally stems from us only using reliable and predominantly secondary sources and avoiding any original research, synthesis of material, etc. For example, these phrasings/expressions would not be appropriate:
  • "developed a taste for"
  • "landed his first book deal"
  • "when social media was in its infancy"
  • "After this epic journey"
  • "encountered a melanistic king penguin"
  • "maintaining an avid following on social media"
  • "grates against the label"
  • etc.
And yes, primary sources are not something we use for anything but the most basic facts. At best, we can use a person's interview, but we avoid content based solely on person's own words/work. Every article should be based on verifiable sources and person's own words cannot be verified (with very few exceptions, such as experts in certain field talking about those fields). This is just a fundamental Wikipedia policy. Similarly, "notable" means notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines, which is not necessarily how someone might interpret the word (e.g. popular, known, deserving of article, etc.). Here it means having at least multiple independent reliable in-depth sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hellknowz for providing some constructive feedback, I was getting very frustrated. I will give it another shot, but I have been working on this for months now, and yours is the first actual help I've gotten. Biologyfishman (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources provided are Q&A interviews, so it is difficult to figure what articles are secondary sources independent of the subject. Then there are videos that are released by National Geographic that show Evans as host. Those are primaries as well and should be replaced by secondary news sources such as San Diego Magazine https://www.sandiegomagazine.com/San-Diego-Magazine/July-2015/National-Geographic-Channels-Worlds-Smart-Cities-San-Diego/ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:52, 23 August 2019 review of draft by Marina Vashchenko


Dear Roy Smith,


Thank you for reviewing the article!


I have checked the WP:NCORP and would like to ask for your assistance to identify things that can help with my article.


I’d like to mention a few things that, in my opinion, show the notability of the modules described in the article:


1. Based on the statistics on GitHub, the widgets are used by 39,038 people and starred by 4,838: https://github.com/valor-software/ngx-bootstrap

2. The specifics of usage has been widely discussed on Stackoverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/ngx-bootstrap

3. I posted a couple of articles about implementing ngx-bootstrap by third-party people:

https://stevenschwenke.de/whatToUseNgbootstrapNgxbootstrapManuallyAddingBootstrap

https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/steps-to-add-bootstrap-4/

https://www.techiediaries.com/angular-bootstrap-ui/

4. The creators of ngx-bootstrap have been invited by ngHouston for a public speech regarding the usage of modules with the latest Angular renderer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhCgzs8jR8

5. The widgets are published on npmjs.com (a highly used source of JavaScript development tools)

6. Ngx-bootstrap is open-source software so the possibility of receiving income is minimal. The aim of mentioning already popular widgets in Wikipedia is having them described in additional authoritative source.


Having checked similar articles from the Category:Free software programmed in JavaScript like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakanda_(software) and considering the preceding facts, the article matches the “has been noticed by people outside of the organization” criteria from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)


In order for the article not to look like an ad, I suggest the following:

  1. Removing the developer of the widgets (Valor Software) from the article body.
  2. Instead of https://valor-software.com/ngx-bootstrap/ link as a website in the infobox, place link to the GitHub repository.


Do you think this will help?


Thank you,

Marina Vashchenko


Marina Vashchenko (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marina Vashchenko: Hi! Notability on Wikipedia means that these criteria are observed -- to have multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. Each source has to satisfy all those points. We don't use measures such as popularity, GitHub metrics, discussion/forum stats, or any other non-source coverage based stuff.
The quote you cited from WP:NCORP is missing arguably the most important part "independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization". This means no repositories or package managers, affiliated sites and discussions, etc. The promotional nature is because the article uses primary/non-independent sources and we cannot use these to establish notability and can only use to source the most basic facts.
Guide/tutorial-like sources are independent, but are not very good for sourcing. They could be acceptable under some conditions, but these ones don't look to be in-depth in this case as they are purely step-by-step installation guides with no real commentary about the software. What we want is more like reviews to see what real-world impact there is rather than purely technical details. (pinging @RoySmith:) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:37, 23 August 2019 review of draft by Manchesterunited1234


This article is not existable in other wikipedia languages, and it is the 3rd most viewed-French youtube video.

Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Manchesterunited1234: - is there a particular reason you posted here? It's not currently scheduled for review. Though before you do that this draft needs 2 or more sources. Reviews of the song from reliable sources are best suited. See Referencing for Beginners for a how-to guide. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:58:05, 23 August 2019 review of submission by Maria Sitkina

Please consider the corrections made for further publication of the article. A list of 10 sources is provided in the References section. Maria Sitkina (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maria Sitkina: looking at the changes [2] made since the rejection of the article, it seems that no new references were added; indeed, it looks like the draft's content has been cut back significantly. As such, I am inclined to let the rejection stand as the previous reviewer's points have not been addressed. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

05:14:43, 24 August 2019 review of submission by MeSGR


I got the message that my article is rejected. May i know the reason and can you please assist me for the same because the article which i was writing its about one of the famous hospital in siliguri, West Bengal, India MeSGR (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently my article got rejected please guide me for the same. MeSGR (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this article Siliguri Greater Lions Eye Hospital that is in your sandbox. scope_creepTalk 13:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:29, 24 August 2019 review of submission by Ortanjy


Ortanjy (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Belli Creative Studio serves in Turkmenistan. But the Studio has completed some international projects too. You can see their works on its website: belli.studio/work

Some companies will search for Belli Studio, and it will be helpful for them if the information exists on Wikipedia. So, I am asking you to review my submit, add accept it.

Wikipedia has no interest in being "helpful" to the company. I rejected your draft because the topic is not notable and for future reference Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Ortanjy: - the issue is that Wikipedia must have reliable, independent, secondary sources. Wikipedia isn't reliable, so we can't cite ourselves. Your own website is obviously going to be positive about the studio, so isn't suitable either. You need to find reliable 3rd party sources that have talked about your studio. If they don't exist, then this draft can't become an article. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an open-and-shut case of WP:NOTADVERTISING/NOTADVOCACY, and so the rejection of the article for failing WP:NOT is well-founded. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:31, 24 August 2019 review of draft by Bluelongsnake


Hello. I would like to publish an entry for "Play Fair Code". Play Fair Code is an Austrian organization which has organized training events for 15000+ in several European countries. The target audience is mostly athletes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bluelongsnake/sandbox

I do know an employee of Play Fair Code (but do not get anything in return for trying to create the article).

Am I mistaken in thinking that Play Fair Code should have a Wikipedia entry? It has IMO supraregional importance.

The data for the initial page is mostly taken from data found on their webpage (but it's not "wrong").

So my question is probably: Is there a chance to create an entry for Play Fair Code? What should I do (to make it happen)?

Bluelongsnake (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluelongsnake. You are mistaken. It's unlikely that an acceptable draft can be written about them. The bulk of any article should come from arms length sources. It isn't a question of whether the information is true. It's that Wikipedia doesn't much care what an organization says about itself, it's mainly interested in what other people say about it.
Proving notability, which is not the same as importance, requires citing independent, reliable sources which contain significant coverage of the organization. Three of the draft's five sources are the organization itself, so not independent. One is a brief quote from the organization in a press release, and the last is a photo caption from a related organization, neither of which constitute significant coverage. You could throw away everything you've done and start over from scratch, but searches of Google News and Google Books found only one paragraph of significant coverage in an independent reliable source,[3] which isn't nearly enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:19, 24 August 2019 review of submission by 106.206.77.237


106.206.77.237 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why always my article not been accepted??

The topic has been rejected as not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Do not remove AfC reviews and comments. They will be removed when the draft is deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:22:29, 24 August 2019 review of submission by Americanretail

I am truly trying to become a wiki writer to get a job writing about the life of others, and im doing these to build my skills im very new but i dont understand why this has been rejected now. if its because i didn't include a picture, it wouldn't let me but a picture is in the source from entrepreneurscentury reference Americanretail (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanretail: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't just accept random articles about people. You have to demonstrate that the person has been covered in-depth by multiple reliable independent sources. That is why the article was rejected. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources would you recommend to stop rejections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanretail (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific number, but at least 3 is a good start. That these will have to be reliable (a reputable publication, such as a news outlet, book, etc.), independent (no connection to the person) and in-depth (about the person and not just brief mentions, directory entries, profiles, etc.). This is all explained with links to relevant guidelines/policies in the first decline reason. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


August 25

00:04:14, 25 August 2019 review of draft by Rutkowskir


Rutkowskir (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rutkowskir: I think the reason it was rejected is that the sources don't show that it is notable. Instead they seem to mostly cover video releases of band. Instead the article need WP:SECONDARY sources, that is people talking about people, but not related to those people. Essentially being talks about. At the moment the article doesn't satisfy any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. It needs to satisfy at least one of these criteria and prove via a reference that it is satisfied. Personally when I look at the band, it seems to be on the cusp of being famous, but it is not there yet, e.g. it biggest record on YouTube has about 10k fans. So please rewrite the sources, try and find secondary sources that fit into one of the criteria and resubmit. Currently most of the sources are useless and can be pulled. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 11:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:08:45, 25 August 2019 review of submission by Harish varma1

Someone said it's "autobiography" then publish it an autobiography category . Harish varma1 (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harish varma1: Wikipedia does not make exceptions for autobiographies when it comes to demonstrating notability. As the two reviewers already concluded, the topic is not sufficiently notable lacking good sourcing. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:40:09, 25 August 2019 review of submission by Kristybibby


Kristybibby (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristybibby: The article has no sources. The show has not yet aired. All the relevant comments have already been left on the page. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:57, 25 August 2019 review of submission by Emmanuel Junior Okai


Emmanuel Junior Okai (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)|declined=User:Emmanuel_Junior_Okai/sandbox/Biography_of_Emmanuel_Junior_Okai}}[reply]

@Emmanuel Junior Okai: Wikipedia requires quality sources to publish an article, but there are none for this article and therefore it was declined. You also must disclose any connection you have with the article subject, that is, are you writing about yourself? In general, Wikipedia is definitely not a place to have your profile. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:01, 25 August 2019 review of submission by Kitoko priyect

--Kitoko priyect (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kitoko priyect: What do you need help with? You haven't created or submitted any drafts that I can see. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:28, 25 August 2019 review of submission by Shaik Sona


Shaik Sona (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaik Sona: Do you have a specific question? The reviewer decided the article is not suitable for inclusion yet because it has no quality sources. You must also disclose any potential connection with the subject. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

10:59:14, 26 August 2019 review of submission by Nellyson9


I believe the artist is now notable enough for inclusion. Kindly review Nellyson9 (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm afraid the topic is still not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It has no reliable independent sources either. Theroadislong (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:48:10, 26 August 2019 review of submission by Syrusk1


Syrusk1 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:54:04, 27 August 2019 review of draft by DriverSafety


Hello, I just submitted my first article and cannot solve two small editing problems.

First, there is extra text at the end of the page that appears when I publish the changes but is not apparent when I try to edit the same page. Since I cannot see it on the editing application, I cannot delete it.

Second, one of my citations has missing information but I do not know how to reopen that citation to add the information.

Thanks

DriverSafety (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC) DriverSafety (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:12:22, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Malikravinder


Hi There,

Please help us know the reason for rejection of this page and accordingly we can make the changes. Please help us to make this page live. Can we add more content or reference links.

Please help into this. Malikravinder (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Malikravinder: Other reviewers already left all the explanations; the company is not notable. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting a company. We write encyclopedic articles based on independent in-depth sources. The article only uses directory entries and sources connected to the subject. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:48:11, 27 August 2019 review of submission by E-Stylus

The draft's references appear to meet notability guidelines for WP:GNG and/or WP:ARTIST. Industry Magazine, Westchester Magazine, Brownstoner Magazine, and Domino Magazine show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". While these references are interview based, the content includes commentary from the publications. Also, The LuxPad and HGTV show that "the person is regarded as an important figure" and that "the person's work won significant critical attention". Per site policy, my paid contribution disclosure is noted on the draft's talk page, however the content was written with the aim of meeting WP:NPOV. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E-Stylus: Looking at the sources, I agree with reviewer conclusion that the person does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO/WP:NCREATIVE at this time. In short, the best summary is that is fails WP:SUSTAINED -- all attention was on a single interior design work carried out by the person. And almost all material is supported by their own comments, thus all sources fail at being independent. The commentary portions are very brief and mostly about the work and not the person. Appearing in "Top X" lists is definitely not an indication of "significant critical attention". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:25:27, 27 August 2019 review of submission by JourneywithAJ


JourneywithAJ (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JourneywithAJ: The article lacks any quality sources and I believe the reviewer was correct in declining it for the reason that the subject is not notable. Wikipedia is not the place to have personal profiles, because we write encyclopedic articles based on reliable independent in-depth sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:31:33, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Josephwikiuser2021


Josephwikiuser2021 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:13:25, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Vikash16


Vikash16 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=912715252"