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 CompVisExp (talk | contribs) at 08:47, 29 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
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


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 [1] 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,[2] 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]

August 27

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]
@Hellknowz: Thanks for your response. Industry Magazine, Westchester Magazine, Brownstoner Magazine, and Domino Magazine each cover different interior design works completed by the subject. WP:GNG does not appear to exclude interview based references with commentary from a publication on a subject's work, but rather references "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." The LuxPad "Top X" reference was to show that "the person is regarded as an important figure" under WP:ARTIST. According to the publication, the subject and her company were ranked among the top 20 interior designers in the state of New York based on client reviews from Houzz. The HGTV reference was to show "the person's work won significant critical attention" under WP:ARTIST. The subject's designs were selected by HGTV judges as a winner of a national competition. E-Stylus (talk) 12:50, 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]


12:28:04, 27 August 2019 review of draft by Veronika Miltrová


Veronika Miltrová (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:03, 27 August 2019 review of draft by Thatguy1987

Hello! I just wanted to make sure I addressed the proper requested changes prior to re-review for this article. Thank you so much!

Thatguy1987 (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:04, 27 August 2019 review of draft by 2604:2000:1540:20F3:DDAE:E9BC:FA84:3128


I don't understand why my article was declined.

2604:2000:1540:20F3:DDAE:E9BC:FA84:3128 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:51:16, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Andrei339

Hi David! Can you kindly elaborate on what has to be done in order for our corporate page to be published on Wikipedia?

Andrei Cucleschin (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrei Cucleschin: Wikipedia does not publish "corporate pages" or equivalent articles that are basically company profiles of promotional nature. Wikipedia articles have to be written in encyclopedic manner using quality sourcing, of which there are none in the article. I imagine you would have already used such sources if they existed, so there's nothing to be done because the company is not notable in Wikipedia's terms. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David.moreno72: Courtesy ping as the editor was mentioned directly. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

14:46:29, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Augusty Bhasy

Augusty Bhasy (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14:46:52, 27 August 2019 review of draft by Tothemoonsands


This wiki page was declined due to being a non-notable organization. I have added additional references to help prove that this is in fact a notable organization. I would like additional clarification as to why this was deemed non-notable, when in fact, it is a notable organization.

Tothemoonsands (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tothemoonsands: "Notable" means notability according to Wikipedia's guideline, not any other interpretation. This means quality sources, as explained in the decline reason. All sources fail at least one of the criteria, mainly being in-depth and independent. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:14:54, 27 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Eeberbach

I tried to send a draft page for review and potential posting at English Wikipedia. However, a few times I got a rejection notice that my file posted and saved at sandbox has been posted on Wikimedia Commons (which is for different purposes), or my submission was empty. I tried to post page on Evolutionary automata in pdf. What am I doing wrong?

Eeberbach (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eeberbach: Hi! You should not try to upload .PDFs. Wikipedia articles are written as text when you edit (any) page. So "making a page" means that you will write the content, specifically when you click "Edit" when visiting User:Eeberbach/sandbox. See Help:Editing. If you wrote the PDF yourself, you can start by copying the text there (however do not copy anything you didn't write or don't want to license under Wikipedia's terms). You can resubmit the page/draft later when you have finished writing it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:35, 27 August 2019 review of submission by RenRen070193

I starting create a revised version of Philippine name template just to make it simpler, shorter and more relevant than the present version. That's is why I ask it for re-review.RenRen070193 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:23:32, 27 August 2019 review of draft by Promise.im00

A reviewer declined my draft on Mrittikay Mohakal and says This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. But in my draft I have given many references. I have given links of even the government websites of Bangladesh. I want to know specifically why that was declined. Promise.im00 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Promise.im00: Hi. I was not one of the editors who reviewed your draft, but looking at the draft I agree with their assessment and subsequent declines. The main issue is your draft does not cite an adequate number of reliable sources; note that sites like Wordpress and YouTube are not considered to be reliable. Also, please ensure that you cite sources properly—WP:REFHELP might be worth a look. If you can find and cite more in-depth, independent (non WP:PRIMARY) coverage in reliable sources, your draft may be accepted. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:39:46, 27 August 2019 review of draft by Joelclyne

I realise that there are not a lot of what you would consider reputable sources, however as its about a magician, most of that is available is not over the counter stuff. By that I don't mean its illegal, more so that its only going to be available through specialist outlets. Now I was very careful not to just link to all the products that have been released, which prove that he is a specialist in his field as I did not want the article to come across as just an advert which it is not. Having looked at other mentalist wiki pages, Luke Jermay, Bob Cassidy, Paul Brook for example. I can find others if you want. I can not see how my article which has more information about the artist has been declined while the others mentioned have less content, links and references. Any help in this would be great, or if you could tell me why they were approved and mine not that would also help considerably.

Joelclyne (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joelclyne: - we could consider niche expert publications, but there isn't enough to source him that actually is reliable, as the reviewer said. One suggestion, see if you can find if any of his publications have received 2 reliable reviews. Then he'd be notable via Author notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: I thought NAUTHOR exception to NOTINHERITED was only for significant works, so 2 reviews wouldn't even come close to it? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: The "significant" bit applies to the scale of work - it's not clear if the published works are more like pamphlets or short works, in which case they wouldn't meet that, or full books, in which case they would. The latter half covers reviewing/analysis depth required, in this case " multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Nosebagbear (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:44:21, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Eddy Leman

My submission for Pat Casey's biography was rejected on 3 July 2019 by Dan arndt. The reason for rejection being the content does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. I have since included citations for the article and thus requesting a re-review. Thank you.Eddy Leman (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Eddy Leman (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddy Leman: The draft is back in the pool to be reviewed. The first two paragraphs of the body and most of the third paragraph still cite no sources. Source them, delete them, or expect the draft to be declined again. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thank you. Will do so.Eddy Leman (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 28

03:42:12, 28 August 2019 review of submission by Jordi Scott

Hi hi

For the page of Jeffrey Feinman, any suggestion how i can improve the content and reference for passing the standard to be posted in Wikipedia?

Thanks a lot.

Jordi Scott (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:14:36, 28 August 2019 review of submission by Jrkrist

Hi there, can I ask for specific advice on this draft?

I think East Ventures is a notable topic. To my knowledge, all mentions are based on trusted and independent media coverage. Can you recheck the current draft and help point out which sources are still considered unreliable?

Will do my best to adhere to your feedback, which includes if I should remove/add certain sentences or information inside the draft. Thanks!

Jrkrist (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:17:09, 28 August 2019 review of submission by Jeanephusbesira

Request on 08:59:28, 28 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Bethany m m

Hi I have been advised that - All the external links in the body of the article need to be removed, we don't use them. The primary sources need to be replaced with independent sources. For my article submission for EnviroVent, but I do not understand what this means and don't see how all links should be removed the article was created in a similar style to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vent-Axia so what links did they use that I haven't, please?

Greatly appreciate your help.

Thank you!

Bethany m m (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bethany m m: - hi there. So external links are the ones with little arrows next to them (which Vent-Axia doesn't have). They shouldn't be there - the article isn't to naviage people to the content discussed, just inform them on it.
Primary sources are, very roughly, those written by those involved in the topic. This would mean anything written on the company website, but could also cover other areas (like a research report). They should only be used for basic descriptive data (public finance reports are a common example of that exception). You want secondary sources (mainly newspapers, books etc), that are independent - no reason to be biased about the EnviroVent, and no interviews. The two Times sources and the motorcycle news source in Vent-Axia would all be both non-primary and independent. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:32, 28 August 2019 review of submission by Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos

Where should the discussion on notability take place for a draft article?

Hi, is the talk page of a draft article the right place for the discussion on notability? If not, where is it? Thanks a lot. I have written a draft and I would appreciate feedback. Best Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos: Hi! Yes, this is the best place for discussing drafts. Sources to show notability have to be about the subject and have to be in-depth. This means that profiles, directory entries, obituaries, etc. are not suitable, because they are not in-depth. Interviews, persons work, etc. are not suitable because they are not independent. There is some possible leeway for WP:NACADEMIC and awards, but these do not appear to be significant outside the field (one could show them as significant awards if they, for example, are covered by media outside the immediate field). The award in person's name looks like a good claim for notability, although sources covering this award are likely needed. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:20, 28 August 2019 review of draft by Leakordahi

I am creating a Wikipedia page for the first time and I am quite lost.

  • First of all, I am being paid by the fashion designer to write a Wikipedia page about him. I was wondering if i should state somewhere that this page is a paid editing and is a conflict of interest.
  • Second, it says that my submission felt more like an ad than an encyclopedia page because the references werent all reliable. The thing is is that the fashion designer i am writing about is still not extremely famous and there arent enough reliable articles written about him so i can use. That is why i used as much as i could find.

Thank you in advance

Leakordahi (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leakordahi: as a matter of urgency you should write on your userpage {{Paid|employer=Saiid Kobeisy|article=User:Leakordahi/sandbox}} (the article will need to change if it becomes a draft or an article). It will turn into a proper statement.
If there aren't enough reliable sources about the individual then your client isn't notable - Wikipedia isn't designed for "up and coming" but already established individuals covered by sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:52, 28 August 2019 review of submission by Zul32

This article was rejected, but yet I've primarily modeled the article from a previously published article Summits on the Air, So, this is written in the same format/style as that article. That one was approved, and this one was rejected. I've provided more than enough references to make it WP:N. The primary goal of this article is to bring more awareness and recognition of State Parks, National parks, National Monuments, National Preserves, Wildlife Refuges, Wetland Management Districts, National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems, Wildlife Management Areas, Antarctic Stations, National Military Parks, Historical Trails, and Amateur Radio. Aside from Amateur Radio, all the previously mentioned areas are places that ham radio operators can travel to and make contact with other ham radio operators (even at other designated locations such as these). Please reconsider and approve this article. Thanks for your time and consideration, Zul32 (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zul32: Summits on the Air (rev) article looks in a very bad state sourcing- and writing-wise, it's mostly supported by non-independent sources. In any case, Wikipedia considers each article/topic individually and not in comparison to other articles that may be majorly changed or even deleted some day. As for "goal of this article", Wikipedia doesn't follow any goals or agendas beyond its core principles. This means we can't give special attention to topics for those reasons and the article notability criteria remain the same -- quality sourcing. None of the sources in the draft are reliable, independent, in-depth and with the focus on the topic, which is the reason for rejection both times. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: Thanks for your feedback and information. This helps a lot and I'll keep working on it. I've already removed all references to Facebook, blogs, and Youtube. Zul32 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:48, 28 August 2019 review of draft by Emma1910

I am requesting help in connection with the rejection of a draft (Abdülkadir Topkaç).

According to Theroadislong, the references “do not show 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 people)”. My draft is a translation of a Turkish article. The original references, which I have retained, are articles devoted exclusively to Topkaç, published by CNN Türk (a Turkish version of CNN), Habertürk (a conservative newspaper), Cumhuriyet (a centre-left up-market newspaper), Sözcü (a Kemalist newspaper), and NTVMSNBC (a news channel).

According to Wikipedia guidelines, “News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.” All news outlets cited in the Turkish article are well-established. All of them are secondary sources, and they are independent both of each other and of the subject (none of them can be assumed to have a vested interest in Topkaç).

I have also checked the guidelines on the notability of people: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” Coverage seems significant to me on the basis of the original article’s references alone, and there are quite a number of reports in other media as well.

It seems to me that the references completely fulfil the requirements listed under “Common sourcing mistakes (notability)”: • “sources like mainstream newspaper articles, non-vanity books, established magazines, scholarly journals, television and radio documentaries, etc. – sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means generally not random personal websites, blogs, forum posts, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, self-published sources like open wikis (including other Wikipedia articles), etc.” • “secondary sources written by third parties to a topic that have no vested interest in the subject of their writing or coverage. This means generally not anything written by or on behalf of the subject or anyone connected with the person or organization in any way; not the subject's own website, not the subject's social media, not interviews (with the person, or of an organization's employees, officers or other insiders), and not press releases, regardless of where they are republished. An unconnected source is, for example, a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.” • “sources that treat a topic in detail”

The one reference that I have added myself is 140Journos (a crowdsourced news outlet). In contrast to the other sources, this is a primary source because the only person talking is Topkaç. I have added the reference because this is the only English-language text on Topkaç that I have been able to find (a film with English subtitles). Is this reference the problem? If not, what is? Any help would be appreciated.Emma1910 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topkaç is an amateur astronomer. His birthdate is sourced, the fact he became a master baker is sourced. His assertion that "The moon "wriggles like a snake"" is not supported by the source and it is not remotely clear what else makes him notable? Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:43, 28 August 2019 review of submission by AnimationMonkey

AnimationMonkey (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnimationMonkey: - ImDB isn't a reliable source, and the other source wouldn't demonstrate notability of Battle (great name). He is possible he's notable, but you will need to find better sources to support him.
As a side note, your references are formatted correctly - you don't need the footnotes as well. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:58:35, 28 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Emilythornberg

Hi, I need help getting this page for Aaron Harmon approved. I've edited and revised the sources multiple times and I keep getting shot down. I'm confused because his work on multiple projects is stated on other Wikipedia pages citing he produced but it still is saying my sources aren't reliable? I'm just wondering how these other sites (i.e. blackbear ANONYMOUS) can be approved saying he is the producer and his own producer page is not accepted. I am feeling like I have no other ideas of how to get this page approved and would greatly appreciate any help here.. Thanks!

Emilythornberg (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, Facebook, IMDb, YouTube, Amazon, Soundcloud and Bandcamp are not reliable sources and need to be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:12:42, 28 August 2019 review of submission by 94.69.230.41

94.69.230.41 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


22:20:41, 28 August 2019 review of draft by VicenteAssensio

It looks like this article was reviewed 10 days ago, but nothing happened. I am unable to discern the article's status. Can you?

Thanks

VicenteAssensio (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VicenteAssensio: The draft is awaiting review, as indicated by the large yellow box at the bottom of it. It has not been reviewed since you re-submitted it on 2 August. The backlog is roughly 5 months, so you can anticipate a review by early February 2020. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

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

CodeLyokobuzz CASSIOPEIA(talk) I already add some resources to the page, I am still in the process of adding links. I just hope the article will pass and can be posted now. Also, CodeLyokobuzz deleted the awards I put on Angel Locsin page. If you are questioning this awards, why not delete info with some other Filipino celebrities such as Marian Rivera and Toni Gonzaga who does not have any link on their awards page. You should be fair! Now, since there are links on the page I created, I am expecting it will be published anytime soon again. Thank you.

05:27:34, 29 August 2019 review of submission by AMPUMUZA DALTON

AMPUMUZA DALTON 05:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 

A BETTER ME FOR ABETTER WORLD

Truth was found after a long time, a better me for a better world holds the matter. Two years back I realized there is nothing impossible for a willing heart, the time I will never forget when I joined Africa Youth Leadership Forum at Bishop Stuart University.

For any man to rise he must have a foundation, it was not just far that I realized my foundation was built from AYLF. Am a leader in the current guild government but I always wished but had never thought of this could happen. Before I saw myself incompetent always till I felt I was capable from the “The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” by John C Maxwell and the “7 habits of effective living” by Stephen Covey

From the third habit “Putting First Things First” I found it most important, for anyone to make a better world it starts with oneself. A habit of how you use your time…how you organize yourself.

It is about Prioritizing, execution and integrity of maintaining consistency It is the discipline of “Personal Management” or what some call “Self Leadership” As a student of computer science, innovation and creativity in information technology are my way to go but I realize just like a leader I have to live exemplary and this will help other people besides that I may inspire them for a better world not just in I.T but all friends.

The first law of leadership “law of lead” The ability to lead is the "lid" that determines a person's effectiveness. The lower an individual's ability to lead, the lower the lid on his potential. The better a person is at leading, the higher the lid on his potential for achievement.

But everywhere you look you can find examples of success being limited by lack of leadership. For example, Steve Wozniak was the brains behind Apple in the 1970s, but his leadership lid was low. By contrast, Steve Jobs' leadership lid was high, and he built a world-class organization out of Apple.

A belief of one person can transform the whole world, one does not always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we inspire, mentor and care about.

I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, “If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it's perfectly happy to do so, and doesn't much care where the reward comes from whether it's pragmatic (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one's peers), or some mix of the two.”

False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach “factually false, but socially accurate.” When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. Therefore a better me for a better world starts with your belief and people besides you.

Making a better world is also about one’s success and being successful is luck but just like the Law of Gravity, which cannot be broken but rather will break us if we don’t respect it… in the same way success is like a law of life. It must be like a principle to live with. People always count on our successes and these will in turn go back to people.

We must know and accept change if we want a better world, Therefore, it is high time each of us decides to become an agent of change, and by that, I mean to be the person you want others to follow and respect. We can all contribute to making this world a safer, happier and more joyful place by living our lives to the best of our ability and leading by example. And there are a few ways of doing this

Be true to yourself
· Live in the moment and appreciate all that you have. · Actions speak louder than words. Therefore, act in a positive manner, no matter what. · Find a cause or mission you truly care about and get involved. · Lend your hand to those who don’t have one. If you see someone who needs help but is afraid to ask, don't be afraid to offer a hand. · Interpersonal skills, emotional intelligence and feedback loops, measure, compare and Adjust · If something bothers you, speak up. Especially if you witness someone being mistreated. Don't be too afraid to voice your opinion in important situations. · Last, but not least, be the change you wish to see in the world. It is really that simple. If we choose to be a spectator, just imagine how many in this world choose to do the same? Instead, choose to act. Progress often hides behind boring solutions and underused insights. You don’t need more information. You don’t need a better strategy. You just need to do more of what already works for a better a better world.

@AMPUMUZA DALTON: Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself or have a profile page. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:29:00, 29 August 2019 review of draft by Nishibe0121

Please help me improve my draft. Thanks. Nishibe0121 (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:47:10, 29 August 2019 review of draft by CompVisExp


Hi there!

I tried to contribute a short article defining the term "Screen Content" and giving some related applications. Unfortunately, my submission has been declined by reviewer AngusWOOF, There is a comment: "Wikipedia is not for posting journal article abstracts or textbook excerpts". However, I am not aware of copy-pasting an abstract. So, I need some direction how I can modify this article to get it published. Is the text too short? What is wrong with the text in detail?

Many thanks for your help! CompVisExp

CompVisExp (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=913008404"