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 DylanFaraci98 (talk | contribs) at 15:33, 20 November 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


November 14

02:06:45, 14 November 2019 review of draft by StarFremwell

I wish to add an Infobox on my draft article for a book. I'm not sure how to create one with an image, or what categories should be in it. I also wish for some advice. StarFremwell (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StarFremwell, Firstly, please make sure you have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic first. If you can't find this, then the book can't have a Wikipedia article, as it would be impossible to verify the contents.
To answer your question, Template:Infobox book is used to add an infobox. There are details of the parameters on that page. To add it to an article, you add
{{infobox book |name=example name |author=example author}} and so on to the article.
As an image for the book will be copyrighted, you can only add an image to the infobox once the article is published, under the provisions of fair use - see WP:NFCI for details.
I don't really know the details of categorisation, so I'll let someone else answer that one.
Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:50:04, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Crocatoot

What is wrong with this page and why has it not been approved? Crocatoot (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crocatoot, Not enough reliable sources that review or cover the game. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:40:59, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Olimbek zayniddinov

Please explain that my project does not fit the article Olimbek zayniddinov (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olimbek zayniddinov, Your article was rejected, as there was no content other than a sandbox test message, and some section headings. If you wish to write an article about Samarkand economy and service institute, you should either write an article and submit it to AFC, or ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Education.
However, to have an article, any subject requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If you don't have this, please don't attempt to write an article, as it would not be possible to verify it to Wikipedia's standards. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14 November 2019 review of submission by FairlyFlatFoot

I have been working on a draft for Adrienne Haslet >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adrianne_Haslet<<. I submitted it for review to go live, but the reviewer still believes there is not enough coverage to maker her notable enough for an article. I dont understand this, and disagree. I came across many articles in reliable sources that are completely focused on her, and are not at all passing mentions. Please see my draft and look at the many sources that support the content. If you agree that the article is not yet worthy of submission into Wikipedia, please tell me what more I need to do. And if you think this woman will never be Wiki worthy, then perhaps I should give up? Thanks so much for your help.FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:53, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Olimbek zayniddinov

How do I know if this DRAFT (project: Samarkand Institute of Economics and Service) has been rejected or accepted? Olimbek zayniddinov (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Olimbek zayniddinov: You should expect to wait roughly two months for a review. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:51, 14 November 2019 review of submission by RWNYC19

Hi, I noticed you have reviewed this page and declined it again. I wonder then how we can add an English version to an already existing Hebrew Wikipedia page? Thank you. Please can you give me some more information.

RWNYC19 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RWNYC19: The guidelines and policies that Hebrew Wikipedia has are their own and not necessarily the same as those on English Wikipedia. We can only really advise you about English Wikipedia. You would have to follow their procedures for creating articles. However, it's highly doubtful that they would accept an English version of an article. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:25, 14 November 2019 review of draft by 2600:1702:1410:AA20:853C:9ED7:E2B2:2C4C

Need help submitting draft for review. Each time I try to submit for review, I am redirected to a page that directs me to press the Publish Changes button, but the button is not active.

2600:1702:1410:AA20:853C:9ED7:E2B2:2C4C (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you clicking the blue button which says "Submit your draft for review" ? Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted it on your behalf. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:28, 14 November 2019 review of submission by Wowletmebe

Draft:DK

Please review and confirm if any adjustments are necessary to make this article compliant. I believe I provided sufficient information alongside the appropriate references and the individual in question is notable.

      • I do apologise for the pasted content genuine mistake.

Please review the draft article if you have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowletmebe (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captains note: The whole article was copy pasted here, I have undone that, as that not how we do things here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wowletmebe: I have submitted the draft to AfC on your behalf. Please be patient and wait for a review. The process takes an average of 8 weeks at the moment. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please check the additional sources and resubmit this draft for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowletmebe (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:37:20, 14 November 2019 review of draft by TheFallenMoon

While waiting for this draft to come under eventual review, I wanted to know if there is anything I can currently do to improve it. The same applies to Draft:Name and Number EP. Thank you for any help you can supply. TheFallenMoon (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheFallenMoon, Peters 1914 is...way too short. There is basically no information or sources. You need at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. For Name and number, same thing: need sources. You have to prove that both meet the WP:MUSIC notability requirements. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:33, 14 November 2019 review of draft by MemeTrooper

Hello, I had submitted a draft artivle and it was declined due to not having significant coverage with reliable, secondary sources. May I please have help with knowing what a reliable secondary source is so I know what else I have to include? This is the submission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MediBang Thanks.MemeTrooper (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MemeTrooper, Can you show me the best 5 sources you have for the article? They should be reliable, independent, and give significant coverage to the subject. Leave a note on my talk page preferably. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MemeTrooper (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:50:02, 14 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tina Rosco

Article draft for creation currently being re-reviewed. The first time I submitted it, it was declined within hours. This time, it has been days. Is this normal? I know it says I may have to wait 8 weeks, I just want to know if the hours vs. days review time is normal. Thanks.

Tina Rosco (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Rosco, Howdy hello! The amount of time before a review is quite random, its somewhat unusual to get feedback within hours, so be thankful. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and there are about 3,000 of them waiting for review. The average wait time is 8 weeks currently, although volunteers are working hard to reduce that time. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Captain Eek! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Rosco (talk • contribs) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

08:16:43, 15 November 2019 review of submission by 2409:4062:19B:1D17:2933:352E:B259:61DD

2409:4062:19B:1D17:2933:352E:B259:61DD (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are WP:NOT a lyrics database. This would not be approved in its current state. Such an article needs reliable sources, and prose in English. As is, it seems purely promotional and will likely be deleted, especially as it says "Find our song", showing a clear conflict of interest. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:12, 15 November 2019 review of draft by 92.21.222.252


92.21.222.252 (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the draft and tell me if the sources meet the notability criteria.

The queue is over eight weeks long. Please be patient. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wrong context I am not trying to skip the queue please advise on my sources and whether they meet the notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowletmebe (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:32, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Aliso4ka2013

Hello! I tried to publish my article 3 times. The main reason why the article has not yet been published is in reliable references. I think I fixed this problem by adding more references showing significant coverage. Could you kindly check the article, please? Do I need to add more references? Are there any options for the article to be reviewed earlier? Thanks in advance!

Aliso4ka2013 (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aliso4ka2013, Your article is in the queue and awaiting review. Please be patient, as the average review time is about 8 weeks at the moment. I'm afraid there is no way to be reviewed earlier, as that would unfair to the other people who have been waiting in the queue. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:19, 15 November 2019 review of submission by SM1844

Hello. This is my first time creating a wiki page. I kept resubmitting it after making some changes to see what exactly needed to be changed but it was a little confusing. Could I get more specific advice and examples on what needs to be fixed and how? The neutral tone requirement was my biggest issue-- I tried to be as neutral as possible so if this is still the issue could I get some help with that? Any other critiques are welcome! Thanks so much. SM1844 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SM1844, As I see it, you are lacking sources. Few of the sources seem to give the subject significant coverage. The prominent collectors section is entirely unsourced and is also unencyclopedic, I suggest that it go. The external links should not be in the body, they should either go at the end, or be formalized as references. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your advice! I will do just that and resubmit it for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SM1844 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:45, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Interstellarity

I am working on the sections Background and Mixed martial arts career. I found this source and am having trouble expressing this in my own words. Can you help me please? Interstellarity (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Interstellarity (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:10, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Jacknickels

Jacknickels (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC) We feel that this page should be submitted into Wikipedia[reply]

Jacknickels, Who is "we"? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:19, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Jacknickels

Jacknickels (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC) We believe as Wisconsin Soccer Experts currently employed by USA soccer Associated, that this wikipedia article Samuel Abreu should be reinstated as a current wikipedia article. Abreu is currently up and coming in the soccer world, and is very well known with over 1 million social media followers. Thank you very much, Jack Nickels USA Soccer Associate[reply]

Jacknickels, Lotta issues here. For starters, accounts are individual use. There is no "we" behind an account. Only one person is allowed to use an account. If you have been paid by a subject, or received any form of compensation (such as being an employee of USA Soccer and were expected to make these edits in the course of your work) relating to the edits you have made, you must disclose that per WP:PAID. Furthermore, to prove notability, you need more and better sources. Coverage in newspapers, the media, etc. As is, it seems that the subject is likely not notable. There are 8 billion living people, and thus very very few are actually well known enough to be included. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:34, 15 November 2019 review of submission by Tedfmyers

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Please forgive me if I have made any mistakes, as I am new to contributing to wikipedia and may not be aware of all the rules regarding article creation and editing.

My latest submission was rejected on the basis of WP:NCORP. I've reviewed the page on notability for corporations and organizations, and believe that it should pass these guidelines. To back up this claim, I found nine (out of the nineteen references in the latest article version) that pass the guidelines of being significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. These are the references I believe fulfill these categories:

(references 7,8,9,11,13,14,16,17, and 19 in the original article) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Please let me know if you agree with me, or if I have made any mistakes in my reasoning. It should also be noted that I have added a few references since the article was rejected.

References

  1. ^ Kim, Jed (February 23, 2017). "Changing carbon from waste into gold". Marketplace. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  2. ^ Soltoff, Ben (October 16, 2019). "Opus 12 is one startup on a mission to convert CO2 into useful products". GreenBiz. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  3. ^ Switalski, Caitie (October 31, 2019). "Not Only For Vessels: Fort Lauderdale Boat Show Connects Environmental Entrepreneurs With Funders". WLRN Public Radio and Television. Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  4. ^ Fekri, Farnia (April 28, 2017). "Kendra Kuhl Is Building a Device That Turns Pollution Into Products". Vice. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  5. ^ Satell, Greg (April 5, 2018). "Why Some of the Most Groundbreaking Technologies Are a Bad Fit for the Silicon Valley Funding Model". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 15 November 2019.
  6. ^ Langholz, Sasha (July 11, 2019). "Berkeley-based team wins prize for carbon dioxide reduction technology". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 13 November 2019.
  7. ^ Schiller, Ben (March 8, 2017). "The First-Ever Roddenberry Prize Awards Companies Pushing Us Toward A Star Trek Future". Fast Company. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  8. ^ Tindera, Michela (Oct 17, 2016). "Ashton Kutcher, Top VCs Pick Winners Of For-Profit Change The World Competition". Forbes. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  9. ^ Service, Robert (September 19, 2019). "Can the world make the chemicals it needs without oil?". Science Magazine. Retrieved 14 November 2019.

Tedfmyers (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

06:10:09, 16 November 2019 review of draft by 117.228.101.79

I have references and citations but i don't know how to do it, i cllicked on links provided by wikipedia but it is too technical, editing is not my thing plus i want my article in an wikipedia manner not like an essay( the reason why it was declined), so i request you to research on my article, i have provided two links or you can google search it, there are sources, the subject "Baba Nagnath Yogeshwar" is worthy of wikipedia page but i am just too illiterate to edit and present it like wikipedia page, so please make the neccessary changes yourself and give consent to the draft, thank you.

117.228.101.79 (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have exactly one source. You need far more sources. Another editor is unlikely to take up this draft I'm afraid, unless you can find one. You may wish to add this to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:54:57, 16 November 2019 review of submission by Irie lwah

I am asking for a re-view because it is my first time creating a page here on Wikipedia and would like to be guided on how exactly is a Wikipedia page supposed to look like.

Irie lwah (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irie lwah, Unfortunately, the subject does not appear to be notable. Notability requires good sourcing, usually a fair number of reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. This just seems to be an average person, like you or I, and thus no particular reason for them to have an article. Furthermore, the article is written in a promotional tone, is not neutral, and not written like an encyclopedia. You may wish to edit other areas of Wikipedia to get a feel for our policies and practices before making more drafts. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music would be a good place to start. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:54:53, 16 November 2019 review of submission by VeryRarelyStable

Well, I can concur with the inquirer a couple of days ago asking why one draft was taking days when others they'd submitted had only taken hours. My page Tomahawk Beach took less than an hour to approve and Allans Beach about thirty seconds. Draft:Smaills Beach is at six weeks and counting. Are reviewers watching the back end of the queue instead of the front?

That's not what I'm inquiring about, however. I've been watching how fast my draft has been crawling forward up the queue as older articles get dealt with. It's spent about two weeks now on the tenth page of submissions. At this rate I calculate it will be approaching six months old by the time it reaches the front. It may be over six months. It may, for that matter, be over six months without substantive edits from me, because I've about reached the point where I need other eyes on it before I have any changes to make. If I'm not much mistaken that would make it automatically a candidate for speedy deletion. Should I do dummy edits every couple of weeks or so to forestall this fate?

VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VeryRarelyStable, Howdy hello! Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, as most reviewers choose to review a random draft. Brand new submissions, and very old submissions are slightly biased however, due to the way the review interface works. However, I see that TheRoadisLong has already reviewed the draft in question. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just after I posted the above, yes... —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:08:17, 16 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Sonu4200


Sonu4200 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, neither can Instagram or Facebook so you are left with zero sources with which to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:21, 16 November 2019 review of submission by 103.139.9.69

103.139.9.69 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have enough sources. You need reliable and independent sources with significant coverage that show the subject is notable. Such sources must also be cited inline. But as far as I can see, the subject likely just isn't notable at this time. You may be better served by finding an existing article on a subject that interests you, and editing that. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:29:01, 16 November 2019 review of draft by Barbabeau

Trying to get this page up, but it seems with every submission there is an increasing amount of credits demanded, with zero specifics. When I'm told to put in more "secondary" sources, and I do, I'm told I still need more--like, how many more? I have 30 sources from newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Now I'm told I need a national or international award of some kind? How many? From where? If I had known a national or international award was required, it could have saved me a lot of time. Is this across the board, or just for singer/songwriters? Little help? No idea what a "tea house" is.

Barbabeau (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbabeau, Howdy hello! The Teahouse is a great forum for asking questions, and where we send a lot of content questions. This board however works for most AfC questions anyway. In terms of sources, the issue you might be facing is signifigant coverage. If a piece just name drops her, but says little else, its not a good source. A musician doesn't have to have an award, but having one is usually a quick route to notability. For this artist, you must show that they meet at least one prong of WP:MUSICBIO. I highly recommend you read that link, and see if she meets any of the criteria. You can help us speed the process along by posting here you top three to five references, i.e. the references that you think are the best, they are independent, reliable, secondary, and give the subject significant coverage. If responding, please add {{ping|CaptainEek}} to your reply so that I see it. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:53, 16 November 2019 review of submission by Bpurkaple

We substantially reworked the article and added more specific references. Bpurkaple (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bpurkaple, Who is we? Accounts are individual use. There is no "we" behind an account. Only one person is allowed to use an account. Additionally, if you have been paid by a subject, or received any form of compensation relating to the edits you have made, you must disclose that per WP:PAID. While the article has been cleaned up somewhat, I do not see how it is notable for inclusion. It seems to be a neologism, and one that is not widely used. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek:

CaptainEek,Sorry. I mostly write articles for scientific journals and use the formal "we." It is a habit from training that I carried over into this different format. I am the sole user of this handle and this is my work. I do not get paid for my work on this topic. It is voluntary and not part of my day job.

While the topic is unique in primary care medicine, it is not a neologism to the field. It is a philosophy in the medical field that is prevalent so much so that at the North American Primary Care Research group had an entire half-day of the conference spent in discussion of this topic alone with an additional three other speakers discussing this topic in different presentations throughout the rest of the conference. It is in the same vein as person-centered care, which also has its own wikipedia page.Bpurkaple (talk)

@Bpurkaple: If it is that important, then more sources are needed to show that. Also, things that may be very important to those in a specific field, might not be to the general public, who read Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:37:42, 16 November 2019 review of submission by OTFTYT

also rolling sky is a valid topic bc its a game i found and hasnt been writen about before so OTFTYT (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTFTYT, I take it this regards Draft:Rolling Sky. Having looked at another version of it in your sandbox history, and the current draft version, your issues are multifold. Primarily: sourcing. Every article needs sources to make it verifiable. You have no sources currently. You need at least 3 that review the game to make it notable, and preferably more. We don't write about anything, as that would make Wikipedia enormous and unwieldy. We have to choose what we write about, and thus we have to ensure that articles are notable. We do that by ensuring the subject has been written about in the media. You will need to show that to get the article approved. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we are working on another one. Appoligies :CaptainEek.

20:43:05, 16 November 2019 review of submission by Bluest111

If I may know, why was my article not suitable for publishing? Bluest111 (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bluest111, It seems to be an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged. We only write about notable folks, those who have been covered in the media. For instance, I don't even have a page despite being a long time Wikipedian. Someone like Beyonce does on the other hand, as she has been covered by the media. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


21:20:54, 16 November 2019 review of submission by BFP1

I have a very untidy External links reference * Paintings by William Oliver Williams at Art UK. On 30 October OxonAlex tidied a similar reference up by removing 2 spaces (it was something about getting everything on the same line). Could it be indicated precisely what was done to my original reference? The 2 versions look the same to me BFP1 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done you were missing a bracket like this "]" after Williams. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Theroadislong|Theroadislong. Much appreciated BFP1 (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

Request by Wowletmebe

Draft:Egbunike (surname)

Please confirm if this article needs any additional information. Also can you please submit this for a review if this is fine.

Wowletmebe (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason my request for revuew is being ignored? Please assist

Wowletmebe (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wowletmebe: - I've submitted on your behalf. It looks okay, but I can't do reviews on this laptop. For future note, give it 36 hours before following up - Sunday in particular is the quietest day on Wikipedia Nosebagbear (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, appreciated.

Wowletmebe (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:05:39, 17 November 2019 review of submission by Callyhannah

This keeps getting rejected. Hazel has just won the Adelaide 3 star for the 3rd time. She is one of 5 riders in the world to win an international olympic level event 3 times. Can someone please help me.


Callyhannah (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:34, 17 November 2019 review of submission by Bobbyshann

Hi There I Just update the page with more details. Please review for approve. Thank you Bobbyshann (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbyshann, The article seems to be about an average person, like you or I, and thus no particular reason to have an article. The sources aren't properly formatted or used in the first place (see referencing for beginners), and most of them aren't reliable (such as blogs). Furthermore, the tone was promotional, and seems to have original research, which we do not allow. Because it is not notable, it will likely be deleted. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:45, 17 November 2019 review of submission by One Red Line

Would appreciate some feedback on the page above. Previous submission was rejected because it sounded like a marketing/advertising spiel, which is not the intention. Have rewritten, but would appreciate if someone with more experience could look it over. Thanks! One Red Line (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:47, 17 November 2019 review of draft by Brettler555

It is the opinion of this author that the edited draft complies with the standards of merit for this individual to have inclusion. What more can I do to conform. Or else, shall I add submit to the top of the work. Thank you for your indulgence.


Brettler555 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brettler555, Your references are very malformed. Please read referencing for beginners to see how to fix things. From what I can tell, your main issue is that your "ref" tags aren't closed. I.e. you open them, using <ref>. But then you don't close them using a ref with a slash, such as </ref>.That is not the only issue. The sources are not all up to snuff. IMDb is not a reliable source and cannot be used. Blogs are not usable as sources either. Additionally, please remove the image boxes, as the images have been deleted. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:03, 17 November 2019 review of draft by JayShah2002


JayShah2002 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

when will my article be reviewed JayShah2002 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)jayShah2002[reply]

JayShah2002, Reviews are averaging 8 weeks at the moment. However, I see you have recieved some feedback on your draft, which you should definitely take. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i did all the requested changes and a kind volunteer or reviewer also helped organise my page now can it be published ? its already been 60 days since my submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayShah2002 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JayShah2002, A volunteer helped you, but the article needs more work still. More sources, and more text are needed. I could review it, but the current outcome would be to decline the draft and have it sent back for more work. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:00, 17 November 2019 review of submission by Davisbro3812712

I have changed the feel of the page - could you please take a look into this. Help me add some stuff - so it doesn't make me look like a fan. I mean I listen to his songs - but not really a fan.

Davisbro3812712 (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the draft has been deleted, or does not exist, and thus we cannot help you. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

10:15:04, 18 November 2019 review of submission by Mpastorleary

Mpastorleary (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mpastorleary, This draft lacks reliable sources which prove notability. The specific criteria seems to be WP:NCORP, which requires at least 3 reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. The existing sources don't show that. But to be honest, I suspect there may not be enough sources on this subject, and you may be better served by working on another page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:35, 18 November 2019 review of submission by 130.0.29.114

I'm the manager of Kiameti. I think now it deserve to review. Kiameti now it's famous on Shkodër AL. AND HIS RECOGNITIONS IS GROWING UP DAY BY DAY

130.0.29.114 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This person does not seem to have any media coverage, which means they aren't notable. Furthermore, if you this person's manager, you have a conflict of interest and must disclose that per WP:PAID. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:26:21, 18 November 2019 review of draft by TheoMax42651


If the article focuses more on the lawsuit vs Lt Col Sam Schism would that address the concern? Also, the information about his career were drawn from two different books that were published and his primary military records; therefore, guidance on how to reference those items would be helpful.

Thank you,

TheoMax42651 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheoMax42651, More content from the lawsuit could be good. More content in general, and more sources are needed. I also recommend you use an infobox in the article, as the current way of listing awards is not at all standard. Take a look at George S. Patton (a featured article), which has an example of an excellently done infobox, as well as being a perfect guide for the shape your article should take. Clearly, you article won't be anywhere near as long, but you get the general idea. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:30, 18 November 2019 review of draft by 106.78.169.77


What more can I add to improvise this draft?

@Wrizz: More sources, which give the subject significant coverage and not just passing mentions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:57, 18 November 2019 review of draft by Wearetriumphant


Hey not sure what you want me to do here. Provided plenty of references.

Wearetriumphant (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wearetriumphant, Wikipedia is not a reference. References must be reliable and independent sources, think news articles, books, that sort of thing. You'll need at least 3 good sources with significant coverage to ensure an article, maybe more. Also, the article needs more prose.
Additionally, your username implies a conflict of interest. If you are associated with the subject, you should declare that. If you have been paid or compensated by the subject in any way, you must declare that by following the guidelines at WP:PAID. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:32:10, 18 November 2019 review of submission by PapayaWiki105

I am requesting a re-review because similar production companies have Wikipedia pages which are similar to our draft, and yet we are getting rejected over and over again. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated as to what I can do to get this page approved. For your reference, I've included links to Wikipedia pages for similar production companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Film

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Free_Productions

Can you please tell me what I can do?

Happy to discuss via this medium or even on the phone.

Thanks, Okey


PapayaWiki105 (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PapayaWiki105, You have not followed the advice of any of the several reviewers. The issues they raised remain. Read their feedback. Change the article accordingly. If you have a question about how to implement a specific piece of feedback, please ask here. We will not re-review it until substantial changes have been made.
As a final note, be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on WIkipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The production company articles you linked are very, very bad, and not a good comparison. Although to be honest, I couldn't find a good production company article. The closest good one I could find was Walt Disney Animation Studios, but understand that might not be super valuable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

04:20:26, 19 November 2019 review of submission by 45.64.11.91

45.64.11.91 (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are WP:NOT an advertising platform or place to promote your business. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:29:41, 19 November 2019 review of submission by Irovvaul

Hi All, first of all, I am sorry for trying to create the page again and again. I am new to wikipedia and don't know all the policies. When we first created the page, it was deleted and we realized that we can't have our page live without independent press coverage. Recently, we got covered in some of the top-notch publications and we thought to give it a try one more time. Our intention was not to spam wikipedia, please forgive us for our mistakes and please give us a fresh start and please review our draft afresh. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience caused to you all due to our ignorance. Irovvaul (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Irovaul: Thank you for your question. You are referring to yourself as "we", which would be a violation of WP:SOCK. Also, if you have a connection with the subject (which you imply) you must declare that on your userpage per WP:COI. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Irovvaul:

12:38:03, 19 November 2019 review of submission by Maheshchulet2011

What are the reasons to reject my article so that I can work on them Maheshchulet2011 (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshchulet2011, For one, its written like an ad. Wikipedia presents its subjects neutrally and without promotion or bias, using formal language at all times. Additionally, there are not enough sources to show that this is notable. At least 3 sources that are reliable and independent and have significant coverage of the subject is needed. Think news articles, coverage in magazines, that sort of thing. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:05:56, 19 November 2019 review of draft by 4mckeowns

I have added references and links that validate that the pageant is real and relevant to those living in County Cork (Ireland's largest County). The event takes place every year and involves hundreds of people so I don't know what more to do to make this article qualify as being of public interest Thanks 4mckeowns (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4mckeowns, You should read referencing for beginners to see how to properly format and use references, as the existing layout is insuffucient. The article also needs more prose. In terms of sources, you need to find sources that cover the contest itself, not just its contestants. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:09, 19 November 2019 review of draft by Mlajum


The article is a biography of Kenneth Kimuli. He is popularly known as Pablo. Is it okay if I change the subject of the article to Kenneth Kimuli(Pablo)? Secondly, if one had put up their pictures on social media before and would prefer the picture to be put up on Wikipedia, does deleting the picture from the social media, e.g facebook, and using it on Wikipedia violate any copyrights?

Thanks

Mlajum (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:18, 19 November 2019 review of submission by MMcC321

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could explain how the article may not be sufficient for a Wikipedia page of its own? I'm at a bit of a loss as to how I can amend it.

Thank you MMcC321 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MMcC321, The company fails WP:NCORP and seems to be a run of the WP:MILL business. There are millions of businesses, we can't cover them all, and thus have to have a minimum standard. That standard is notability. That means usually at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. The current sources do not do that. It is likely that this business is simply not notable, and no amount of improvement would make the article likely to pass. I suggest you find another area to edit on Wikipedia; I can suggest some WIkiProjects if you provide an area of interest! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:46, 19 November 2019 review of draft by Jwilson2032

Hello! I am attempting to make a Wikipedia page for Ankura. Despite almost 10 citations to relevant materials regarding the company's creation, investments, acquisitions, and work, the article has been rejected. Many similar companies (i.e. Analysis Group, Cornerstone Research, etc. ) have less or similar cited materials in their articles.

Thus I would like to request help with the following: 1) Which of the citations listed in the article do not meet relevant criteria for reliability? I have reviewed the sections of Wikipedia's help page for reliability standards, but there is still some gray area on what can qualify. For instance, I have included a Bloomberg profile (having seen those used on several other articles!), but if that is not reliable I would still like to use the other source provided (an interview of the individual in question). 2) Given the nature of the article, I have added a few sources to some of the cited sections. Should I keep citations to one for each factoid, or are additional citations that demonstrate reliability better. 3) How many additional sources meeting the above criteria should be included? I did not want to over inundate the article page at first but if even more information is needed for approval then so be it. 3b) In the same way, are there sources I have listed that are considered not reliable that should be redacted all together? If so I am happy to remove them.

I appreciate any and all feedback on this manner. I am driven to make this happen!

Jwilson2032 (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwilson2032: Per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG there must be several (generally at least 2-3) independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. You can use other sources that meet this criteria to verify statements in the article, but not for asserting notability. A general rule of thumb is that you need a reference to prove every fact/assertion/claim you make in the article. However, a concern I have with this draft is that it really sounds like an advertisement for the company, instead of an encyclopedia article. Before it is accepted it should be cleaned up to sound less promotional. I hope this helped. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:36, 19 November 2019 review of submission by Electra Roberts

Hello, I created this page for Yiannis Papadopoulos it was declined 7 months ago. Since then I renewed all the sources and i updated the page quite a few times. Can someone please help me with this? I believe the article is in great standing, it's been seven months, at least please give me feedback regarding the page and if there's anything I can do to make it even better. This guy definitely deserves a Wiki page, he's won so many awards/ competition, he's touring around the world, and he's recognised and respected in the guitar community. Thank you for your time. Your help is greatly appreciated. Electra Roberts (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three months, not seven, since you submitted your draft. Please be patient, drafts are reviewed in no particular order. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:25:01, 19 November 2019 review of draft

Greetings. At a request from Whpq, I would like some help determining if my edits to the draft above are on the tright track. The original creator of the draft is Degacrowe9, but I made a few improvements to it. So, am I doing okay so far? Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 19:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:48, 19 November 2019 review of draft by TJRobertson


I created this draft for a master planned community here in Nevada, Skye Canyon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skye_Canyon,_Nevada

It seemed like the community warranted a Wikipedia article, since other master planned communities of similar size and significance also have articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Highlands,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin,_Nevada). In fact, Summerlin has 3 articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_South,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_City_Summerlin,_Nevada).

My draft has been declined many times, and is still not approved for the following reasons:

- This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

- 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. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

However, when reviewing the pages of the other master planned communities, their sources don't meet this criteria any better than those on my draft. Skye Canyon is a huge, prominent, albeit new community here in Nevada (6,500 homes). How else can I show that this is a legitimate, noteworthy entity?

Any help is much appreciated. Thank you!

TJRobertson (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TJRobertson, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on WIkipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I looked at the articles you posted, and I have marked three for deletion, and found the remaining one to be problematic. None would have passed the AfC process.
You user pages says you do SEO for Vegas companies. If you have been paid in any way for your edits on Skye Canyon, you must disclose that by following the guide at WP:PAID.
To the article: you must show that the subject passes the WP:GNG. That means at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. Currently, you have zero such sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:41:15, 19 November 2019 review of draft by Shibby182


To whom it may concern,

I created this Wikipedia page approximately 8 Week ago and was on a 8 Week waiting list which today has jumped to 4 months. I was wondering if there was an explanation for this or a priority system? An explanation for the jump from 8 Weeks to 4 Months is all I'm seeking unless you would like to review the Wikipedia Article itself.

Thanks, Brandon C.T. Lee


Shibby182 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shibby182, Howdy hello! When you submitted, the average review time was 8 weeks. But that time has been revised, as we are getting an influx of drafts and have rather few reviewers. Please be patient, and your draft should be taken care of soon. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


November 20

03:17:44, 20 November 2019 review of submission by TopBanana12

TopBanana12 (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TopBanana12, Subjects require notable coverage, that is multiple reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. This article lacks any such sources, and such sources do not seem to exist. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:26:22, 20 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Helloajnabi


Helloajnabi 08:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC) @Ubiquity: This page is belong to famous motivational writer and I can provide more references for the same. So I am requesting you to please do not delete this page.

08:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Sanjay Sharma08:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

09:38:19, 20 November 2019 review of submission by 194.243.213.83

194.243.213.83 (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Vincenzo Ferdinandi (Newark, 1920 - Rome, 1990) was an Italian designer among the founders of Italian high fashion.


Biography Born in the United States, he moved to Italy in the early fifties to open an atelier in Rome.

He was among the first haute couture designers to compete with the most renowned French couturiers in the international arena. In 1949 he was in Paris, called by Christian Dior for a stylistic collaboration with the French maison. After that experience, London also called him to design a line of shoes that he completed with all-Italian creativity.

Together with other names of the Italian fashion of the time such as Roberto Capucci, Germana Marucelli, Giovannelli-Sciarra Fashion House and Jole Veneziani, he participated in 1952 at first historical fashion parade in Palazzo Pitti in Florence. A very young Oriana Fallaci sent by the weekly Epoca told the news.

In 1953, together with other major names of the time (including Emilio Schuberth, the Sorelle Fontana, Alberto Fabiani, Jole Veneziani, Giovannelli-Sciarra, Mingolini-Gugenheim, Eleanora Garnett and Simonetta Colonna di Cesarò), he founded the SIAM - Italian High Fashion Syndicate (later to become the National Chamber of Italian Fashion).

In July 1954, together with the Sorelle Fontana, Emilio Schuberth, Giovannelli-Sciarra, Garnett and Mingolini-Gugenheim he took part in "Alta Moda in Castel Sant'Angelo". On that occasion, the American Sally Kirkland, Fashion Editor of Life and of Vogue[, was awarded for her role as ambassador of Italian fashion in the United States.

Defying the conventions of the time (it was in the early fifties), he is the first to show an afro-American girl in a fashion parade, the young model Dolores Francine Rhiney.

His creations are worn by actresses and famous women of those years. Ingrid Bergman, Jennifer Jones, Sandra Dee, May Britt, Anna Magnani, Gina Lollobrigida, Virna Lisi, Sylva Koscina, Eloisa Cianni, Lucia Bosè, Ivy Nicholson, Loredana Pavone, Joe Patterson, Marta Marzotto and a very young Elsa Martinelli are some of these.

In 2014, the Maxxi museum in Rome as part of the "Bellissima" exhibition numbers him among the pioneers of Italian fashion.

09:41:12, 20 November 2019 review of submission by 194.243.213.83

194.243.213.83 (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone help me for the publication of this page .... Vincenzo Ferdinandi was a famous designer in the 60s in Italy. There are also official news and photos attached, but this profile remains a draft. I hope for a welcome help. Thanks anyway.

15:33:25, 20 November 2019 review of submission by DylanFaraci98

DylanFaraci98 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=927134316"