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 Tickono5 (talk | contribs) at 05:15, 19 June 2020. 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


June 13

02:34:25, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Chaz86

I recieved an alert which directed me to this help section. Chaz86 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz86, You were trying to make an article, but I'm not sure if the subject is notable. Do you have any more specific questions? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:36:34, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Sayonmessi

Sayonmessi (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:38:16, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Sayonmessi

Why my page was rejected? I just want to add the page. Please explain what went wrong? How can I improve? Sayonmessi (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayonmessi, You had zero reliable sources. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:58:12, 13 June 2020 review of draft by BPMonk


Hi, I'm just wondering what more we need to get this going. I've seen numerous pages for theatre companies / theatre producers throughout Wikipedia with much less history, prolificness & citing minimal if any sources. With the history and success of the company I'm keen to get this up. Any recommendations would be incredibly helpful!

BPMonk (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BPMonk Please see other stuff exists. Other problematic articles existing does not mean that yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. Feel free to point out these other article so action can be taken if you wish, we could use the help.
Regarding your draft, the reviewer informed you in their decline message of the issue- you need to show that your company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Significant coverage goes beyond brief mentions, press releases, or other similar sources. IMDB is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia as it is user-editable. If this company is not discussed in independent sources in depth, it would not merit an article at this time; not every company does(even in the same field). 331dot (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me! I totally understand. We'll definitely be working on these issues to ensure more detailed coverage of our practice from independent sources - blame working in the background for so long! Appreciate it and best. BTW, here's the pages: lots of these or these have clear issues on a much grander scale, and ultimately provides problematic balance for theatre companies' profiles. All best.BPMonk (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BPMonk I've fixed the links you provided; to link to a category without making this page a member of the category, it should be typed like this: [[:Category:CategoryNameHere]]. Can you provide specific examples of problematic articles? Wikipedia does not have mere pages or profiles, it has articles. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:38, 13 June 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA

SONGEZO SA (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SONGEZO SA - what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is left that i didn't do on that article that i created?

SONGEZO SA (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly I do not understand your question but after having a look at your draft I have to tell you that it lacks of any realible sources - you will need to add references/sources which are reliable (if there are any at all, which I doubt after a short google search=, please study the following article Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:32, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Asif A K Durrani

Asif A K Durrani (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Review Team, The world is celebrating many types of days in remembrance of the occasions and to motivate the humanity.

The current situation of Pandemic covid-19 forced kids to think and play Indoor physical games. That is not unusual practice for them. Kids might have not considered games to play at home other than computer games like playstation etc.

Therefore it is required to Celebrate atleast one day with physical Indoor Fun.

Thank you

Asif A K Durrani Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something, even if it is a good cause. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:36, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Asif A K Durrani

Asif A K Durrani (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Review Team Please advice what changes required in the subject. Thank you

@Asif A K Durrani: Your draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. This subject fails WP:NEVENT. You dont have a single source in your draft. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Advice for younger editors. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:02:19, 13 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Zishi17

Hi. I do not know why the images I submitted are out of scope. And I do not know how to make my citations right. I read the instruction pages on Wikipedia and all the articles about scope and minimum of citations. Is it because the citation I used are too long?

Zishi17 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zishi17: Its not about the length of the citations, its about using WP:FOOTNOTES for citing sources. Since this is a WP:BLP inline citations are required. You used them already in the comments section. BTW the "comments"-Section is indeed to long. In the country where I live (Where no WP:FAIRUSE is possible) I would probbably already commit a copyright violation. Long explanation, short meaning:Keep your quotes short. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:13, 13 June 2020 review of submission by 42.110.217.228

42.110.217.228 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Fine Art Artist. Top on all social media sites


Apurbakantiroy22 (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for social profiles. Unless there are reliable independent in-depth sources covering you, we aren't going to publish such a profile or even keep it as a draft. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apurbakantiroy22 Wikipedia is not for telling the world about yourself, that is what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:12, 13 June 2020 review of draft by Carrieruggieri


Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can someone give me their opinion on whether my article has adequately corrected the problems that led it to being rejected. I implemented some good advice I got from the live help. I was asked to address the COV and I did that on the talk page (I was advised to put it in a box at the top of the talk page but I didn't know how to do that). The only problem I see are some page numbers and maybe its too long for some people? However, other editors didn't think the length was a problem. Ive tried several times to get someone from PSYCH to look it over but no-one has responded. Thanks for looking - sorry that its dry stuff for most people. Carrieruggieri (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely difficult to write a clear article on topics like this. There are 3 key difficulties: the standard of writing of references on the subject relies upon specialized language, where words are used in special meanings for concepts which are not the least obvious to the nonspecialist . (All medical writing has this problem to some degree, but in other fields of medicine people expect it and know they need to study to understand it, and there is less use of words in special senses which also have common but different every-day meanings), The second is the differences considered important between the various schools of psychotherapy can be quite subtle, and the arguments meaningless except for those directly involved. the third is the problem of therapeutic claims (see WP:MEDRS )

I just saw this now. I had sent another request so it can be ignored. I appreciate your careful reading of my article and your suggestions. Thank you. I think I will work on the issues you explained. 14:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So you have to avoid jargon in the introductory material at least, and introduce new concepts slowly one at a time. Sometimes the best way is to explain every technical sentence in terms like, "This means, in common language....." and to give examples--there's an instance where you do, in section 4.2, and it helps considerably . It helps to keeps the sentences short, so a reader has to understand only one new concept at a time. It helps to use common words instead of technical jargon when the common words are sufficiently precise--sometimes they will be, but not always.
It will help to move up the comparative section, section 6, and to expand it and make sure it is completely clear , before describing the complexities of this particular therapeutic process. Most readers will have at least some experience with some of the therapies and this will orient them. It might further help to shorten the detailed sections on procedure.
You talk about effectiveness, but gives no statistics. This is a medical article, and we expect both results expressed in numerical terms and an indication of whether they are considered statistically significant. I think we all know the conflicting results over time of such studies in this field, but surely it should be possible to say something more exact than "Single case studies of short-term courses of AEDP therapy report positive outcomes:" -- that's the weakest level of scientific evidence. In fact, is there anything better than that, or just the two interim reports cited at the end? If there are no verifiable results of usefulness, this needs to be stated right at the start. If there is no evidence that any of the detailed processes described are actually doing at each step what they are supposed to do, this needs to be made clear. You can't advocate for it, but you need to either give some evidence or say there is no evidence.
(I recognize that this sort of problem applies to a considerable degree in the entire field. I should mention in terms of bias that I personally am influenced by my own experiences to try to credit therapeutic claims in psychology, but not all readers will be.) DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:50:09, 13 June 2020 review of submission by Naijaactive

"This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." what can i do please??? Naijaactive (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naijaactive There is nothing that you can do, as your draft was rejected; this means it will not be considered further. It appears that this musician does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, and no amount of editing can change that. Perhaps in the future independent reliable sources will take note of his career and give him the significant coverage needed to merit an article, if he meets the notability definition. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

03:48:16, 14 June 2020 review of submission by 72.28.33.243

Not sure what this is promoting? It is bare minimum facts about an inventor and pro musician. 72.28.33.243 (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shredgod21: It is promoting Allen Van Wert, who is not a notable person (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was under the impression that the worlds fastest guitarist who also invented the worlds first A.I. picking trainer would be notable. Weird. MANY wiki pages should be removed then. How does one go about having non notable pages removed? I can provide a large list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.33.243 (talk)

Remember to log in when you post. What you say is entirely possible. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you notice an article about a musician who does not seem to meet the definition of a notable musician, you are welcome to begin an Articles for Deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:38:18, 14 June 2020 review of submission by Wikikruste

Thank you for reviewing. I've just resubmitted removing unnecessary informations and giving it a more encyclopedic tone of voice. I'm not a native english speaker so any advice is welcome

Wikikruste (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:12:11, 14 June 2020 review of draft by Gnp1975

Hai I am creating a page for my client, Jiyen krishnakumar, south indian film director. i submitted the article with more than 15 refernces list. kindly let meknow the exact problem with article i submitted. so that i can coorect it. Gnp1975 (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has pretty well explained by the reviewers, "Requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability" - your actual draft includes two drafts in one article, the first one has a reference section which refers to IMDB which is not a reliable source at all, the second part indeed is listing several reliable references. You will need to merge the versions into one single draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:39, 14 June 2020 review of submission by LanreBrainy

LanreBrainy (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:05:57, 14 June 2020 review of submission by LanreBrainy

I want to upload a biography on Wikipedia

LanreBrainy (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LanreBrainy, I think you are referring to the draft of your mother Draft:Alhaja Wulemotu Ashabi Titilope Jose - which had been denied because obviously for Wikipedia, she had not been a notable person. Please study Help:Your_first_article, also the criteria for notability Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Autobiography and over here Wikipedia:No_amount_of_editing_can_overcome_a_lack_of_notability.CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:05, 14 June 2020 review of submission by Beyonceluver99

Beyonceluver99 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have modified the entire article and added both references & links.

18:51:08, 14 June 2020 review of submission by Iayaz

(1) Reviewer objected that most of sources quoted NIP which is developer, you need to understand that NIP is a govenment authority responsible for industrial areas development therefore this is natural that news resources will rely on information given by NIP & therefore most of refrences have quoted NIP as source of information (2) secondly, i added to more reference for article

Iayaz (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:33:31, 14 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Coatshut80

Hey, I recently created an article page for Philemon Jerry Masisi and would need someone to edit the article to make sure it gets successfully published. The previous decline said that the article is notable per WP:SOLDIER but it would benefit from some more sources. I cited every paragraph possible in the second edit.

Coatshut80 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:41:22, 14 June 2020 review of draft by Markus.mxx

I want to write an Article about Micro-Advisory, because we started a Platform for Micro-Advisory for Entrepreneurs and realised that the Term wasn't used before and we need to explain it first. This is our text, but i never before wrote an Wikipedia-Article, why i don't know how to commit it correctly and i'm not a english native, sorry. Please help :)

START OF ARCTICLE
Micro-Advisory is the process of portioning long-term, holistic business improvement in small steps to solve one problem at a time, but within a guided process of long-term improvement. The focus is to empower entrepreneurs with the external expertise they need for their acute needs. the lockdown of corona-crisis paved the way to get this expertise remotely, as a lot of business advisory experts got used to share knowledge in short video-conferencing-sessions all over the world.

The term was first used in that sense by the Platform hallosophia.com in April 2020. A solution that was created during the #EUvsVirus Mentoring-Program after the #EUvsVirus Hackathon, with the goal of empowering entrepreneurs in times of an economic crisis, to lead their company and employees through the crisis. one of the basic problems identified and tackled is the fact that bridge loans, for loss of sales during the lockdown-period, need to be repaid with future revenues, therefor a long-term improvement plan is needed. big enterprises can afford a lot of business advisors for all fields, to seize every opportunity for improvement, but smaller entities can't afford the whole workforce of the advising-industry. therefor the digital guided process of Micro-Advisory makes the full range of expertise available and affordable for small- and medium-sized businesses. right now there is no proof for the effectiveness of micro-advisory for empowerment or decreasing probability of default in the future, as the first platform will be launched during july 2020.

Differentiation to Micro-Consulting:
Micro-Consulting is external help for a specific, small problem.
Micro-Advisory is portioning a long-term, holistic improvement process in small steps.


Inspiration:
The Inspiration for Micro-Advisory came from Microcredit, the provision of small loans to poor clients to become entrepreneurs and help themselves out of poverty with self-determination. the reduce the probability of failure as an entrepreneur, micro-advisory could be of use to increase the skills of entrepreneurship by empowerment with knowledge.

References

European Innovation Council's Covid-19 Platform, Solution: halloSophia.com https://covid-eic.easme-web.eu/solution/microadvisory-platform-hallosophiacom-fast-lane-sophisticated-business-advice/about
Final Report of EUvsVirus https://www.euvsvirus.org/finalreport.pdf // Project halloSophia
MicroAdvisory on Twitter (link not available, but using #microadvisory)
Explanation Video on Youtube of halloSophia.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT5yPNP-z00

Markus.mxx (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Markus.mxx: I see a bunch of problems here:

June 15

01:50:57, 15 June 2020 review of submission by Mweberjr

Hi, I believe I made all necessary edits. The article read too much like an article previously. Could someone please take a look?

Mweberjr (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:13:03, 15 June 2020 review of draft by Victorinoxy


Victorinoxy (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of actor Zhubin Rahbar, and am trying to create an article about him. Then I found a current article, and I started editing it and adding reliable reference sources. Now I am ready to get it published, but ran into a problem.

When I tried to Resubmit, I see this page which is quite confusing. Basically it starts with "Editing Draft:Zhubin Rahbar (new section)", and then the text in the white box says

I'm confused as to whether I should just press "publish changes" on this page to get it re-reviewed? Or should I do something else? Please advise - thanks!!

V

User:Victorinoxy - If you really are only a fan and are not Zhubin Rahbar and not his publicist, leave his autobiography alone and start over. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:38:47, 15 June 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA

What Should I also do on the article that i created? SONGEZO SA (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:54:20, 15 June 2020 review of draft by Aston3421


My article was declined due to self advertising tone and poor reference quality. Can I have advise on my changes. I have used a more neutral tone and added a reference to the article. Thank you

Aston3421 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aston3421: Koukjian does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. You would need to add further references that show that he has been written about in depth by reliable, independent publications such as books or national newspapers. Articles where Koukjian talks about himself, or biographies written by him and published by companies he is connected to are not considered independent. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


07:53:10, 15 June 2020 review of draft by Michael Oreal

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hello, I wrote an article about the French fashion designer Kostio de War. I have moved the article out of my sandbox for viewing and evaluation. The following day I received the following answer which you can read in the link at the top. I do not understand the argument that the article is an advertisement, because everything is based on independent, reliable, published sources and not on material created by myself of the topic. How do I proceed now? best regards, --Michael Oreal (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Michael Oreal (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well to start with you have a whole section titled "An outstanding designer of knitwear" which is entirely promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Michael Oreal - On reading the draft, I was not originally sure whether it was about the fashion house or about its founder. That is because it lacks a proper lede sentence, which is an important part of the way Wikipedia articles are written. Once I figured out that it was about the fashion house, it read like an advertisement with press releases. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:03:45, 15 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Uros77

My Article was declined I would really appreciate if you could help me with my article because it keeps getting declined. Could you review it and give me some suggestions?

Thank you. :)

Uros77 (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:56, 15 June 2020 review of submission by TBase2

The article seems to provide articles relating directly to the subject (being the main part of each article) and inline citations for each fact point. If you look at [Brian Humphries] the subject's predecessor they are of similar sources. It may be the case that the latter page should be up for deletion if this draft page is not notable? --TBase2 (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TBase2 (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TBase2. On the face of it, Brian Humphries (IT businessman) looks like what the community derogatorily calls Vanispamcruftisement. For now I've tagged it for {{notability}}. When I or someone else has more time we'll see if it can be improved or should be deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Worldbruce Thank you for this, I'm still a wiki novice when it comes to these matters, I'll stick to James Cameron and Avatar and avoid what seem to be ego contests! TBase2 (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:30:30, 15 June 2020 review of submission by Beyonceluver99

As the last editor suggested, I took out all the external links. Could this page be reviewed please? I have made the needed modifications. Thank you! Beyonceluver99 (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:38:09, 15 June 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA

What's left that i didn't do on the article that i created? 🙏🏿 SONGEZO SA (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not suggested how they pass the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:28, 15 June 2020 review of submission by 24.45.77.59

24.45.77.59 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern:

I was wondering if you could provide more information on how to edit this article to make it meet Wikipedia's notability standards, as well as what kind of source material would be preferable for writing this article.

Thank you!


18:31:07, 15 June 2020 review of submission by Diaa ahmedd

Trusted sources

Diaa ahmedd (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:52:29, 15 June 2020 review of draft by Sbg487

I'm trying to a create a wikipedia page for a non-fiction book I read. I used multiple sources, all of them unconnected to the original authors to avoid bias. The article was declined saying "articles on fictional subjects should cover their real-world context and contain sourced analysis, offering detail on a work’s development, impact or historical significance—not just a summary of the plot." I'm confused because this isn't fictional subject matter, it's a non-fiction book on politics, capitalism, governance, and international relations. I'm not sure what needs to be adjusted to correct it. Any help would be appreciated.

Sbg487 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


19:36:06, 15 June 2020 review of draft by 153artists


Received the rejection notice for the article and had some questions regarding the feedback:

1. The first comment received is that the article was deemed as a "promotional article." Would there be a way to receive feedback to know what makes it promotional versus informational?

2. The second comment is a question, asking if we have a "COI" - is there any way to receive more details as to what is being requested and why?

Ultimately, the hope is to get a basic informational article out on the singer, as he currently has very little information available for the fanbase online. 153artists (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: OP blocked under WP:CORPNAME (among other reasons). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:48:52, 15 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mangalsingh1213

Hi wiki team i was trying to create my Wikipedia page, I'm an indian cricketer and i want my page on Wikipedia because your platform is a source of genuine information. I learnt and tried my best to create my page i attached all references that needed for an page, my friend he is also an cricketer who play with me he have his Wikipedia page. Please understand and help me with this 🙏. Regards Mangal Singh

Mangalsingh1213 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

08:08:00, 16 June 2020 review of submission by MGQUINN

The subject of the submitted page is an innovator in the field of Teaching English as a Foreign Language and has been recognised by the Education sector as a pioneer of highly effective teaching and leaning techniques. MGQUINN (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MGQUINN The draft will not be considered further. You will probably need to start from scratch if this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable academic, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You should also review Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:32:25, 16 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by DTWriting

I am requesting assistance because the article I submitted for review was rejected, but I do not see how the reasons stated in the rejection relate to the article. It was stated that "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." However, I don't see how that is applicable to the article I submitted. I am happy to make any edits to the article for it to be approved, but I need specific direction. Everything in the article is neutral and every statement is supported by independent sources (all from newspaper articles) and none of the statements are referenced from material produced by the creator of the subject. It would be helpful if I could get specific feedback about any statement that appears to be like advertising or any reference that does not appear to be independent. Again, I am happy to make these edits, but need specific direction.

DTWriting (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example "CFCUF has been recognized throughout the years for its service to the Jacksonville metropolitan area" is entirely promotional and none of the awards are notable (no Wikipedia article) so do not contribute to any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:01, 16 June 2020 review of submission by Saad Anideos

This page solely contains facts and a reliable source. The content is not promotional and stands neutral from all aspects.


Saad Anideos (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Anideos You merely told about Anideos; that is considered promotional on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles must do more; they must summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable organization). Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for some required disclosures you must make. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:33, 16 June 2020 review of submission by Oakus53

I thought encyclopedias were supposed to include any and all information someone could want. How does it hurt to put this article in it Oakus53 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oakus53. Encyclopedias aim to summarize important accumulated knowledge. Excessive information can make an encyclopedia harder to navigate, read, and maintain. The draft is about a run-of-the-mill school, unremarkable compared to any of hundreds of thousands of similar schools, and of interest only to those closely connected to it. The guidelines for what schools to include are the general notability guideline and the guideline for organizations and companies. You may find the essay "Wikipedia:What to include" useful too.
Creating new articles is one of the most difficult and least effective ways of improving Wikipedia. The community rates 98% of existing articles as less than "good", so there are literally millions of ways of improving the encyclopedia without starting a new article. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

02:55:10, 17 June 2020 review of draft by Reppop

Hello. I need advice on my draft for the Orthopaedic Hospital Medical Magnet High School. The draft was declined because the "Language has WP:TONE issues." Can anyone help me with rewriting the article or rewriting with some of the sections?

reppoptalk 02:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:27:52, 17 June 2020 review of draft by Mkjoshidcpl


Mkjoshidcpl (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:06:45, 17 June 2020 review of submission by Accurateinfoomg

Accurateinfoomg (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accurateinfoomg You don't ask a question, but your draft has been declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why has it been declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurateinfoomg (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers indicated why in the draft. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:20:05, 17 June 2020 review of submission by VovATooL

Hello, I need some help with my first English article.

VovATooL (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:29:13, 17 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by VovATooL

Hello, I need some help with my first English article. I've already contributed a few texts in Ukrainian (different account). I didn't think this would be so hard to do in English. I've tried to find as much sources as I could. I also deleted all phrases that could possibly be considered as promotional. Can someone give me a few advices? What should I delete or add? Can someone make those corrections for me? This is a short article about the cloud gaming platform.

VovATooL (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:30, 17 June 2020 review of submission by 2600:6C5E:177F:E1F0:79D9:EEF9:E4A1:F938

2600:6C5E:177F:E1F0:79D9:EEF9:E4A1:F938 (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:28, 17 June 2020 review of submission by Gautamakadrag

Gautamakadrag (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:37:16, 17 June 2020 review of submission by Pranayndv

Pranayndv (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is far from being an acceptable article. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself and neither a social network. You may want to read User:Ian.thomson/Howto. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:56, 17 June 2020 review of submission by Kayla kas

I would like some help with my page! It was declined and I love some tips on how to improve it so it can be accepted into the mainspace. Kayla kas (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page for what you need to do as an undisclosed paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kayla kas: Ignore Theroadislong. His comments aren't helpful and I've admonished him for them.
More sources would be nice (please follow WP:RS and WP:V) as you are writing about a school. You can never go wrong with having too many sources. You do mention the college admissions bribery scandal. Perhaps expand on that. Was anyone from the school involved, etc. Write more in-depth about the school, their services, what they offer. Look at other pages for other schools and see how they are formed. Look at the Shenandoah University page. This is a small university in Virginia. See how the page is laid out, there is a little more depth? The article tells the classes that are offered? That's what we are looking for.
Athletics are a staple of most schools, though some don't have them. Put that in there too. Are there any notable alumni that have gone to InGenius Prep? Can it be sourced? That last part might be tricky, but it is a new article, you will run into a little extra scrutiny.
Instead of listing the offices in a list, try writing them out. Something like "InGenius Prep has campuses in four countries, the United States, Canada, China, and South Korea, and branches in Toronto, Vancouver, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Seoul, among others." Mentioning the larger cities and allowing the user to check the sources for the smaller cities. While I know Guangzhou and Shenzhen (had a friend who travelled there), some might not, and you will lose the reader's interest (read: they get bored) if you start listing too many cities. Remember, you want to keep your reader's attention, but be informative at the same time.
Expand on basically everything about the school. More sources for everything: make sure they are from reliable, third-party sources. Make sure everything is verifiable. Redo that section with the list of cities. You are off to a good start, keep going, don't get discouraged. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:06 on June 18, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
@Kayla kas: I strongly suggest you do NOT ignore my perfectly polite comments on your talk page about paid editing, you are editing using your own name, so it is clear for all to see that you have a conflict of interest which you are required to disclose by the terms of Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: I strongly suggest you do NOT post another piece of nonsense like this again or I will find an admin and make sure you are blocked for unconstructive editing and violating BITE at the least. Multiple editors, some admins, editor under their own name and that shows no evidence of conflict of evidence or paid editing. Back it off now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:53 on June 18, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
Question  On hold pending conflict of interest disclosure (one way or another), see User talk:Kayla kas#Paid editing?. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User has said "It is true that I do work for InGenius Prep. However I am not being paid to edit." Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure says "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia." Meanwhile I am being threatened with this " I strongly suggest you do NOT post another piece of nonsense like this again or I will find an admin and make sure you are blocked for unconstructive editing ". Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was picked and chosen very well. Let's try the entire text, shall we? "It is true that I do work for InGenius Prep. However I am not being paid to edit. I found creating Wikipedia articles to be enjoyable and so decided to create one for InGenius Prep since I was familiar with the primary sources and felt I could write it in an objective way. I am more than happy to change the tone of the article if it comes off as advertising or promotion. I am happy to work with admins and editors on this to make it the best article possible. But I am not being paid by this company to edit this article."
Theroadislong actually said this bizarre sentence "...you are editing using your own name, so it is clear for all to see that you have a conflict of interest which you are required to disclose by the terms of Wikipedia." So, we can't use our own names, lest we be considered paid editors or have a "clear" conflict of interest per Theroadislong's logic.
Theroadislong has also made it a point to tag articles that Kayla has edited in the past, claiming COI. This is not only BITE-y, but POINTed as well. It's clear that Theroadislong has an issue with Kayla, whatever it may be, he can edit with a clear mind and needs to be back off. I did take this matter to an admin, and while they didn't think it rised to the level of BITE-y I did, they suggested that I change the snarky COI templates to something more friendly.
Kayla has made it very clear that she is willing to learn and wants to learn. I believe we take her at her word and help a new editor with no more than 20 edits, who clearly shows she is willing and able constructively, and show her how Wikipedia works. We are always complaining that Wikipedia is one big "sausage fest", why push away a female editor who actually wants to learn. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:36 on June 18, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
Oh, and one final thing. I ask people who think that someone can't work for a company and still edit that company's Wikipedia page and it not be considered paid editing or conflict of interest, to read my response to Theroadislong. It should give you a few lessons on how, yes, we can be editors and employees at the same time and seperately. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:38 on June 18, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

18:29:05, 17 June 2020 review of draft by Mopbroomdustpan

I wish to add {{WikiProject Biography}} to the top of the talk page as directed but I could not find a definition of Talk Page. Is that the actual article that I wrote is that something else? In short, where do a put it?

Thank you Mopbroomdustpan (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mopbroomdustpan. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines defines them and how to use them. The TP in question would be Draft talk:Kim Kraig Thompson. You may add {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=|listas=Thompson, Kim Kraig}} there if you wish, but there isn't much point, except perhaps to help reviewers who want to steer clear of biographies, many of which are vanity spam. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:07, 17 June 2020 review of submission by 2405:201:6C01:8FE3:21BC:2AFB:D4BF:DD21

2405:201:6C01:8FE3:21BC:2AFB:D4BF:DD21 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


19:53:46, 17 June 2020 review of submission by Bestinshow1917

Bestinshow1917 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my submission is rejected???

Hi Bestinshow1917 , well, it is clearly stated in the red Message box - "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners." - your draft does not cite any sources at all. Please have a close look at Help:Referencing_for_beginners ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:21:57, 17 June 2020 review of draft by Livelovers

Good day, About 6 months ago, I translated the article “Draft:Jan Gezinyus Dunning” from Russian Wikipedia. In my opinion, the article complies with WP:BASIC because reputable Russian media (such as Kommersant, Interfax, Vedomosti, RBC, Regnum, Forbes, ТАСС, Financial Times) indeed write about Dunning. Besides, in the English Wikipedia, similar articles are published (e.g. “Sergey Galitsky”, “Oleg Zherebtsov”). I tried to ask 1292simon about what was wrong in the article with BLP, but did not get any reply. I would like to ask editors to review the article or point out specific blocking issues. Thank you.

Livelovers (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Livelovers, no idea why 1292simon did not reply - but my question is: Why did you not resubmit the draft in order to get it reviewed again?! Your references are unfortunately all in Russian but this should in the very end no problem at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:06:11, 17 June 2020 review of submission by Rontl

The original decision on this page was that it did not meet the bar for notability, and I have tried to address this. The subject of the article, the Reverse Logistics Association, has since been profiled twice in leading magazines, including Supply Chain Management Review, which is considered by most to be the Harvard Business Review of the supply chain field. The standard for notability requires profiles in leading outlets. I have added citations for those profiles.

The RLA has also been cited numerous times as experts by the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. If the WSJ and Forbes reach out to the RLA as a source of expert information on issues, that would seem to me to be further proof of high standing and reputation. Although this is not part of the Wikipedia standard for notability, I think to most people, if the WSJ and Forbes reach out to you for your expertise, you must be considered a leading expert in a field that is of wide, general interest.

I hope that these inclusions complete the case that the RLA is a widely respected, influential association. Thanks.

Rontl (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:28:35, 17 June 2020 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:7BA4:8001:1DA2:B81C:6F34:2E4D

I have made more changes to make the article as 3rd party neutral as possible and I believe it is now sufficient to be published in its current form having studied many other pages about spinoff bands.

2A00:23C7:7BA4:8001:1DA2:B81C:6F34:2E4D (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you truly feel that this band now meets the special Wikipedia definition of a a notable band, and have the independent reliable sources to support it, you'll need to start from scratch. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

07:17:38, 18 June 2020 review of submission by TheBirdsShedTears

I recently moved sandbox to created a new draft, but it triggered filter 869, performing the action. I am still unable to locate the source(s) responsible for this action. Please help so that i can remove deprecated (unreliable) source from the draft in question. Thanks. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheBirdsShedTears. That edit filter number is Special:AbuseFilter/869 You can read the many parts to the filter, but I would first try removing sputniknews.com from your draft. WP:RS/PS says of it: "Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information ... Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation". --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:10:12, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Kjogitha

Kjogitha (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:10:12, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Kjogitha


Please guide on how to make article better, your comment it sounds like a press release is not pointing out specific problems in the article. She has enough achievements as a local business and more people should know about her work. I have tried to keep the language-neutral based on the information available on her.

Here is a significant article about her which helped me piece together a lot about her work

[1]

Kjogitha (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Prabhakar, Harshita. "Tete-a-tete with spa magnate Rekha Chaudhari". femina.in. Retrieved 18 June 2020.

08:43:43, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Tahagoal

Tahagoal (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:02:40, 18 June 2020 review of draft by JosieJosie


Josie 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am confident why I am receiving copyright alerts. I have written this article myself, in my own words and rewritten several times. I have provided articles, periodicals and more. I am coding references. At this point, I need help.

Hi User:JosieJosie - to be honest I do not understand your concern - your draft has been rejected because the musician lacks of general notability, not because of copyright alerts (?) - please read carefully the comments the reviewer gave you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JosieJosie: I've cleaned up the mess for you. The google docs links need to be replaced with reliable sources. From what I can see they appear to be newspapers, so you can cite the newspaper directly using the Template {{cite news}}. Offline sources are accepted as long as they are accessible. See Wikipedia:Offline_sources. @CommanderWaterford: I have seen you now serveral times confusing "declined" and "rejected". For AfC context, "declined" means "Ehr, this draft wouldn't survive an AfD if it were moved to mainspace but could be improved in a way it does" while "rejection" means "Sorry, but this draft cannot be improved to meet Wikipedia standarts" or sometimes "improving this draft so that meets Wikipedia standarts results in revwriting it from scratch". Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well Victor Schmidt, rejected is a synonym for declined in the English language so if I am using either of these words that doesn't mean that I seem to be "confused" :) but I got your point. Thanks anyway. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:19:23, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Beyonceluver99

I added sources and citations to the parts that weren't cited.

Beyonceluver99 (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beyonceluver99, welcome to the AfC Helpdesk - what exactly is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:32:02, 18 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Aestheticorange

im wondering why my post was denied the reason given was that social media wasnt a good refrence and if that is the case what are good refrences?

Aestheticorange (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aestheticorange, to answer your question have a close study over here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:51, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Safwanfazil

Safwanfazil (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Safwanfazil - what exactly is your question/concern? CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13:55:21, 18 June 2020 review of draft by Carrieruggieri


Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Is anyone willing to have a look at my revision of accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy before I resubmit? I would love suggestions before I resubmit. thank you. I sent a request before but I didn't get a response. I don't know if its because its in line waiting to be seen, or if there wasn't a person interested in reviewing this article. Thank you in advance. Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered earlier at #20:20:12, 13 June 2020 review of draft by Carrieruggieri. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Please see comment at the draft. Fiddle Faddle 14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this request. I did get a nice reply, but I hadn't seen it. Thank you Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:00:35, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Safwanfazil

I created this page for my company, but it got rejected. please twll the reason Safwanfazil (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Safwanfazil. Wikipedia may not be used to tell the world about your company. You may do that on your own website. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:46:09, 18 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by RINCE ROY


RINCE ROY (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:53:46, 18 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Surface2016

I am request assistance with the submission for Droplet Lab. I am not sure what other sources need to be added to prove that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. There were Wikipedia links embedded into the submission as well as reference to scientific journals. I hope you can help us out, thank you in advance!

Surface2016 (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:44, 18 June 2020 review of draft by Turningworldly


Hi. I'm trying to draft my first biography, for the urbanist Jonathan Manns, which is in the Articles for Creation section. It was recently declined with c.50 references, a mix of books/newspapers/websites, for unsubstantiated significance. I've had another review and increased the sources further to c.65, but worry I may not be heading in the right direction. I would really appreciate some assistance in suggesting where it requires further evidence or substantiation (or indeed if there's any merit in further sources at all, and it's about different sources). I've left a note for the reviewer, so look forward to feedback on that, but it's my first effort and I'd really like to think it's not been a wasted effort if there are some simple fixes....so any help from the wider community as well to help get me where I need to be would be a huge help....

Turningworldly (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to go, take care not to run foul of WP:REFBOMB, three strong sources can be enough to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:14, 18 June 2020 review of draft by RINCE ROY


RINCE ROY (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined with rationale on the draft Fiddle Faddle 19:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:15:23, 18 June 2020 review of draft by Thekid114


I had this kicked back due to Twitter references, but those are the only sources of information outside of commentary from the actress herself. Furthermore, most of that narrative was edited by the actress prior to being submitted. I understand Wiki's policy on citation, but this seems to be a little unfair for voice actors who don't actively go out seeking press releases or websites to boast about their own deeds.

For filmography, I added an external link for the IMDB, where the data was all collected from. I have no problems doing a single-line citation note at the beginning of each section - but to constantly ibid the entire section for each role is certainly not valid in any writing manual or style.

Judging from similar articles scattered all over wiki, this page was hardly the worst in terms of citation. I find it oddly peculiar for this one to have been kicked back, regardless of the use of Twitter statuses as citation. I understand that Wiki has been attempting to repair it's image with academia, but this is ill the way to do so. I implore the editors to review the latest edition of their various writing style guides, as per at least the 2009 revision for Chicago Turabian, Twitter, Facebook, and other Social Media outlets have since been marked as valid citable primary sources for information. (See sec 17.7.3, Social Networking Websites in Author Date Bibliographical Data, Revision 8.)

So - if it's good enough for academia, then what is good enough for Wiki? Explanations would be appreciated, please.

Thekid114 (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. Your challenge for this draft is to find references which cite the subject's notability. If the other pages you have found do not assert and verify notability then they are likely to be subject to one of the deletion mechanisms. The AFC scheme is intended to save article authors from false hopes. Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


So is the implication here that the section isn't relevant or noteworthy because Wiki arbitrarily decides that Twitter posts are not valid sources? Your response doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You cite notability, but you ignore specific reach of individuals either by their choice or by their limitations. Again, the argument for shutting down the submission was the sources are not credible or valid - which is fundamentally false.

So, what I interpret here as the options are is: 1, Totally remove the section that references Twitter citation (which there-in-turn ignores an entire suite of primary sources), or; 2, arbitrarily cite a page that aggregates the social media content into a narrative statement - for Wiki to also turn down because it'd be a copyright violation. I understand Wiki being scared of having bad information out there, but this is going from one side of the spectrum of legitimacy to the other - neither are good.

I'm trying to understand the reasoning here, because it just does not make any sense to me. The feedback is excessively vague, and seems to be more stacked against people making contributions based on primary sources.

Thekid114 (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the perosn is notable then it is to to you or others to assert and prove that. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge that is referenced from reliable sources. These are not primary sources, and never can be, though a certain amount of reference to those sources is permitted. Self generated sources fail that test.
That ine can be enthusiastic about a draft topic is wonderful, but there is a point when lack of reliable references means that the person is not yet notable in Wikipedia terms.
Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything may be more help to you. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then, what the implication seems to be here is that this specific set of information - The charity section in this case - fails Wikipedia's standards because it only exclusively references Twitter. Am I reading you right?

Thekid114 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not, and will not ever be, a reliable source. There is a lot of hard work involved in establishing the notability of a living person.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
There is a deal of reading matter here, all of which has been developed over many years. Fiddle Faddle 19:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this eventual clarification, but the statement of Twitter *not* being a source is factually false. Again, I cite Sec 17.7.3 in Revision 8 of the Turabian style guide, and literally just about every style guide and academic profile that exists after 2010. Wiki does not set the academic standard for sources - it only does so within it's area of influence.

I'll consider revision of this, but at this point, I'd rather be contributing to other research opportunities that base their guidelines on research integrity, neutral composition of sources, and equal weight of resources that are recognized, rather than deal with arbitrary guidelines that are ambiguous at best - such as what Wiki seems to have.

What a frustrating and annoying experience...

Thekid114 (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every project you choose to contribute to will have different rules. There are discussion boards where you may seek to change the rules here, which may succeed since the rules are built by consensus.
I stated that Twitter will not be a reliable source. It is most assuredly a source. But it can not ever pass WP:RS Fiddle Faddle 19:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:18:59, 18 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Yankeejess

Here is the Update that still needs to get done right away On The Web Site at www.en.wikipedia.org On The WNET Page The Old Red THIRTEEN PBS Logo needs to be replaced with The New Black & White THIRTEEN PBS Logo MEDIA WITH IMPACT thats On The New Web Site at www.thirteen.org thats on the top left needs to get put on right away & Would you please keep that in mind & don,t forget to go On The New Web Site at www.thirteen.org The New Black & White THIRTEEN PBS Logo MEDIA WITH IMPACT is on the top left needs to get put on right away & don,t forget to take care of it right away & don,t forget to let me know when its all set & done with & don,t forget to get this problem fixed big time right away & don,t forget.

Yankeejess (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use fewer words, add a link to the draft you speak of, and clarify what you wish to happen Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:20, 18 June 2020 review of submission by Thamizhselvan007

Thamizhselvan007 (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Keprevos has been declined, with rationale given by the reviewer. What additional help would you like, please? Fiddle Faddle 19:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:59:06, 18 June 2020 review of draft by Hllywd415


I would like to ask if the following entertaiment related article with Spanish references would have issues being accepted. The issue I face with this is my first article entry for entertainers and I am unaware of any challenges this may face. I have included as many articles I deemed necessary to establish a merit of entry. Please let me know what do you think and provide feedback on what it may need some consideration.

One article in which I found some good info has some type of subscription. Therefore I fear that part of the article may get some kind of push. But the rest has multiple. Luckily it has english and spanish articles in countless media outlets.

Thank you for your help. Any help or guidance is welcome or even alter the code if you want. You are welcome to.

Hllywd415

Hllywd415 (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done commented on the draft itself. Non English language references are not a problem, but do need to be validated by a Spanish speaker Fiddle Faddle 21:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

02:39:53, 19 June 2020 review of draft by Klamb70

Hello, I greatly appreciate the speed in which my article was reviewed; I was worried it would take weeks. I understand the policy for articles featuring political candidates not being appropriate for Wikipedia as that would clog the site immensely. However, I strongly disagree that the subject lacks notability. The subject is the first openly non-binary person to run for US Senate against incumbent Susan Collins. This is a race that has been highly publicized, watched internationally, and is funneling more money than any Maine campaign has ever seen. Bre's victory in the primary will thrust them into the global spotlight and will automatically grant their campaign millions of dollars raised by donors who were angered by the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh. Just using the term "non-binary," "queer," and the pronouns "they/them" have become widespread - albeit painfully - in the media publications surrounding their campaign. Susan Collins' campaign has taken notice and hopes to use Mx. Kidman as a spoiler, yet this is a race with an unpopular Democratic challenger and an election using Ranked-Choice Voting, another historic event in American democracy. Please refer to the page of Mike Broihier, another US Senate candidate in another highly publicized senate race in Kentucky. Mr. Brohier, like Mx. Kidman, has never served elected office; his history is in the Marines, followed by owning a farm and working as a substitute teacher. He is running for a party nomination, just like Bre Kidman. Given that his page is live and Bre's was declined almost instantly, I kindly request feedback as to how I can make Bre's page meet the same standards as Mike Broihier, otherwise I request that either my page about senate nomination candidate Bre Kidman be made live, or that senate nomination candidate Mike Broihier's page be taken down for the grounds that are keeping my page from being published. While Mike has clearly served his country and family well, Bre has worked in Washington, DC, formed policy, and is the first trans/non-binary US Senate candidate ever. I kindly request your reconsideration in this matter. Thank you!

Klamb70 (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:15:58, 19 June 2020 review of submission by Tickono5

I am new here to Wikipedia, & I am writing related to a company in Kolkata. Tickono5 (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=963324831"