No edit summary |
|||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2016 August 18}} |
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2016 August 18}} |
||
⚫ | |||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2016 August 19}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
Benjamin R. Teitelbaum |
|||
⚫ | |||
Hello. I am still waiting for a review of a page that was declined twice. I've been waiting for about a month now, and I feel that the page addresses the complaints of the reviewers. I believe my efforts were unsuccessful first because of how I organized the page. The issue has been the subjects notability, which I find to be a non-issue myself and have done what I can time permitting to harvest sources. I am a Swede and so some of the sources I use are in Swedish (and that is where we can see some of his notability too, so they must be included in the page). [[User:AxelRR|AxelRR]] ([[User talk:AxelRR|talk]]) 10:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
:Hi {{u|AlexRR}}. I reviewed and accepted your submission two days ago. It is now a published Wikipedia article. I did leave a message on your talk page to that effect but perhaps you missed it. In any case, thanks for your contribution and I hope you'll continue to help improve the encyclopaedia. [[User:Joe Roe|Joe Roe]] ([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]]) 13:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{Lafc|username=Seedsforchange|ts=20:02:58, 19 August 2016|pending=Draft:Suri_Sehgal_(Surinder_Mohan_Sehgal)}} |
|||
Dear Helpful Editor team--I am curious to know if anyone can tell me what might be reasons for the seemingly long gap of time since submitting this new page for review. This is the 2nd page I've created and the first one was reviewed so rapidly, once I first submitted it, that I may just be unfamiliar with the norm. I am eager to keep improving the pages I work on, of course, and welcome any and all advice or assistance. Thank you!!![[User:Seedsforchange|Seedsforchange]] ([[User talk:Seedsforchange|talk]]) 20:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
:Greetings and welcome to WikiProject Articles for Creation! The long gap in time is because of the large backlog (800+ pages currently) and the limited time available by the volunteer reviewers. |
|||
:My standard advice, that some may or may not agree with, is this: |
|||
{{signpost quote|Chop the draft down to ONE (1) small paragraph and concentrate only on finding '''[[WP:INDY|independent]]''' and '''[[WP:RS|reliable references]]''' to show '''[[WP:N|notability]]'''.}} |
|||
:This will greatly help the reviewers and often will lead to quicker acceptance of notable topics. After a draft is accepted, it can be expanded, within the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Happy editing! -- [[User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR|<span style="background-color:#FFFF99;">'''1Wiki8'''</span>...........................]] ([[User_talk:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR|talk]]) 09:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
= August 20 = |
= August 20 = |
||
Line 68: | Line 88: | ||
Joe Thanks for your feedback. Please note that Slicksosa in not connected to me and I am unclear as to why Slicksosa repeated my question. Anyway... unfortunately, an editor declined the article citing lack of Notability. I thought my references were independent and reliable?[[User:DHeidtman|DHeidtman]] ([[User talk:DHeidtman|talk]]) 19:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC) |
Joe Thanks for your feedback. Please note that Slicksosa in not connected to me and I am unclear as to why Slicksosa repeated my question. Anyway... unfortunately, an editor declined the article citing lack of Notability. I thought my references were independent and reliable?[[User:DHeidtman|DHeidtman]] ([[User talk:DHeidtman|talk]]) 19:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
Hi Wiki world, does anyone have anything to note about FierceBiotech as a reliable source of information? Thanks |
|||
:{{ping|DHeidtman}}. I've suggested on the draft how it might be improved. --[[User:Worldbruce|Worldbruce]] ([[User talk:Worldbruce|talk]]) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:DHeidtman|DHeidtman]] ([[User talk:DHeidtman|talk]]) |
|||
Worldbruce, thanks for your helpful feedback and most appreciate the references! [[User:DHeidtman|DHeidtman]] ([[User talk:DHeidtman|talk]]) 19:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
= August 21 = |
= August 21 = |
||
Line 190: | Line 209: | ||
I would appreciate any suggestions you can offer to convince the reviewers that this is not notable. |
I would appreciate any suggestions you can offer to convince the reviewers that this is not notable. |
||
Thank you, |
Thank you, |
||
[[User:Njnorland|Njnorland]] ([[User talk:Njnorland|talk]]) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
[[User:Njnorland|Njnorland]] ([[User talk:Njnorland|talk]]) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Njnorland |
||
⚫ | |||
:You are correct. I've accepted the draft, apologies for the oversight. [[User:Joe Roe|Joe Roe]] ([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]]) 14:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
= August 23 = |
= August 23 = |
||
Line 231: | Line 249: | ||
I'm not sure what steps to take next in improving the article. Thanks in advance for your help! |
I'm not sure what steps to take next in improving the article. Thanks in advance for your help! |
||
:Hi {{u|EditSC}}. Unfortunately the existence and/or quality of other articles has no bearing on your draft. Sometimes sub-standard articles slip through, so we can only judge each submission on its own merits. |
|||
:Your draft has lots of references but few of them are what we consider [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. You should remove all the references to blogs, GitHub, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc. as these are all [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] and are not acceptable. You can keep the references to the software's website and publications authored by its developers, but these can only be used to verify information in the article. They don't establish the subject's notability because they were written by people associated with it. To demonstrate notability, we need evidence that the software has been discussed (at some length) in '''independent''' and '''reliable''' sources like a newspaper or a peer-reviewed academic publication (by somebody else, not the developers). I don't see any of those in your draft. [[User:Joe Roe|Joe Roe]] ([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]]) 14:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
= August 24 = |
= August 24 = |
||
Line 254: | Line 269: | ||
Best, |
Best, |
||
AgungKodok |
AgungKodok |
||
:Hi {{u|AgungKodok}}. A subsidiary of a larger company is highly unlikely to be [[WP:CORP|notable]] enough for its own article, and we prefer not to split our coverage of closely related subjects across different articles unless absolutely necessary. You should instead expand our article on [[Bakrie Group]]. If you do so, the redirect can be altered so it sends people directly to the section dealing on Bakrie & Brothers. [[User:Joe Roe|Joe Roe]] ([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]]) 14:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== 09:15:16, 24 August 2016 review of submission by Dr. Dabby == |
== 09:15:16, 24 August 2016 review of submission by Dr. Dabby == |
||
Line 274: | Line 287: | ||
:Hi [[User:Dr. Dabby|Dr. Dabby]], the draft is "on hold" until the copyright issue is resolved, once that's done we will take another look at it. [[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 09:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC) |
:Hi [[User:Dr. Dabby|Dr. Dabby]], the draft is "on hold" until the copyright issue is resolved, once that's done we will take another look at it. [[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 09:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Request on 13:20:03, 24 August 2016 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by DCM18395 == |
|||
{{anchor|13:20:03, 24 August 2016 review of submission by DCM18395}} |
|||
{{Lafc|username=DCM18395|ts=13:20:03, 24 August 2016|declinedtalk=Draft:Murgitroyd_and_Group_PLC}} |
|||
<!-- Start of message --> |
|||
Hello, I require help regarding the submission a wikipedia page on an intellectual property firm I have been researching. The article is getting declined due to lack of noteability however I have referenced BBC news, the Scotsman on several occasions, most of which are independent of the company. Why is this not considered notable? |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
help please. This article is always deleted and i dont know why.Username Footballasia Alagie Ousman Jeng |
|||
:Because we already agreed in the discussion [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alagie Ousman Jeng]] that Jeng is not [[:WP:BIO|notable enough to justify an article about him in an encyclopedia]]. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 18:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
== Request on 13:48:57, 25 August 2016 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by Lordfarquaad == |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{Lafc|username=Lordfarquaad|ts=13:48:57, 25 August 2016|declinedtalk=User_talk:Lordfarquaad}} |
|||
<!-- Start of message --> |
|||
I uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons that I own (I took the photo of the subject) and would like to put in the public domain. I thought I did that when I uploaded it (put it under the right license) but then I added it to an AfC I'm working on, it was rejected because the reviewer said the image was a copyright violation. The image is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwindt-Daniel1.jpg |
|||
Can you let me know what I'm doing wrong to make it still under copyright? It does appear elsewhere online, but under my permission. |
|||
⚫ | |||
:Hi {{u|Lordfarquaad}} I have restored the infobox with the image as I don't see any copyright problem. Perhaps {{u| David.moreno72}} can help clarify the issue. [[User:Dodger67|Roger (Dodger67)]] ([[User talk:Dodger67|talk]]) 14:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:00, 25 August 2016
Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category — List (sorting) | Showcase | Participants Apply — By subject | Reviewing instructions | Help desk | Backlog drives |
- This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
- For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
- Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
- Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question Please check back often for answers. |
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions |
---|
August 16
00:45:12, 16 August 2016 review of submission by Virksaite
- Virksaite (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Intelligence of corvids ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
00:45:12, 16 August 2016 review of submission by {{SUBST:VIRKSAITE}}
- First, you already asked at the Teahouse, and were given a detailed critique. Your article is not in the formal neutral tone of an encyclopedic article. Second, after your draft was declined twice, you deleted the record of the decline. AFC decline notices state that they should not be removed. They remain as part of the history of the draft, and are removed by a script when the draft is accepted. Maybe you didn't notice that you are not supposed to remove the decline notices. Now you know. Do not remove AFC decline notices, and just asking the same question in multiple places until you get the answer that you want doesn't help, and may be considered forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
11:46:26, 16 August 2016 review of submission by Pichiciago
- Pichiciago (talk · contribs) ()
Is CNN considered a reliable source? Our company was covered by a 15-minute segment on CNN Intermational, I thought this would count as notability. Yet the page has been refused. What else can we offer ? We have been published in plenty of German-language publications, do those count? (EDIT: btw we did not solicit any coverage on CNN - they came to us).
Pichiciago (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Pichiciago. CNN is certainly considered a reliable source. If the German publications you mentioned fulfill our criteria for a reliable source, they can count towards establishing notability too – the language doesn't matter.
- However, I noticed that in your draft you only cited four sources and only two of them were independent of the company. You can't expect the your reviewer to know take into account sources you haven't cited! Moreover, the two independent sources you mentioned don't actually mention the company, they're about a project it participated in. If a company is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopaedia there should be substantial information about the company in multiple, independent reliable sources.
- More seriously, you said "our company": according to our conflict of interest policy editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles in which they have a financial conflict of interest, include an article about your employer. I'd advise you not to continue working on the draft. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle; if your company is notable, somebody will write an article about it in time. Joe Roe (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
20:08:20, 16 August 2016 review of draft by Tpalum24
- Tpalum24 (talk · contribs) ()
- User:Tpalum24/sandbox/Puronics, Inc. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have submitted a page for review but I realized i submitted a sandbox page from my user instead of a draft for the page. This is my first time making a page and I was wondering if there is anything I can do to change this or if it is something that people who are reviewing will see quickly and change. I can't move it out of the sandbox because my user is too new and I couldn't understand if I could do anything or not from the help pages.
Thanks
Tpalum24 (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Tpalum24. That's no problem at all, it happens quite often. I've moved your draft to Draft:Puronics, Inc.. Joe Roe (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpalum24 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The Coyne DC-1 needs Article verifications and needs to be rewritten and a lot of reseach of this car please?
- What is the question? I think that you have answered the question. It needs references, which will involve research. Read referencing for beginners on how to do the references, and Your first article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Rowde (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
August 17
The Coyne DC-1 needs Article verifications and needs to be rewritten and a lot of reseach of this car please?
- What is the question? I think that you have answered the question. It needs references, which will involve research. Read referencing for beginners on how to do the references, and Your first article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Rowde (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Request on 13:41:01, 17 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lizzie656
- Lizzie656 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Dr. Sharon Weiss-Greenberg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
My draft of a page for Dr. Sharon Weiss-Greenberg was rejected partly because the same information was uploaded to my User page and I was mistaken as have written the page about myself, but I am not Sharon Weiss-Greenberg, and as a new Wikipedia editor accidentally uploaded all the information I meant to use towards creating a page to my user page. I have just fixed this error, but still have questions. It also said my article didn't sound like it was from a neutral point of view-how can I change that? I also said that the sources I used were written by the subject of the article, which inst true. I will rewrite my submission in compliance with the policies as best as I can but am a little muddled on how to include more verfiable sources when in my opinion the article is loaded with sources.
Lizzie656 (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Lizzie656 (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like some of this is may be a problem with how you are approaching the lead. Normally you want to give a brief overview of who the person is, and then hit a couple of the most important points about them. Compare two hypothetical leads on me (this is all completely made up off the top of my head):
Number one:
Timothyjosephwood has edited many important articles on Wikipedia and has been active in many projects including Military History, and Feminism. He's been on Wikipedia since 2008 and has thousands of edits. He has lived in Bavaria, Germany; South Carolina, and Kentucky. He taught in social work as a graduate student and has worked on many research projects. He is married to his wife Cindy and has one daughter.
Number two:
Timothyjosephwood is an American Wikipedia editor with a professional background in the field of social work.
- The first one sounds like you're trying to sell me like a used car. The second one is very to-the-point, and just gives the bare essentials needed for someone to figure out who we're talking about. All the gory details can fit just fine in the body, but are probably a bit much for the lead. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 15:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oops. Forgot to ping @Lizzie656:. TimothyJosephWood 15:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
15:50:21, 17 August 2016 review of submission by Tpalum24
The page I recently submitted for review has been flagged for potential copyright use, I understand why this has been flagged and have changed the draft in a Word document to not contain copyright infringing material. I was wondering if someone could steer me in the direction of what I am supposed to do, either about making another draft or if i should just edit the draft itself. There is a template stating that it is being investigated and I don't think I should just delete the template since it states not to.
I tried to make a temporary subpage with the changes but it got immediately deleted. I must have read the instructions incorrectly on what to do and obviously did something incorrectly.
Any advice would be helpful.
Thanks Tpalum24 (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- You could either remove the template and the contet which is copyright infringing, and add new content. Someone will then request the old revisions of the article to be deleted. Or you could just wait for the investigation, which will remove the infringing content and the template and then you can either rewrite if necessary, or resubmit for review. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
20:01:44, 17 August 2016 review of submission by Incredibleshane
- Incredibleshane (talk · contribs) ()
- No draft specified!
Hello, Steve Herndon, the former NFL player has asked me to add an image to his wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Herndon there is an automated block on the page to edit it in any way it seems. Please let me know how to proceed. Steve has full rights to the image I'm trying to upload. Thank you. Incredibleshane (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Incredibleshane. It's strange that you can't edit the article, it's not protected as far as I can tell.
- However, the first hurdle is getting your image uploaded. Wikipedia has to be very strict about the licensing of its images. I notice you've already asked about that at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but one thing they haven't suggested is that if Mr. Herndon owns the photos he could simply create an account on Wikimedia Commons himself (preferably under his real name) and upload and release the image personally. You could then easily include it on the Wikipedia article (or ask someone else to, if the "block" problem persists). That removes the need for an OTRS request, which unfortunately are taking upwards of six months to clear at the moment. Joe Roe (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Joe, Steve did exactly what you said and the image was removed. He was told to do an OTRS request. On the last line of his Wikipedia page it references him working at Safety Net Recovery. I am just trying to get the same image from Safety Net Recovery's website on his Wikipedia page. As you can see there isn't even a copyright warning on Safety Net's website https://www.safetynetrecovery.com/our-staff/ Please advise. Thank you. I'm just trying to use the same image on that link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleshane (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that. Images and licensing can be a bit of a nightmare around here.
- Photographs are automatically copyrighted unless the author explicitly asserts otherwise, so unfortunately the lack of a copyright notice on the web page doesn't help us. Because the image has been previously published elsewhere we need the ORTS request to prove that it has been released under a license Wikipedia can use.
- I had assumed you meant an original, unpublished photo before, sorry. If Mr. Herndon had uploaded one of those we would be able to simply take his assertion that he owned the work and that he released it. Otherwise, you will have to go through the OTRS process (which will work eventually, it just takes some time.) Joe Roe (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
23:15:30, 17 August 2016 review of submission by Laura bachrach
- Laura bachrach (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Victoria Brynner ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
{{SAFESUBST:Void|
Hello, I resubmitted my AFC on July 25 and it has not yet been reviewed. I understand that there is a backlog... Should I contact the first person who reviewed the article originally and provided me feedback? I have continued to refine the article since I last submitted. I look forward to hearing from someone. Thank you. Laura
Laura bachrach (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there is a particularly severe backlog at the moment and it may take several weeks for your submission to be reviewed. You're welcome to contact the person who last reviewed it, although ordinarily it wouldn't be them who reviewed it for the second time and they'd be under no obligation to. Often a second opinion is useful. You may just have to be patient, I'm afraid. Joe Roe (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
August 18
08:08:39, 18 August 2016 review of submission by Jemmans
- Hi Jemmans Do you have a question for us? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
15:01:25, 18 August 2016 review of submission by Caitdaly91
- Caitdaly91 (talk · contribs) (TB)
I've adjusted the commercial references as suggested by twister sister (last reviewer), and have since reached out on talk and by requesting rereview. It's been over a month. Could someone else please review my page and offer me assistance? This is my first time generating a new Wikipedia article, and I'm creating it under the instruction of the person of interest, Farnoosh Moshiri.
- Hi Caitdaly. You should be very cautious about editing articles on the subject's behalf. Please see our conflict of interest policy.
- I'm afraid we currently have a higher than usual backlog at AfC and it will take some time for your submission to be reviewed. Please be patient. Joe Roe (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
15:16:49, 18 August 2016 review of submission by 98.160.205.19
- 98.160.205.19 (talk · contribs) (TB)
15:16:49, 18 August 2016 review of submission by 98.160.205.19
How are you, my page was just not approved and I look at other actors and see that they have a quick bio about them first. Could this be the reason of rejection. Because I do have notable references and records I broke, Also I Am The Cousin to Jimi Hendrix, and I understand the family connection can't do much for you. But, he was a icon. Also I have Done/Worked on many celebrity's project with them. So can you please tell me exactly what I need to get my WIKI approved. You can reply on my talk page. Thank You 98.160.205.19 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Phillip Allen Hall III Filmography
- Are you writing an article about yourself? Doing so is strongly discourage by Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Joe Roe (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
21:37:37, 18 August 2016 review of submission by Hollanddames
- Hollanddames (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hollanddames (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Hello, how do I upload the logo for the organization? Thank you!
- Hi Hollanddames. You'll need to wait until your submission is accepted before uploading it. Although it is possible to upload company logos, to comply with copyright law they must be used on a published article about the company (not a draft).
- By the way, I notice that your username is similar to your draft's title. Please note that Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy strongly discourages people from editing articles about organisations they have a personal connection with. Also, usernames that refer to groups are forbidden under our username policy. You will have to change your username to something that doesn't imply you are editing as/on behalf of a group. Joe Roe (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
August 19
10:24:03, 19 August 2016 review of submission by AxelRR
Hello. I am still waiting for a review of a page that was declined twice. I've been waiting for about a month now, and I feel that the page addresses the complaints of the reviewers. I believe my efforts were unsuccessful first because of how I organized the page. The issue has been the subjects notability, which I find to be a non-issue myself and have done what I can time permitting to harvest sources. I am a Swede and so some of the sources I use are in Swedish (and that is where we can see some of his notability too, so they must be included in the page). AxelRR (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
AxelRR (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi AlexRR. I reviewed and accepted your submission two days ago. It is now a published Wikipedia article. I did leave a message on your talk page to that effect but perhaps you missed it. In any case, thanks for your contribution and I hope you'll continue to help improve the encyclopaedia. Joe Roe (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
20:02:58, 19 August 2016 review of submission by Seedsforchange
- Seedsforchange (talk · contribs) (TB)
Dear Helpful Editor team--I am curious to know if anyone can tell me what might be reasons for the seemingly long gap of time since submitting this new page for review. This is the 2nd page I've created and the first one was reviewed so rapidly, once I first submitted it, that I may just be unfamiliar with the norm. I am eager to keep improving the pages I work on, of course, and welcome any and all advice or assistance. Thank you!!!Seedsforchange (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Seedsforchange (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Greetings and welcome to WikiProject Articles for Creation! The long gap in time is because of the large backlog (800+ pages currently) and the limited time available by the volunteer reviewers.
- My standard advice, that some may or may not agree with, is this:
- This will greatly help the reviewers and often will lead to quicker acceptance of notable topics. After a draft is accepted, it can be expanded, within the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Happy editing! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
August 20
Request on 11:42:10, 20 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Gianmcap
Greetings and thank you for the help,
I have tried to add this entry twice and i am told by the reviewer that the person is not notable enough and that my citations are not adequate. I dont really understand why since the entry is about a person who is a Knight of the Order of St George, is CEO of a Billion dollar company and recently married the Princess of Jordan who is the sister of the King of Jordan. Additionally he is a registered Lobbyist in Ontario.
I have cited sources such as the Jordan Times, Companies House in the UK and the Order of St George.
Please could you help me to understand what I am doing wrong in getting this approved? I had shown it to people on the chat and they didnt point out any issues with it so i thought that this time it was ok. I just had it refused again and I would like to ensure i can fix it to the level that will be accepted by Wikipedia.
Thanks again Gian
Gianmcap (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Gianmcap, welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk. Notability has a highly specialized meaning on Wikipedia. Essentially it comes down to "has the subject received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? What the person is, what they have done, and who they have done it with are not directly relevant, although those things may have influenced whether independent reliable sources have written about them.
- Of the cited sources, Defence Unlimited is not independent. The Order of St George (this particular one, by the way, is not a well-known or significant award or honor), University of Toronto, Companies House, and The Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries don't mention him. (You may be missing the point of inline citations. When the draft states "he gained a B.Comm – Accounting from the University of Toronto", you need a reference that says as much. A reference that merely shows the University of Toronto exists is useless.) Companies House (beta) is a directory listing, not significant coverage. The Royal Forums does not have the characteristics of a reliable source. Finally, The Jordan Times is a passing mention, a mere two sentences.
- Searching Google Books, Google newspapers, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, Google scholar, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and The New York Times for "Ed Banayoti" produced zero results. Searching Google and Google News returned a few results, but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Perhaps searching by a variation of his name, or searching in additional places, would be more successful, but it looks like you've chosen a topic that cannot meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. No amount of editing can overcome that.
16:21:42, 20 August 2016 review of submission by DHeidtman
DHeidtman (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
My article was declined citing that it read more like advertising than an article. I would like to resubmit with a neutral voice and am looking for advice. Appreciate any help!
Slicksosa (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC) My article was declined citing that it read more like advertising thwan an article. I would like to resubmit with a neutral voice and am looking for advice. Appreciate any help!
- Hi DHeidtman/Slicksosa. Your draft is looking in much better shape now. Just stick to the facts. Remember, Wikipedia is here simply to tell our readers what a company does and what it's known for, not to promote or aggrandise it in any way. Joe Roe (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Joe Thanks for your feedback. Please note that Slicksosa in not connected to me and I am unclear as to why Slicksosa repeated my question. Anyway... unfortunately, an editor declined the article citing lack of Notability. I thought my references were independent and reliable?DHeidtman (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wiki world, does anyone have anything to note about FierceBiotech as a reliable source of information? Thanks DHeidtman (talk)
August 21
14:11:48, 21 August 2016 review of submission by 2601:187:8102:95D0:C8C4:8361:B479:F71B
Hi Topher,
You declined my submission, based on that it was about a single "news event," however, the actual span of time between the disappearance, the subsequent murders, and the digging up of the bones was 26 years. Also, currently, further attempts to uncover Marie's remains have been made recently by NamUs, but are being deliberately blocked by the Sheriff's department. There were articles regarding her disappearance in 1977, then articles regarding Ramon Rogers' murders in 1996. There were articles from California, as well as from Idaho, and there are articles from Kansas.
I would appreciate any help in understanding why the submission was denied, and how I might improve it.
Thank you very much! 2601:187:8102:95D0:C8C4:8361:B479:F71B (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to the AfC help desk. I didn't review your draft, but hopefully I can be of some help anyway. For our purposes an "event" is not defined by the span of time but refers to the fact that Wikipedia is not a news outlet, so we don't automatically cover newsworthy events – only ones that have a lasting notability. However, I believe User;Topher385 referred you to the wrong guideline: WP:EVENT explains our notability guidelines for events. In short, you will need to show that the murders had either lasting significance (i.e. they have continued to be discussed long after the events themselves unfolded) or a widespread impact (i.e. its effects reverberated beyond the local area and it was reported in national or international media). If they were just part of the routine news cycle, they are probably not notable. You will need to prove this by adding citations to multiple reliable sources (major newspapers etc.) that discussed the events in depth. Joe Roe (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Request on 14:49:12, 21 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Yom-tov12
Hello, I wrote the article Kamada (pharmaceutical company) and it doesn't approved by you. i wonder what kind of information is still needed foe an international company lie Kamada in order to create an article. is there any problem with the sources or with the details? I'll appreciate your help. Yom-tov12 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Yom-tov12. As stated in the review, the problem with your draft was not in the information you provided but the question of whether this company is notable enough for inclusion at all. Most subjects do not deserve their own encylopaedia article. Wikipedia's threshold for whether we should have an article is called notability. You can read our full notability guidelines for companies, but the short version is that we need to see significant coverage of the company in reliable sources that are independent of the company itself, to show that it is notable. Your article only references three sources and only two of those are both reliable and independent, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. You will need to try and find more sources before submitting it for review again. Joe Roe (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
August 22
08:58:05, 22 August 2016 review of submission by 195.59.246.234
- 195.59.246.234 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, the page failed GNG but not quite sure why.
I can point to equivalent pages for the other leading Spanish football clubs (FC Barcelona Juvenil A, Atlético Madrid (youth), Sevilla FC (youth), Valencia CF (youth), Villarreal CF (youth) and Real Madrid C.F. (youth), Real Madrid Juvenil B, Real Madrid Juvenil C - the last 3 are all for the same club!) as evidence of the sufficient notability of teams in this category. The other clubs also have separate pages for their reserve entities (Athletic Bilbao B, Sevilla Atlético etc) showing a precedent for youth and reserve teams being split in this way on Wikipedia rather than the youth rosters being added to the reserve pages. In terms of interest in the club itself, Athletic Bilbao is obviously less high-profile than Real Madrid and Barcelona but on a similar level to Atletico Madrid, Sevilla and Valencia, and certainly more than Villarreal. Moreover their reliance on players from their youth academy rather than bringing in transfers from other clubs makes theirs one of the most noteworthy in Spain.
I can also link directly to external pages for the competitions entered by the team as sources, but wherever possible I have already linked to the Wiki articles which I would have thought was a preferable method since the information on these existing pages is already verified (presumably?).
Any other suggestions on how this can be improved for acceptance are much appreciated!
PS this is the second tme i have submitted this, it appeared to attach to someone else's request previously so apologies all round for that, hopefully better now...! 195.59.246.234 (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- @195.59.246.234: That is odd. There is clearly a precedent for having Spanish La Liga youth clubs on Wikipedia, which the reviewer might have missed. Perhaps User:CatcherStorm could shed some light on this? jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
09:36:28, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Taronga013
- Taronga013 (talk · contribs) (TB)
- No draft specified!
Taronga013 (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
SICPA submission
12:24:18, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Iainplunkett
- Iainplunkett (talk · contribs) (TB)
In July, I put together a draft for a company called SICPA. I have been asked to do this by the company and I am paid for my time. I realise that there are very stringent conflict of interest criteria and it was my intention to put the article in sandbox and ask others to comment prior to submission. However, unless I was doing something very wrong (extremely possible) the only way I could save my draft was to automatically submit the piece.
Unsurprisingly it was rejected. The primary reason given was that I had not followed the paid contributor policy properly. This is true but, in my defense, I hadn't actually wanted to submit the article at the point I did. I have since had other comments about the article's suitability which I have tried to incorporate in a rewrite.
I would like to ask exactly what I should do to comply with the paid contributor process before I resubmit. I have stated an interest in my user profile but I know I haven't put the proper templates where they need to go but, to be honest, I got a little confused as to where I was placing things! It says to put the contributor template on the talk page of the draft article but I couldn't see how to do that. Sorry.
Any help and guidance you can given me would be gratefully received. Iainplunkett (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- The draft was not submitted when you first saved it, it was submitted when you added the {{AfC submission}} template along with an explicit request for other editors to review it. I am struggling to see how this could be a mistaken submission.
- In order to comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use you must make a paid editing disclosure in at least one of three ways: on your user page (which you have done), on the article's talk page (which User:Worldbruce did for you), and in the edit summary for any edit you make to an affected article (which I don't believe you have done). All this information is at WP:PAID.
- However, complying with Wikimedia's terms of use (a bare-minimum legal requirement) is not the same as complying with the Wikipedia community's policies and guidelines on paid editing. There is a strong consensus that editors with a COI, especially paid editors, should not be directly involved with editing articles at all. To comply with the community consensus, you should cease editing immediately, go back to this company, give them back their money, and tell them that Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle and that they cannot buy their way into an encyclopaedia. Joe Roe (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome, Iainplunkett. Like Joe says, Wikipedia very strongly discourages paid editing. I presume one reason that it doesn't forbid it is that if it did, some people would do it anyway without disclosure. Barring significant changes to Wikipedia, it would be difficult to prevent them from doing so. So allowing paid editing, provided that the proper disclosures are made and all policies are observed (especially WP:NPOV and WP:V) is the pragmatic approach. You are in compliance with the disclosure requirements for paid editing. To be sure to remain so, simply briefly mention, in the edit summary of any edit you make to the page, and in any discussion thread you participate in regarding the page, something like "see paid editing dislosure on Draft talk:SICPA Holdings SA."
- Since my comments on the draft last month, I see you've found additional sources and taken some of my other advice. If the draft is as good as you think you can make it, go ahead and resubmit it. If the new sources pan out, the topic should clear the bar of notability. Volunteers may not rush to help you get it accepted, but the draft will be reviewed (eventually) on its merits, with particular attention to WP:COIRESPONSE. It may be edited mercilessly, just roll with it. Let the community decide what should stay, what should go, and what should be added. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi WorldBruce, many thanks on this. I have trued to follow your guidance as much as I could. I understand, as Joe says, that Wikipedia discourages paid editors which is why I'm am trying to do everything possible to ensure the entry is factual and not a 'promotional vehicle'. One of the reasons that the company wants to create a UK page is that it has pages put up in other countries by people who have used Wikipedia to attack the company and all it wants is a fair representation. I am very happy for others to edit the page as long as the information they add is not false. Again many thanks for your help and patience.Iainplunkett (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
15:18:46, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Nsirrah
Hi all, I'm seeking other opinions on this draft. The reasoning of the reviewer seems circular; "It's [denied] because there's still nothing actually convincing for establishing his own substance and independent notability, there's no inherited notability from other people or groups."
But what more could establish notability for a businessperson? The draft is about an entrepreneur who started a company, and there are both biographies and major independent sources covering the entrepreneur, his actions, and his company independently. These sources imply AND say outright why the subject is very notable in the fashion world. Further, the events, companies, and programming the the subject has co-founded have been covered even more extensively. Major celebrities (like Kanye West, Scott Campbell, and Sarah Jessica Parker) have gone on record saying outright that the subject is notable in the fashion world. Obviously celebrity sources aren't independent, but the press covering these statements are.
- wikipedia-en-help has already told me that they see no reason for the article to be declined, but that I should add more sources and resubmit. It was immediately declined by the reviewer again -- quicker than the reviewer could have actually looked at and considered all the new sources.
Would love to hear the consensus about this draft and the topic matter. I'm looking to better learn the ropes here; In earnest, thank you!
Nsirrah (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Note Draft has been approved. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
15:51:15, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Tpalum24
I was just wondering on what constitutes independent notability and if someone could point me in the direction of where this draft lacks such notability. I understand that a company profile and press releases do not determine this status. I used those sources to gather information on the topic. However, I thought using the Frost & Sullivan, NASA, and Water Conditioning and Purification Magazine sources would satisfy the conditions for independent notability. If someone could aid me in explaining where these sources lack in satisfying the primary criteria for notability it would be appreciated as I am a new user.
Tpalum24 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
23:50:04, 22 August 2016 review of submission by Njnorland
I have submitted this page 2 times and have been declined because they say the person is not notable. When I look at the guidelines for Musicians and Ensembles, she fits these 2 criteria: (2)Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. (She was listed on Billboard). (10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (She was on several major television shows including Johnny Carson and Mike Douglas)
I would appreciate any suggestions you can offer to convince the reviewers that this is not notable. Thank you, Njnorland (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Njnorland
Njnorland (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
August 23
12:57:54, 23 August 2016 review of submission by Janhunter
Janhunter (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I am wondering why my description of the Public Sector Consortium was declined? I described what it does in very brief, concise terms with no 'accolades' or embellishments. I added two testimonials which I can remove if needed. Please explain, thanks! Jan
- The draft has no references. It does contain 'accolades' or testimonials, which appear to be most of the draft. It also doesn't contain enough background information. The lede sentence should say among other things where the consortium is located (what state, for instance). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
13:20:44, 23 August 2016 review of submission by Amitpe
I submitted an article about Sekindo a month ago, and no one reviewed it so far, is there something missing that I should add? are my references OK? I read the notability instructions it looks like they are notable.
I'm considering moving this to the article space myself, but I'm afraid an admin will delete the article, what should I do?
Thanks, Amit
Amitpe (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I declined it as containing peacock language. Please review the draft for any other promotional language. Tone rather than notability is the issue. (Do you have an association with the vendor?) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
22:01:39, 23 August 2016 review of submission by EditSC
Posting this question June 30 question again, in case it was missed:
Can you help me understand the notability concern with this subject? In comparison with published Wikipedia articles about related technologies (e.g., OpenWebGlobe, Marble (software), MapJack, CitySurf Globe, Bing Maps), this article seems to have more sources, including chapters in reputably published books, presentations from top conferences in the field, and news articles from a variety of sources.
This topic is also referenced on a number of other published Wikipedia pages (Virtual globe, OpenLayers, List of WebGL frameworks, Bhuvan, YoubeQ, GPlates, Analytical Graphics, List of geographic information systems software), some of which are about applications that use Cesium as their core technology. I plan to add incoming links from these articles to the Cesium article once it's accepted.
I'm not sure what steps to take next in improving the article. Thanks in advance for your help!
August 24
04:18:50, 24 August 2016 review of submission by Agungkodok
- Agungkodok (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Bakrie & Brothers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi Daniel Kenneth,
My article for Bakrie & Brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bakrie_%26_Brothers) was declined with the description: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Bakrie & Brothers instead."
However, Bakrie & Brothers hasn't existed yet in Wikipedia, when I typed in the title, it redirects me to Bakrie Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakrie_Group). Just wanted to clarify, Bakrie & Brothers is a subsidiary focusing only on Manufacturing & Infrastructure under the Bakrie Group, which compromises of a large variety of businesses (Incl. Oil & Gas, Property, Mining, Telecommunications, etc).
Please re-review this my submission for this article. If there are any extra information required for this article to be published, please let me know.
Thank you very much for your time Daniel. Best, AgungKodok
09:15:16, 24 August 2016 review of submission by Dr. Dabby
- Dr. Dabby (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:MKU (Indian Defense Company) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi, this is Dr. Dabby. I had written and submitted this article. Quite recently, this article was reviewed - and rejected.
I have tried to write this thing in a neutral tone. And have given quite a number of independent, reliable resources.
I even left a message on the talk page of the moderator.
So can anybody give a check to this draft and point out the specifics for which it has been not accepted.
Best regards, Dr. Dabby (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Dr. Dabby (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Dr. Dabby, the draft is "on hold" until the copyright issue is resolved, once that's done we will take another look at it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)