Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 554: Line 554:


i Put in one reference yesterday so it should be an article by the end of the year. [[Special:Contributions/68.103.78.155|68.103.78.155]] ([[User talk:68.103.78.155|talk]]) 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
i Put in one reference yesterday so it should be an article by the end of the year. [[Special:Contributions/68.103.78.155|68.103.78.155]] ([[User talk:68.103.78.155|talk]]) 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

== Request on 19:46:42, 5 November 2019 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by 83.151.229.56 ==
{{anchor|19:46:42, 5 November 2019 review of submission by 83.151.229.56}}
{{Lafc|username=83.151.229.56|ts=19:46:42, 5 November 2019|declinedtalk=Draft:Blue_space}}

<!-- Start of message -->
I'm not sure how to proceed with this article, I think the concept has received considered academic and press attention under this title, as you can see at [[Draft_talk:Blue_space]]. I can find more if necessary. Do they need to be cited in the article to pass WP:NEO or is their existence sufficient?

<!-- End of message -->[[Special:Contributions/83.151.229.56|83.151.229.56]] ([[User talk:83.151.229.56|talk]]) 19:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:46, 5 November 2019

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


October 30

06:49:07, 30 October 2019 review of draft by Believers Care Society


Believers Care Society (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:49:00, 30 October 2019 review of draft by BFP1


I would like help with tidying up the presentation of the External links reference. BFP1 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)BFP1[reply]

BFP1 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BFP1,  Done. The external link has to be all on one line for the formatting to work. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:15, 30 October 2019 review of submission by Neaifefe


Hi! I have added external links and references, as well as information of awards, certificates, products, and services. Thank you! Neaifefe (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neaifefe, The issue here is how the article is written. The text is not at all encyclopedic. Wikipedia presents subjects neutrally, weighing positive and negative attributes, and using non-charged wording. You seem to have literally just copied the company's own bio from their promotional website. Not only is that a big no-no because it violates copyright law, it also means that the text is just an ad. Wikipedia is not an ad platform. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:24, 30 October 2019 review of submission by 97.107.223.116


97.107.223.116 (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just want this article to be published, I find many of the criticisms given here do not apply to many other articles I see. This is a non-controversial topic about a semi-famous figure who has had a decent amount of media attention, and this Wikipedia page is for public record.

Past edits have greatly modified the language to be more objective and journalistic.

I think it is a bit unfair for some Wikipedia editors to claim that some of the sources used for this article are not as professional as they claim the standards to be; it is unfair for people to privilege some media sources and to disparage others.

Please, if there is anything actionable I must do to get this article approved, I will do it, but you cannot fairly tell me, vaguely, that someone somewhere there doesn't feel that these sources are sufficient enough.

Thank you.

You have not told us what the draft is? Theroadislong (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@97.107.223.116: pinging IP in case they're still attached to it Nosebagbear (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:53, 30 October 2019 review of draft by Mritch999


How do I center embedded photos? They’re all appearing on the far right of my article.

Mritch999 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can add a "center" attribute to the File link. I've done this for your first photo as a demonstration. That being said, I'd recommend NOT doing this. Trying to do fancy things with layout is usually a losing game. Your article is going to be viewed in many different formats; on web browsers, in many different sized windows, with people using alternate skins or custom CSS rules, on mobile devices with small screens, using alternative applications like the Wikipedia mobile app, using screen readers by blind people, etc. Just going with the default layout is usually the best strategy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I've moved your sandbox to Draft:John Manley Barnett, which is where AfC submissions generally live. You can continue to work on it there. I did notice that you've used a lot of photos that look like they were copied out of newspapers and other sources, without obtaining the required copyright permission. I think you're going to have trouble there. Please see Commons:Commons:Licensing for more details. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:25, 30 October 2019 review of draft by Samanthaamia


Hello, I have made the changed suggested and my article is still being declined. I know this artist, the one I am writing about, personally and have the permission to post anything including rights to photos and etc. He is a known artist, music engineer, producer and singer/songwriter in the Latin music industry. I would really like to have this page approved and set as an ARTICE under the name of JHONI THE VOICE written by me SAMANTHA MIA (SAMANTHAAMIA) Thank you in advance.

Samantha Mia 21:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Samanthaamia. Unlike Facebook, blogs, or personal websites, Wikipedia is not a place to write about anything and everything. The community of editors decide by consensus which topics to accept. As one of those editors, you can suggest a subject and have a voice in the decision, but you need to convince others that the topic is notable (meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria). No one is entitled to have an article published here just because they want one.
The most fundamental gauge of notability is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Draft:Jhoni The Voice cites no independent sources, so it will not be published. If any existing articles are as poorly sourced, they should be improved, or if that is not possible, deleted. The reviewer couldn't find any appropriate sources for the draft, so they rejected it to let you know that you shouldn't waste any more time on it. If you add acceptable sources to the draft (don't start a second draft under another name, just keep editing the one that was rejected), you should be able to persuade some reviewer to re-evaluate it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources lists sources that Wikipedians' have found useful in writing about musicians. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:32:20, 30 October 2019 review of submission by Wei4Green

I have found 10 reliable secondary sources for the draft. I'm still working on this draft, but there isn't enough Wikipedians to work on the article. I recently contacted #TeamTrees team for their permission to upload their logos and designs to Wikimedia Commons, so this draft still has more room to be expanded.

I created Team Trees and TeamTrees as redirects on 2019-10-25 before this draft was created by User:Ccmee6464 on 2019-10-26. If this draft was approved, will the draft merge with Team Trees or TeamTrees with its edit history and page statistics? I'm not sure if the draft should be moved to Draft:TeamTrees for now because #TeamTrees (# sign can't be added in the title name because of technical restrictions) is the WP:COMMONNAME in my opinion. —Wei4Green • #TeamTrees🌲 22:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wei4Green. If you believe you've added enough coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources that the reason the draft was rejected no longer applies, you may resubmit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. If it is accepted, its edit history will be preserved. The accepting reviewer will decide on the most appropriate name and will, if necessary, delete a redirect to make way for moving the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: So you mean the edit history and page statistics will be merged onto Team Trees if accepted? Is it OK if the draft is still a stub? —Wei4Green • #TeamTrees🌲 01:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wei4Green: Drafts are accepted regardless of quality assessment; many are accepted as stubs. If the accepting reviewer decides the correct name is Team Trees, they will delete Team Trees (the redirect), then move the draft to Team Trees. All of the properties of a page (history, page statistics, talk, etc.) travel with it as its name changes, its namespace changes, or as it is deleted. It isn't a merge. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

04:05:14, 31 October 2019 review of submission by Moorlock


Moorlock (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could a specialist in WP:NACADEMIC take a look at this - I think this might be a historical example of NPROF C#5, if the ref confirms his position which by its use it probably does. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, I'm not an expert in NACADEMIC, but I also saw this page and believe it notable. I think there is a strong C5 argument and would be inclined to accept. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a citation and accepted the draft. There's fairly substantive coverage of the subject in literature; the present state is sufficient for a stub on this historic figure. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:24, 31 October 2019 review of submission by JouftarMullar


JouftarMullar (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Why My Article is deleted?[reply]

JouftarMullar, You article was unsourced, did not assert the subjects notability, and was just promoting the subject. You also appeared to have a close connection to the subject. We don't cover just anything on Wikipedia, only subjects that have been reliably covered in the media. The rapper you wrote about seems to just be an average person, like you or I. Only folks who are "notable" can be included. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:42:41, 31 October 2019 review of submission by 41.114.75.132


41.114.75.132 (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


How to be permanently available in the Wikipedia


@41.114.75.132:, with a complete lack of sources and functionally no content, this isn't notable and doesn't look likely to become so. Please take a look at Musician notability for what would make a musician notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:06, 31 October 2019 review of submission by Magyfarag

because I Forgot to add the reference URl to the subject Magyfarag (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

05:37:52, 1 November 2019 review of submission by Leafeator

Hello! I tried submitting my first article today, but it looks like that years ago the same article was deleted for not being notable. I believe that the person may be notable now (I guess, ultimately I'm not sure?) but I was asked to "request a copy of the deleted article so that a reviewer can compare and can verify that this is better than the deleted article." I was just looking for help on how to request a copy of the deleted article? Thanks!

Then once I get the copy, if I think that the new article is better than the deleted one, how do I present the old copy to the reviewer? Leafeator (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the deleting admin RHaworth. shoy (reactions) 13:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what that was on my talk pagein my mailbox. I will take a look at it. (Given the wide separation in time, I would guess successive agents, but it doesn't matter.) I will look. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, User:Leafeator. As User:RHaworth says, don't get too hopeful. I have looked briefly at the four files. They are in an unformatted state, so that I will have to load them into sandboxes to view them properly, which I will, within 72 hours. It looks as though the original one is longer than the one that I rejected, and the original one was deleted at AFD, so it is unlikely that I will conclude that the recently deleted one is better. Two of them, including the one that was the subject of the AFD, look to be Start class, and two of them, including the one that I rejected, look to be in between Stub and Start. I think that it is more likely that the subject or the subject's publicist was paying four different editors than that this is suckpoppetry. I won't release the results of the examination until the requester makes a conflict of interest disclosure. (It isn't that I think that they will be honest, but only that if they lie, that gives us more rope.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information User:Robert McClenon. To confirm do I need to be the one making a COI disclosure? Maybe I should just try cutting my teeth on another comic author who doesn't yet have a page but may qualify for one? Looking to learn more and it seems as if I may have stepped on a landmine, sorry. Leafeator (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, User:Leafeator, it is the editor submitting a draft who is sometimes asked to make a conflict of interest disclosure, because conflict of interest disclosure is a Wikipedia policy in accordance with a WMF Terms of Use provision. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:RHaworth or some other administrator, can you please check the spelling of IhilaLesnikovaGersh (talk · contribs). If that is correct, there is no message on their talk page indicating that the draft was deleted. (Two of them have no record of contributions, but that is because the draft was deleted and they didn't ask about it on a talk page or in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I run xtools on this. The result is that this account has exactly one (deleted) edit to Draft:Rob Fee, which was creating the page. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Victor Schmidt mobil - In that case, the editor was not notified when their draft was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does it matter if IhilaLesnikovaGersh was not notified? She created the page on 2016-02-02 and did no further edits to it. It was not until 2017-08-24 that deleted it. The real reason for deletion was "stale draft" but the six month rule was not in force at that time so I used a credible alternative deletion reason and saw no reason to notify an editor who had not been seen for eighteen months.
Leafeator, no landmine - just normal wiki-worrying over individual articles. Better to cut your teeth improving existing articles. Tell us your connection with Rob Fee and we will tell you if any CoI declaration is needed. If the only connection is that you have read his work and liked it, then no declaration is needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RHaworth I followed him on twitter from some of his earlier internet stuff, and then read both the comics and remembered the name. Wanted to look him up and was surprised there wasn't anything. Seemed like a good opportunity. Leafeator (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really care if the author was notified. I simply am aware that usernames are sometimes misspelled, which causes confusion, and was checking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:07, 1 November 2019 review of submission by Neaifefe

Added the infobox. Neaifefe (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neaifefe: This article is still a blatant advertisement for the company with no reliable sources. Please read WP:NCORP and specifically the WP:CORPDEPTH section for examples of sources that do not establish notability. This company is not notable enough for Wikipedia. shoy (reactions) 13:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:31:29, 1 November 2019 review of submission by Bethany m m


Hi, I've tried to edit this content for approval but keep getting knocked back even after making amendments. A competitor has a similar page so the content must be relevant. Please can someone advise exactly what needs changing.

Thank you.

Bethany m m (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany m m Just because a competitor has an article, doesn't mean your company qualifies for one, see other crap exists. Your draft includes 9 references to your own website, Wikipedia requires independent sourcing to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Bethany m m#November 2019. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:05, 1 November 2019 review of submission by Catalystico


Editor DGG posted this in comments in regards to rejecting the article: He might be notable someday. But he is still a student, from a wealthy family, and it does not seem he has yet any substantial accomplishments. The references are PR, and WP does not do that. Much of the article doesn't even refer to him, but to his family, and their wealth, and the notable people he has met. the part that is about him is about his childhood, and high school education, and his stay at university. His claimed "notable work" is an undergraduate student paper. One highlighted quote is a student recommendation, quoted from WeChat. The other other is a tribute to him from his younger sister, quoted from a blog. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There are some objectively untrue statements that are of concern: 1. Yes, although the subject is a student and from a wealthy family, it does not mean the subject in question "has yet any substantial accomplishments". I think its safe to say that there are plenty of successful and notable individuals from wealthy family's and students. A subjects background, race, current job or situation should have no bearing on whether or not he is included in an encyclopedia, as long as his achievements are notable.

2. DRR claims that "the references are PR, and WP does not do that. Much of the article doesn't even refer to him, but to his family, and their wealth, and the notable people he has met." Again, DRR uses the subject's family and wealth as grounds to reject the article. Aside from the "Family" section, which is naturally about the subjects family, the rest of the article refers entirely to the subject in question - from a child to later adulthood, and is clearly not PR. DRR's statement about the article 'not referring to him' is clearly questionable. Regarding the 'notable people he has met' - why is this criteria for rejection? It's almost guaranteed that individuals on Wikipedia, who are by their very definition of inclusion 'notable', have met notable individuals throughout their life.

3. "His claimed "notable work" is an undergraduate student paper." I am in agreement here, and it should be edited / deleted. This however, is still not grounds for an outright rejection of the entire article. It is easily amendable, and the article could have been declined instead. Also, one could argue that DDR's statement about the subject's work being "just a undergraduate paper" is condescending and patronizing - there are plenty of remarkable undergraduate-level academic studies created by a multitude of students worldwide, and the level of research should not be grounds for rejection. At a neutral and fair encyclopedia like Wikipedia, a PhD is not necessarily more "important" than a "BA" level paper, nor does a subject's educational level have a bearing on if the subject is included or not in Wikipedia's encyclopedia.

4. Editor DRR claimed "One highlighted quote is a student recommendation, quoted from WeChat.The other other is a tribute to him from his younger sister, quoted from a blog." There are many issues with DDR's statement here. First, upon review, this is clearly not true. The quote in question is not from WeChat itself, but from Peking University Youth, a campus based magazine from a reputable international academic institution, which has its official digital channels through WeChat. All major news outlets, major publishers, and corporations in China have official WeChat accounts. They are not created randomly - it's a process much like Wikipedia, that requires identification and submission of materials, before being granted permission by the government. Secondly, the article states very clearly, in Chinese, that the comment is from the subject's supervising teacher, and not a "student recommendation" as mentioned by DDR. Lastly, upon further review, in not one of the sources does it mention the subject's "sister". In fact, further research shows that the subject clearly does not even have a sister. Where DDR got this information from is unclear.

5. It is very clear that the subject in question has significant notability in China. A quick search on Chinese search engine Baidu shows over 29,000 results of admittedly varying quality. There is also a Baidu Encyclopedia (China's equivalent of Wikipedia) article about the subject. A search on Google turns up much less results, but that is not surprising, nor should it affect the acceptance of the article - a subject's area of notability, and again, language and nationality, should not affect the editors decision to reject a submission regarding the subject. A fine example would be - Winston Churchill, for all his fame, is relatively unheard of in China. Does this disqualify him immediately from Wikipedia? Absolutely not. The same could be said of Greta Thunberg, a student. Just because she is unknown in China, and vice versa, does not disqualify her from being included in Wikipedia.

Lastly, Editor DDR stated in my "talk" page that "it is written in such a way as to indicate that you may very possiblyb e is paid press agent--for even were he notable , no objective person would write such content in such a manner." I can't see how any of my activity makes me a highly susceptible paid press agent, and I also don't see how an objectively written, cited and referenced article could be considered improper in "manner". Wikipedia should not be a place where editors of more senior experience can label another contributor like myself in such a way just because they want to, and with questionable evidence.

In summary, I believe editor DDR's grounds for outright rejection of the submission should be seriously reconsidered by the Wikipedia community. There's no such thing as a perfect article, but this, again, does not give the editor the right to outright reject it. Instead, if the editor has reason to believe the article need improvement, he / she should decline the submission instead, offering both myself and the Wikipedia community the chance to edit it again for resubmission. I conclude, using the evidence above, that the two main reasons for rejection of the article given by the editor, as stated on the draft page: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is clearly not true. The subject is obviously notable in China, and has a track record to show it. I agree that the article should be edited further, and that the "notable work", should be edited off.


Catalystico (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this should be rejected, absolutely no evidence that he even begins to pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just been blanked by the creator, but for what it's worth I concur that notability is not shown, amidst other issues Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:02, 1 November 2019 review of submission by Liber8er

Hi. I created this page in July. At that time the article was rejected, I expected that since it's my first. I'm trying to learn:). I made several changes to the draft since receiving my first set of feedback. I've added external, reliable sources, I've moved external links from the body of the article to a table at the bottom. Basically I've tried to follow the format for other wikipedia articles about national library programs.

My question is this: is the draft ever going to be reviewed again? I was making changes with the anticipation that I would receive some feedback, but I've not seen any. Should I try again? It's not a huge article, but I have spent some time writing and editing and learning the wiki markup.

Please help and thank you. Liber8er (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liber8er. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed since 23 July. The current backlog is roughly 4.5 months, so you can anticipate a review by some time in December. While you wait, perhaps you'd like to help fulfil requests at WP:RX. Or see Wikipedia:Community portal for other ways to improve the encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

Request on 11:07:21, 2 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Isara22



Isara22 (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Respected Wiki editors,[reply]

Thank you for taking the time and evaluating my article. Still, I am not sure about the lack of notability status my article and I would like to ask for a re-evaluation, from the reasons below:

1. With a quick search, one can determine that there are pages depicting software companies in Romania and categories created specifically for such pages (such as "Information technology companies of Romania" or "Software companies of Romania").

I find it a little unfair and inconsistent than other similar pages can exist, listing companies where some of them are even smaller, but the page for Ambo Software, a company that exists since 1999, don't.

2. Maybe the references are not enough (4 independent online and offline newspapers)? Or maybe because the references are in Romanian and not in English? There are other references that are available, in German or English. Having them included in the draft can help to overcome the lack of notability?

Thank you in advance for your time and clarifications.-

Hi Isara22. Most businesses are not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative.
The rejection of the draft is not based on the size of the company, the age of the company, there being too few sources, or the language of the sources. It is based on the quality of the sources found. Horeca.ro and itonews.eu are trade publications, which do not help establish notability. Market Watch Magazine is an unattributed editorial. It appears to be written from the point of view of the company. Ziarul Financiar appears to be based primarily on a press release ("au precizat oficialii companiei") without independent analysis by the newspaper.
The content of the draft (very little company history, "Silver/Gold Application Development Parter of Microsoft", "ISO 9001" certified, extensive lists of products and services) is promotional and also strongly suggests that the company is not encyclopedia material. If you have a connection with the company, you need to declare it; it presents a conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines. If you wish to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:28, 2 November 2019 review of draft by Wagon Master Johnson

I need help with my draft article and other people could fix a lot of things wrong with it right now because I can’t seem to find out all the station wagons currently available for all other countries because since I live in America I figured out all of them, but even the UK I only have some of them. thanks

Wagon Master Johnson (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wagon Master Johnson, Howdy hello! What can help you here are reliable sources. Every article should be built on sources, as that's how we keep Wikipedia verifiable. Your article currently doesn't have any sources, which means no way to verify the information you've added. Try looking for books, magazines, news articles, that sort of thing, and add them in as references. If you need help figuring out how to do that, let us know and we can assist. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what if my source is just the Station wagon article? then what sources do I site? do I site the sourced already in that article or do I do something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagon Master Johnson (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wagon Master Johnson: You can't cite the Station wagon article because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You can use the references in the article already though, provided that they are high quality reliable sources. shoy (reactions) 14:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:51, 2 November 2019 review of submission by RazorGaming

I did significant changes :) RazorGaming (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RazorGaming, I took a look, and alas it looks like the subject is just an average person, like you or I. Only folks who have significant coverage in reliable sources (such as articles in the news) are eligible for coverage. A run of the mill YouTuber just doesn't qualify to have their own article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:59, 2 November 2019 review of draft by Jespon


Where could I find such references? I feel like since he has a higher ESPN grade than N'Faly Dante he should have a page. Dante has one Jespon (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jespon. That would be a good question to ask on the project talk page of the group of editors who specialize in Wikipedia's coverage of college basketball. Walker hasn't played at the college level yet, but I don't believe Wikipedia has an interest group for high school sports. The college folks should be able to suggest where to look for sources. Keep in mind that just because an article exists doesn't mean it should exist. It might only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So the existence of N'Faly Dante doesn't mean Draft:C.J. Walker (Basketball Player) should be accepted. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:41, 2 November 2019 review of draft by YoungTtyl


How to write a successful musician article? Please send me steps....

YoungTtyl (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YoungTtyl, It is unlikely that an article about yourself, as this appears to be, will be accepted. Please read our policy on conflict of interest, which requires you disclose any conflict of interest regarding topics you edit. You do not have to claim you are that person, but if you are/know that person/have any sort of conflict of interest with them, you must disclose that you have some sort of COI.
For an example of a good musician article, please read Beyoncé. The issues with your article are multi-fold. Its sources have literally nothing to do with the subject, such as scientific papers. You must first find some sources that cover the subject. You ought also try to clean up the formatting, following perhaps Beyonce or Kanye West as an example. You must also prove that they meet one of the music "notability" criteria, i.e. prove why they ought to be on Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, the subject may just not be notable at this time. There are 8 billion living people, and we can only cover a handful of them. Your time may be better spent editing articles that already exist and interest you. You may be interested in contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip hop. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:43:40, 2 November 2019 review of draft by Michaelmonet44


Hello. I submitted this article for review and read that I would be able to edit it until it was approved. When I log in to my page I am unable to locate the pending article. I want to make sure that the page is in queue for submission and I would like to be able to see the page when I login. Please let me know how to find it.Michaelmonet44 (talk)

Michaelmonet44 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelmonet44, Howdy hello! You can find the page by simply navigating to it, or by clicking on a link to it, such as Draft:Barry Brewer. You can also add it to your watchlist (it should have been added automatically), which can be found at the top right of your browser. Any changes made to articles you watch will be found there.
The article is indeed in the review queue, and I have gone ahead and reviewed it. Several issues remain surrounding the article, chiefly that it needs more and better sourcing, and that it is not written in a neutral tone, as is expected for an encyclopedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

00:06:17, 3 November 2019 review of submission by 172.58.222.165


I went to a fascinating exhibit yesterday at the well-regarded Maine College of Art (MECA) in Portland, Maine that was put on by DesignInquiry. One aspect of the exhibit included a wall with a design-related timeline, which included many whimsical and thoughtful frames (e.g. "1952: Chemist Julius Samann patents a pine-scented air freshener in the shape of a little tree" -- but one in particular that to me was perhaps the most thought-provoking of all, "2016: Wikipedia deletes DesignInquiry for lack of notability".

Now, this sharp, entertaining exhibit combining DIY with philosophy and aesthetics -- with demonstrations of printing, a deconstructed film projector, and even on-site bread-baking (with excellent bread) -- most reminded me of a small-scale exhibit from the Cooper Hewitt Design Museum in New York. There is not a lot of this sort of integration of engineering, art, and social consciousness, which makes any prime example of it noteworthy. But the little unassuming frame in the design timeline in this exhibit referring to Wikipedia reminded me that Wikipedia is not just a source of information, but also a subjective kingmaker and arbiter that chooses between who is deserving (according to it) and who is not.

Why is this innovative design collective featuring talented designers, which according its website "brings together practitioners from disparate fields to generate new work and ideas around a single topic" considered to be less noteworthy for humanity (at least according to Wikipedia) than, for instance, the Portland-based Allagash Brewing Company or, let's say, the Bullzip PDF Printer, the latter of which is basically just a simple layer on top of Ghostscript, like about two dozen other PDF utilities almost exactly like it. Indeed, there are countless pages on Wikipedia about people, places, and things unlikely to ever have much of an impact on humanity. And to some degree, that's OK. What is it exactly that made DesignInquiry so unnoteworthy, exactly?

From the MECA website about the current exhibition, "We are a collective of thinkers and makers devoted to extra-disciplinary exchange. For more than a decade DesignInquiry has spearheaded intensive team-based gatherings and shared the diverse outcomes and publications, influenced design research and teaching methods, and has inspired professional designers to rethink what design can be and can do."

I didn't really document this exhibit, unfortunately, but I have a couple of quick example pics which do not do it justice.

I have no connection to this group other than having just looked at what it displayed. So here I am just asking why it is not noteworthy.

One of the speakers for example this time is an artist from British Columbia, one of the many artists and designers from around the world to participate with DI since 2004, I just learned (but unfortunately of course not from Wikipedia). The board of directors for DesignInquiry has included Gail Swanlund, whose art is part of the permanent collection at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Fulbright recipient Benjamin Van Dyke, and Denise Gonzales Crisp, the author of the textbook Typography, from the Graphic Design in Context series. A reviewer said of that book, "I liked it so much that I taught a class with this text." Indeed, just picking names almost at random who have participated with DesignInquiry, Kimberly Long Loken helped to create an exhibit for the Northern Spark climate-change-themed arts festival in Minneapolis in 2017: "an illuminated, polymorphic installation which visually represents the way in which plants transmit chemical messages to one another – an ecosystem our society should heed."

In other words DesignInquiry may not have the prestige of the Cooper Hewitt in New York City, but it does have influence and it does attract those with influence in our society. Creative and society-directed design should count as influence, not just corporate, influence, political influence, or software-world influence. There is a bias in society in general against this sort of soft influence, but Wikipedia of all places should not be participating in that trend.

If Wikipedia had not simply deleted the page, then perhaps people could have contributed to that page to help us to better understand what this organization is doing and why. I think organizations like this are more important than companies that brew beer or software authors that add a trivial layer to an existing open source project. And I sure would like to know, and I know that many others would like to know, more about this type of organization than about some of the superficial detritus littering Wikipedia's pages that frankly is not very noteworthy, and will wind up in the dustbin of history.

But I am not arguing for other pages to be deleted. Although the deletion in this case provides a little bit of thought-provoking fodder for this exhibit, I am just asking Wikipedia to give compelling organizations like this one the benefit of the doubt and try if possible to let us decide what is "noteworthy." Maybe the Wikipedia editor who nixed it doesn't understand art, or doesn't think design is important. But that doesn't mean that others share his view. To me, DesignInquiry is noteworthy, interesting, and relevant, and Wikipedia is exactly the sort of place that I'd like to be able to go to find more information about it, contributed by casual editors like me who can chip in what they know. But there is no such page, because to Wikipedia this organization is not as noteworthy as a beer-brewing company or a low-common-denominator PDF printer utility.

To be clear, I don't want to create the page by myself. I would have chipped in, however, if it had not unceremoniously been deleted, who knows why.

172.58.222.165 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's processes can seem opaque to people who haven't contributed to building the encyclopedia, but almost all actions are taken in the open and recorded for all to see. So the answer to "Who knows why?" is, anyone who cares to read a little. The governing policy is Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The first deletion discussion can be read at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DesignInquiry, the second at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DesignInquiry (2nd nomination). --Worldbruce (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you're referring to here. I have both followed Wikipedia and contributed to building pages. But in this case, instead of encouraging a better article, Wikipedia as it frequently does just nixes the article altogether. For reasons that, as I said and will say again, fall under the category of who-knows-why. This is what the second link there says, for instance: "Promotional, non-notable, (and almost indecipherable), All references seem to be from inside the movement. AfD1 ended in delete, but with limitedparticipationand the closing admin chose to interpret it as a Prod."
Those who created the page should have done more to protest. But Wikipedia should go easier on those who are not Wikipedia pros and may be intimidated by the overbearing and often highly-critical moderators.
The reason given there for the deletion is sloppy and careless, and only semi-rational, and it demonstrates that the Wikipedia parties involved did not take the time to understand what it was they were even removing. Sometimes Wikipedia seems to be confused about the difference between whether the organization or idea deserves a page, and whether the specific page that some rookie attempted to create is a quality page. OK, so the page there may not have been a great one. I don't know. Where is the page? "There is no revision history for this page."
I never saw the initial page. Had I seen it, I might have been able to contribute to it, and better explain why DI deserves a page in the first place. But the page was expediently obliterated.
Even as a flawed stub, a page was much more likely to turn into a useful page than it is when you delete the page altogether, deeming it would seem the entire organization to be non-notable, which I think is a rather rude and dismissive way of describing a group that has attracted some compelling talents and pushed the envelope on some innovative collaborative thinking. I wonder whether sometimes Wikipedia editors may be trying to make themselves feel better by being dismissive of others, or perhaps they are just human like the rest of us, and sometimes do not fully follow through and do their homework.
DesignInquiry may not be a household name, but that doesn't mean that it is not "notable." This is precisely what Wikipedia should be here for, to help us understand groups, people, and ideas that we see referenced and which sound compelling and that we would like to learn more about. Contrary to what the Wikipedia page-nixer here implied from his quick dismissal, this is a collaborative group that brings people together to discuss and practice design from multiple angles, not a "movement" per se that is promoting a specific agenda. It tries to bring people in from various perspectives and disciplines; there will be some overlap of course, but the goal here is design and problem-solving. They initiate a "collaborative production where we both learn and teach the aesthetics and ethics that are central to Design (and life)."
In a world in which design and technological progress can at times be best-described as shoot-first-ask-questions-later, or leap-before-you-look, this thoughtful approach is not in oversupply, and is probably a lot rarer than many may realize.
Again I ask: how is a throwaway PDF printer utility more "notable"? And there are hundreds of pages for software that is equally as "notable" or otherwise. Although Wikipedia claims to be objective, and certainly has created an impressive database of knowledge that is rather unique through all of human history, even so, when it comes to making or breaking a page often there is little more going on here than pure human subjectivity from one or two people over there who seem to have only the most cursory understanding at best of what they are even approving or vetoing.
"Non-notable" itself is a very subjective concept, and I gave several examples of why many of DI's participants might be properly described as talented, notable, and relevant. I don't see a reference to the PDF printer utility in the New York Times, either, you know, so why the very clear double standard here? If you are in one category, you get a pass, but in another, the bar is a whole lot higher. And why are little software utilities really so much more important than broad discussions about our future? You say that anyone can read why this page was not approved, but on the contrary I still am completely in the dark about that. You brushed me off here even though I raised what I think are some legitimate and important points about the process here.
DesignInquiry's current exhibit Futurespective exhibit at MECA may not have been mentioned in the New York Times, but it was mentioned in Design Observer, which Wikipedia says was founded by "four prominent design writers." (Design Observer is also mentioned in DI's Futurespective timeline of design history: "2002: Design Observer blogs for the first time.")
Surely a page on DesignInquiry would be more relevant to humanity than myriad of the pages scattered throughout Wikipedia that refer to superficial topics, and my goal here is not to single out the various topics that have limited relevance or "notability." The fact is that DI, a group whose participants discuss meaningful topics related to progress, design, and ethics, to Wikipedia is less compelling than say a rambling page about a C-tier actor (of which there are many). And as the DesignInquiry exhibit and I have casually alluded to, the deletion in this case may say more about Wikipedia than it does about DesignInquiry. I find it frustrating, at the very least, when a page references a topic like DI that seems perfectly suited to a Wikipedia page, but then there is no page. And not because someone didn't try to create one, but because some overzealous Wikipedia editor vanished it.
I have noticed in other cases subjectivity and even questionable and opaque processes in how Wikipedia approves or does not approve topics. Yes, culturally-and-technologically-irrelevant shareware software can easily make the cut while while a topic of deep relevance to say Native American culture is often nowhere to be seen. Unless, again, it makes the New York Times. But whether it makes the Times tends to have very little to do with whether it is actually relevant to Native Americans. The Times tends to be biased toward money-related enterprises such as casinos and pipelines. And the lack of present on Wikipedia is only partly related to the effort or lack thereof from the outside to contribute. Because attempts to create early, very rough pages that could eventually sprout into pages that are nuanced and truly informative are often simply snuffed out aggressively by Wikipedia moderators who act out of expedience or impatience, or perhaps even an overabundance of tried-and-true bossiness. This happens frequently at Wikipedia, but it's just the way it is, and Wikipedia is likely to remain largely as it is for the foreseeable future, which is to say very useful and informative but also deeply and possibly even fatally flawed, in that it unfortunately comes up far short of its potential to provide the most useful and relevant and most truly objective information to the world.
I do want try to be fair here. It may not be apparent to the casual observer, but organizations that focus on current and past design are not as easy to come by as you might expect given that design is intrinsically interwoven into nearly all facets of the modern world. I mentioned the Cooper Hewitt in New York. Its full name is the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum. Wikipedia describes it as "the only museum in the United States devoted to historical and contemporary design." How can that be? But it is. And as far as museums go, it is not even particularly sprawling, household-name-famous, or comprehensive. But it is highly noteworthy, and it is highly impactful within its own niche. Like DesignInquiry, or perhaps I should say that DesignInquiry, like the Cooper Hewitt, explores the intersection of innovation, aesthetics, and ethics, and what could be more critical to do in the modern world than that? They are not taking an existing project and just slapping on a little code, like many of the projects referenced in Wikipedia; they are trying to deconstruct and explore our very future.
It is surprisingly rare to find such dynamic explorations compared to the slew of narrowly-profit-focused projects. And even most museums and exhibits focus on straightforward art, or even on one particular artist, author, or actor. In other words, while DesignInquiry may not be completely unique, it does occupy a niche that is noteworthy, necessary, and less-than-fully explored. And differentiation in the world ought to count for something, just as it does in a business: what an entrepreneur would call a "moat". So what to Wikipedia is not noteworthy, to me is not only noteworthy, but timely and distinctive as well.
If DesignInquiry was actually an agenda-driven "movement" as the Wikipedia editor seemed to think it is (for unknown and unstated reasons), then it would probably be much more likely to be referenced in the various ways that Wikipedia seems to want it to be, like in the Times: because those with a motivation to promote an agenda tend to be far more aggressive in getting the word out there than those who are devoted to truthful exploring. Where did Wikipedia even get the word "movement" in this case? It is certainly not mentioned in DesignInquiry's own "About Us" page, although I have my doubts that Wikipedia actually read blurbs like that prior to deleting the page, because the reasons stated for the deletion come across as scatterbrained and rather inscrutable to me to say the least. Remember, Wikipedia, even if you delete a page, your reasons for doing so, unclear as they may be, are still stored in the archive for some of us to wonder about.
--172.58.222.165 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is a WP:WALL of text. Most folks would not read even part of such a long statement. If you could perhaps provide an abridged version, and keep future replies concise, you will get faster and better feedback. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, my response to you is WP:SOFIXIT. If you think there is an article there to write, then write it so we can determine if it is notable or not. shoy (reactions) 14:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the short version for all the Twitter-era denizens out there who lack an attention span. The DesignInquiry page should not have been deleted, and the process for doing so was shoddy: it was fast, sloppy, opaque, and more or less incoherent. Which unfortunately is a lot more common over there than many Wikipedia editors may like to admit.
Wikipedia is great, but some of the loyalists are so fond of their baby that they lash out at people like me while defending their beloved site to the end, even while providing somewhat questionable and patronizing lectures and not a lot in the way of practical assistance. The fact is, the quality of the initial (stub-esque) article should not be so tied to whether the topic itself is "notable" and should or should not be present in Wikipedia. That is just silly. I have expressed why the topic itself is notable, so bring the topic back so that we can all chip in on it. It should not be my responsibility to create the perfect article from top-to-bottom and then present it to you guys like I've written a dissertation. Especially when I risk running into yet another overzealous, overaggressive, article-chopper over there who deems the entire topic non-notable while providing no coherent reason for that.
The topic is notable, relevant, and distinctive. So stop deleting the darn thing, and let the Wikipedia editors just do their job. Stop making it so difficult for us to add useful content to Wikipedia. You're only sabotaging your own cherished little baby.
There is no great way to express a concern about this, because what I tend to get is this rotating set of Wikipedia-loyalists (yes, often with limited attention spans) who are intent on criticizing me while defending their beloved Wikipedia. I was first condescendingly told that "Wikipedia's processes can seem opaque to people who haven't contributed," and that answers to my questions were there for "anyone who cares to read a little." Of course, said answers were not in fact available. It turns out that he had not actually bothered to explore that. And now I am told by someone else that you guys don't really like to read very much anyway (TMI / TLDR!), after all. So first I was too lazy and now I'm too ambitious.
But I have experienced this before: it can be one excuse after another, and no genuine attempt to look into the concern. The collective nature of this site has advantages, but it also means that at the end of the day no one is really responsible, and passing the buck can be practically a religion over there. Yes, I wonder what variety of lecture I should be looking forward to next!
I am more than happy to contribute to Wikipedia, but sometimes you guys make doing so like pulling teeth. I have not gotten the sense so far that anyone over there is interested in what I am expressing here. I have tried to voice my concerns here about one specific topic, but also voice concerns about a basic process here that Wikipedia uses for approving pages, a process that all too often is overly subjective, sloppy, casual, and even rather ruthless. You tell me to go create the perfect page, even though you have been deleting the entire topic because you have deemed the entire topic not to be worthy. What sense does it make to waste my time on a topic that you deem worthless in the first place (even if for reasons that are incoherent at best)?
Wikipedia has said that this topic is non-notable even while gladly approving of topic after topic that is superficial through and through and all-but-irrelevant to society. And some of you over there have few qualms about putting us in this position: encouraging editors to spend hours and hours of our time before just unceremoniously scrapping the entire topic or page for poorly-outlined or even disingenuous reasons. In reality, the reason that you may not want to admit to is that the topic may just not catch the fancy of some noted Wikipedia guru over there who received the honor of spending about five minutes looking at the thing before casually throwing it onto the scrapheap. I don't know whether some of you are trying to out-ADHD an overcaffeinated Pomeranian or what the deal is, but come on, just take an hour or two and really look into a topic before you go and trash it! Why not consider exploring a more thoughtful process for approving or denying topics? The five minutes that you spend nixing content can mean hours of extra time on someone else's end, time that is sometimes wasted anyway. Even a great Wikipedia page begins with a single sentence, and sometimes even the greatest page has to begin as little more than a stub -- and maybe not even a good stub at that. If this is a valid topic, and this one is, then just let the page live so that we can all chip in and edit it, which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
You have demonstrated my point here about the general apathy that is sometimes displayed in this process. For one thing, your WP:WALL link goes to a page about a "walled garden," "a set of pages or articles that link to each other." A wall of text is an esoteric Wikipedia geek term for when an editor "attempts to overwhelm a discussion with a mass of irrelevant kilobytes" or "tries to cram every one of their cogent points into a single comprehensive response that is roughly the length of a short novel."
I don't know whether that is supposed to be sarcastic or what, but each point I have included here I have included for a reason, and we're talking pages at most in a novel, and not even a full chapter. Surely at least one of the restless Millennials over there can suck it up for a few minutes for the good of the greater site and read an entire page: but then again, if all you plan to do is to condescend and then ignore the concern anyway, then I suppose why bother to read more than a few sentences? I like Wikipedia, but it has room for improvement. I am happy to contribute and try to help you work on it, but sometimes you are unnecessarily fighting with the content-generators. But hey, if you care, you care, and if you don't, you don't. All I can do is provide my humble wall of text, and all you can do is what you do and ignore it.
I don't know where or how to express these concerns. But when you go and make our lives so difficult, there is only so much that we can do to battle against you and your formidable inertia. I find that very rarely is there an acknowledgement over there of any shortcoming, glitch, or potential error. Almost every time, it's our fault, and you may even as in this case encourage one person to try to single-handedly correct the entire issue even though this is supposed to be collaborative, to say nothing of the fact that an overly-trigger-happy moderator may be waiting in the wings anyway just to shoot the content down, for reasons that can be hazy at best.
So far I am not getting that anyone is interested in a real discussion here about the process, which in my view has been rather abysmal in this case. I discussed a few of the key points, not all of them, but as of now I'm guessing that all I will get is an ongoing, rotating set of Wikipedia editors-du-jour who are mainly interested in criticizing me or asking unreasonable things of me, while generically defending the process. All you have really needed to do is to undelete that which never should have been deleted in the first place! I am volunteering to contribute to this page and others, but not to sit down and create each page top-to-bottom almost from scratch (even though I have done that before).
Yes, it looks like Wikipedia has rather arbitrarily banished poor DesignInquiry into the ether, and that may be where it is going to stay. Perhaps there is some sort of symbolic honor or meaning that can be found in that. Too cool for Wikipedia: I kind of like it.
So, to sum up, the page should be there. If it were there, then I would be happy to chip in, and while it ought to exist, I am not about to go on some lengthy crusade against the prickliest among you in order to make it happen, not going to devote days of my life to writing a page that you have been intent on deleting for anyway for nonsensical reasons, not going to indulge a series of sometimes-bossy moderators over there who would have me jump through unreasonable hoop after unreasonable hoop while receiving a series of patronizing lectures, just to try to get a page going that should never have been deleted in the first place.
Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my wall of text. Don't forget to tip your waiters.
--172.58.223.63 (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14:44:04, 3 November 2019 review of submission by PKeenan1


P. Andrews-Keenan 14:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the article in the Chicago Crusader. That was a press release that I wrote and the Crusader ran in its entirety. I'm ok with removing that reference in order to have the page approved. Please advise.

Hi PKeenan1. Is your question in connection with Draft:Black Fine Art Month? If so, there are several things going on here.
  1. If you're writing a press release about Black Fine Art Month and also trying to write a Wikipedia article about it, then you have a conflict of interest, which you need to disclose.
  2. The newspaper group asserts "© Copyright 2019 - Chicago/Gary Crusader" over [1], which will make it difficult for you if you wish to donate what you wrote to Wikipedia.
  3. Text written for a press release is designed to advertise the subject, but Wikipedia articles are not allowed to promote anything, so it's almost never possible to reuse press release text verbatim in an encyclopedia article. It wouldn't be just a matter of removing a reference to the press release. Even if the draft hadn't been deleted for violating copyright, the text of it would need to be rewritten entirely.
--Worldbruce (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:45, 3 November 2019 review of submission by RazorGaming

plz I will lose 100$ if this isn't published pleaaaaaaaaaase RazorGaming (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have zero reliable sources, so no chance of it being accepted, I'm afraid you will lose your bet. Theroadislong (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:30, 3 November 2019 review of submission by Wikiabc123wiki

Hello, I have taken the review under consideration and re-edited the page. I added very reliable and accurate references as there were no references previously which is why the page was rejected for publication. There are no reference issues now and the data used is backed by various very credible sources. I cannot see any reason for why it should be rejected again, and therefore am asking for a second review. Thank you very much. Wikiabc123wiki (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiabc123wiki, Currently your article discusses a family. But I would say the family is likely not notable, i.e. not well known enough to be included. None of the sources discuss the family at any length. However, the companies they run could be notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:37:12, 3 November 2019 review of submission by 119.30.32.50


119.30.32.50 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This person is likely not notable. A google search of their name turned up less than 3,000 results. Much of the article has no sources currently. If you can find Bangladeshi sources, please add them. Such sources need to be from reliable sources, such as reputable media outlets, and independent of the subject. They also must discuss the subject at some length, not just in passing. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:02:33, 3 November 2019 review of submission by Bimjenning69

Template:Shannon Skanes

The sources were rejected. I was wondering which sources are unacceptable and how to change them. Bimjenning69 (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bimjenning69, Two of the sources are YouTube, which is almost never suitable as a source. What you need are more sources like the news article you have. Coverage in the media by reliable sources, that are independent of the subject, is critical. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:23:35, 3 November 2019 review of draft by Oak9500

Hello, I have submitted this article for review over 3 months ago and didn't get any reply. What can I do? Thank you!

Oak9500 (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oak9500, Please be patient, as it is in the review queue. The queue is currently severely backlogged, with average review times being over 8 weeks. Articles are reviewed in no particular order, although editors are working hard to reduce the backlog, and many are focusing on the oldest drafts. Thank you for understanding. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

00:09:05, 4 November 2019 review of draft by Mritch999


I need help formatting my sources.

Mritch999 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about Draft:John Manley Barnett. There's several problems. The one you mentioned here is the sources. You've got them all pre-formatted, with reference numbers embedded in the text. That means if anybody adds or deletes a reference in the future, all the references need to get re-numbered. That's not workable. Please see WP:CITE for how we do references.
As for the images, you mentioned on my talk page that, According to the newspapers, there is no copyright on them. That's not plausible. You may not have found a copyright notice, but it's copyrighted. It's almost certain that every one of the images you've used is going to be deleted as a copyright violation. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:40:50, 4 November 2019 review of draft by GouravSWS


GouravSWS (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GouravSWS, This article needs better sources. The website of the subject is not suitable. You also need to prove that the organization is in fact notable. To do that, you will need coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Also, the programs section should likely be removed. The admissions section and lead also are unsourced. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:45:04, 4 November 2019 review of submission by Anshu2818


Anshu2818 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has not been submitted, but it will be rejected if you do, because it is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:36:06, 4 November 2019 review of submission by Cdsfd

Hi! The article has been re-done and new sources have been added that should qualify the topic as being sufficiently notable. Cdsfd (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cdsfd, None of the sources discuss the subject with significant coverage. The topic seems unnotable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:21:55, 4 November 2019 review of submission by Isara22


Respected Wiki editors,

Thank you for all the insightful clarifications.

I have declared my connection to the company on my profile page, as I am a current full-time employee. I have modified the article by removing the list of services, to prevent the content from looking promotional. I have added a new reference to help the notability issue:

I hope all those can bring the page closer to being accepted.

Isara22 (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but no, the topic just isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia yet. Theroadislong (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:06:44, 4 November 2019 review of submission by 193.161.89.106


193.161.89.106 (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevindkarlsen The page seemed to be about a nonexistent person, or a non-notable person. Wikipedia does not have articles about everyone, only those who have received substantial coverage in media. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:46:13, 4 November 2019 review of draft by Junniest


Junniest (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not indicated which of the musical notability criteria is satisfied. We don't use external links in the body of an article and content like "Their music is freely available on Bandcamp, and on music streaming services such as Spotify, Google Music and Apple Music." is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:00, 4 November 2019 review of draft by Than sein aung


Than sein aung (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft makes no sense at all and has not been submitted for review. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GLOBAL VIDYAJYOTI INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE review of draft by RR


Rrarya6 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rrarya6: - as said by the reviewer, since it lacks any sources at all, it can't show notability. Have a look at referencing for beginners to see how to add references. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7641196/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr15

Moushumi Mitra with a screen name Moushumi Moush is a Costume Designer in the Indian cinema .

Filmography Mango Dreams https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7641196/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr15

Pratichaaya https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7641196/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moushumi Mitra (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moushumi Mitra, IMDb is not a reliable source. And don't add sources here, add them into the article using the guide that Nosebagbear linked above.Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:18:04, 4 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by TonyGonzalezTGI


I don't understand why my article is being declined. It cites exclusively independent, reliable sources and reads very neutral.

Any specific feedback is appreciated.


TonyGonzalezTGI (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TonyGonzalezTGI, You seem to have a conflict of interest with this article. I have left a note on your talk page regarding how to deal with that. In essence, you need to declare any conflicts of interest. You don't need to say "Oh I am Antonio" or "I know him", merely that you have a conflict of interest.
Once you've done that, note that not all sources are up to snuff. IMDb is not a reliable source. Modern tire dealer, and tire review both seem like unreliable industry publications to me. The CEO corner bit is an interview, which is a primary source and not independent. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. I'm on the fence about whether Tire Business is reliable. A films own website should not be used to talk about itself. And since this is a biography of a living person, every claim should generally be sourced. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help for this. This is my personal page and I want to know why it is rejected?

18:23:32, 4 November 2019 review of submission by Thesecretorder


tso 18:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Thesecretorder: Wikipedia is not a web host. We are not here to host folk's personal pages. Draft space and user space is still to used to imrpove the encyclopedia by creating articles about notable subjects that meet our policies. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:31, 4 November 2019 review of draft by CheatCodes4ever


But I did put references on it! I don’t get the coding of references, but what I’ve got is good enough! Please understand me, I put references from the ARIA Charts. It failed, it wasn’t on the charts. I have got it! Don’t decline this page again! It’s good enough!

CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheatCodes4ever, The reference does not show that the subject is notable, i.e. that it should be included on Wikipedia. The album did not top the charts, and there is no other reason provided why it would be notable. Also, you will need more than a single reference. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:05:48, 4 November 2019 review of submission by Cgandara2318


Can you tell me specifically what's wrong with the page??

Cgandara2318 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on your draft "Wikipedia is not intended as a how-to service". Theroadislong (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


November 5

Request on 00:33:37, 5 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Benjiebj


Hello! Sorry to bother, was just wondering if you could help me improve my writing skills for the DataLand page? Would really need help with creation of multiple pages.

Benjiebj (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiebj, The issue here isn't so much with your writing skills, but with the subject itself. There are tens of millions of businesses. We have to have some way to determine which ones to cover, which is our notability guideline. Only businesses that have been covered in multiple, reliable, and independent secondary sources may be included. It seems that Dataland does not meet that requirement. In terms of your writing, you should take care to write from a neutral point of view. The current article reads like a promotion. It has too many peacocking words. Non-neutral phrases include "expertise is complemented and enhanced ", "Backed by the solid reputation", "strategically located and envisioned" and many others. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:42:19, 5 November 2019 review of draft by Nobo71


Just asking, I know that I need more sources. But I would like to know if that is the main reason why it isn't accepted at the moment. I understand that it is not ready. But is it on a positive way to be included? Could it be rated from 1-10 on how good it is at the moment as 1 being bad and 10 being great? Thanks, I would appreacite it.

Nobo71-Wikipedia.org 00:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nobo71: - so it's not a quality of editing issue, so ranking 1-10 doesn't really make sense (layout and such is fine). It's the lack of suitable sourcing that's the issue. Almost all of your sources are tweets or from Sequester Access. You need several (3 is good) sources that are: in-depth, independent (no reason to be biased and generally no interviews), reliable (good editorial control) and secondary (newspapers, etc). Canyon News might be a decent source (it's not playing well with my laptop), but try finding a couple more reviews from other publications. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:38:16, 5 November 2019 review of submission by KBSKasyap


KBSKasyap (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KBSKasyap, This seems to be an average person, like you or I. There is no assertion of their notability, i.e. the reason they should have an article. Only folks who have been covered in multiple, reliable, independent sources can have articles about them. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:18:42, 5 November 2019 review of submission by Jazinto99


Jazinto99 (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jazinto99, The article had no sources. To include folks on Wikipedia, we need multiple reliable and independent sources that discuss them with significant coverage. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:50:58, 5 November 2019 review of submission by Shuvo chandra pall


Shuvo chandra pall (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was taken from an engineering student.An engineering student can invent anything within his limit .so i requested all of you please review again and take as a valid article .

@Shuvo chandra pall: There are many engineering students and notability is what matters and that is based off coverage in reliable secondary sources - it is not notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:17, 5 November 2019 review of submission by Shivkumawat


Shivkumawat (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have instructed to read WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Nothing more we can help. Matthew hk (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:13:36, 5 November 2019 review of submission by 194.243.213.83


Please, can someone help me for the publication of this page .... Ferdinandi was a famous designer in the 60s in Italy. There are also official news and photos attached, but this profile remains a draft. I hope for a welcome help. Thanks anyway. 194.243.213.83 (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read Wikipedia:Citing sources or Help:Referencing for beginners. The subject may be notable, but you need to state which page from the books you listed. Matthew hk (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:18:28, 5 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 68.103.78.155



68.103.78.155 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i Put in one reference yesterday so it should be an article by the end of the year. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:46:42, 5 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 83.151.229.56


I'm not sure how to proceed with this article, I think the concept has received considered academic and press attention under this title, as you can see at Draft_talk:Blue_space. I can find more if necessary. Do they need to be cited in the article to pass WP:NEO or is their existence sufficient?

83.151.229.56 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=924758266"