Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
| Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category, List, Sorting, Feed | 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 |
|---|
November 29
00:43:54, 29 November 2017 review of submission by Webern1348
- Webern1348 (talk · contribs) (TB)
- No draft specified!
When I am rejected they keep questioning whether the information is notable. If they were to examine the subject matter they could see why it is notable. There is a large number of people with pages who are not remotely close to the quality of the subject in question here. Is popularity the only issue in such matters?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Webern1348 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Webern1348: Hello, Webern. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Calling the basic issue one of "popularity" isn't quite correct -- but it's not entirely wrong. Whether or not the subject is "worthy", in some intrinsic sense, of having an article doesn't enter into the determination. Instead, what we are looking for is evidence that the subject has received substantial notice from authoritative sources in the subject's field. And all you've given us is two articles from 2012 -- one a local-coverage piece in the Salt Lake Tribune and the other an interview with a California-based website. To us, this doesn't appear to make the subject a "notable" composer. In order to make that demonstration, you'll need to show that the composer has been the subject of sustained in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Without making that showing, it is unlikely that your submission will be accepted for publication here.
On a less urgent matter, did you really intend to write an article about the composer? Virtually everything in your submission addresses that one composition, so much so that the submission might be more-accurately titled "Centrifugal Satz Clock". But that wouldn't change the need to show sustained in-depth discussion from authoritative sources. I mention it only because it struck me as odd to see a biography that didn't say much about the person.
I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
05:11:55, 29 November 2017 review of submission by Alysiamazzella
- Alysiamazzella (talk · contribs) (TB)
My draft has been rejected twice because it "sounds promotional." I am requesting help to fix the issue specifically. What do I need to omit or include for my article to be approved. I've researched and read many how to articles but still, I am confused of exactly why my article is being declined.
Alysiamazzella (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Alysiamazzella Thanks for your contribution here and sorry about the rejections. This is a tricky one. I have started a discussion with other reviewers. You may wish to follow it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Request on 13:55:37, 29 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Timea Orban
- Timea Orban (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, my article got declined for the second time already, so I'm wondering what the problem might be. I'm open to any and all suggestions on how to improve this piece. It's quite disappointing, because I thought I corrected everything that the review suggested. Please help me fix this, Thanks
Timea Orban (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Timea Orban: Due to a lot of recent efforts to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMOTIONAL purposes, we are requiring very strong evidence of notability for submissions such as yours. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH for a detailed description of these requirements. Additionally reviewers are requiring that the writing in these submission have a strict neutral point of view. This can best be achieved by stripping the article down to the bare essentials. Once accepted as an article, it can then be improved collaboratively to restore the removed information. ~Kvng (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
19:01:07, 29 November 2017 review of submission by Nayirim
I have removed all external links from the draft entry I'm working on, but I'm wondering -- is there an appropriate way to use external links? For example, I have a footnote after "Galaxy Project" but it seems that it might be helpful to also share a link to https://galaxyproject.org/. I'm also wondering what could be done if there's no footnote but there's an external link available. On the draft I've created, I refer to the International Workshop on Science Gateways. I don't have a footnote for the workshop, but there's a link I could connect to http://iwsg-life.org/site/iwsglife/.
Is there ever an instance where this is acceptable on Wikipedia and, if so, what's the best way to go about doing so? Would an external link be added as a footnote, too? I noticed on this page that there are some external links below the footnotes in an "external links" section at the very bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeraGrid
Thanks!
Nayirim (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Nayirim: I can help you with your questions but it looks like the larger issue is that there is already an article on this topic, Web portal, on Wikipedia. The reviewer suggested back in July that you consider incorporating this material into that existing article. Let me know if you have any questions about how to do that. ~Kvng (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to have this decision reconsidered which is why I need the help. I submitted a question to the Help Desk a few weeks ago about it. This is the question I submitted:
"I am revisiting this entry as I'd like to get something posted about science gateways soon. As I have been considering adding it to the web portal page, I'm a bit concerned as to how to appropriately integrate it. Science gateways, which are an international topic of interest have enough information about them that would cause an imbalance if I tried to integrate with the web portal section since there are a number of lists and subsections within the "science gateway" entry draft. Moreover, I considered adding it to the Virtual Research Environments page but I realized that VREs are a subset of science gateways, not the other way around. Finally, I considered the entry of "gateway (webpage)" but the "science gateway" content does not fit with this either.
Can you please advise if it would be appropriate to add all the content I've created in the "science gateway" draft in the web portal entry and, if so, how I would then create (per your suggestion) a redirect. If this is not appropriate, then I am hoping my request to make this a new entry can be reconsidered. The person who originally reviewed this entry has been blocked."
It was suggested that I work with Talk:Web portal to figure out how to integrate all this information on that page, to which I replied:
"Ok, I will try that route. Before I do so, though, can you please let me know if there's any way my request to make this a new entry will be reconsidered? I think it would be challenging and not fit very well with the suggestions made to incorporate in the web portal page. As you can see, I have created a significant amount of content."
And heard back:
@Nayirim: Yes, you can request a reconsideration simply by re-submitting the draft for review. It will take a few weeks before someone gets around to looking at it, but you'll get the opinion of a third editor and perhaps that person will view the draft more favorably. I do think it fair, however, to point out that a lot of your content is unsourced and will probably generate a decline even from a reviewer who might otherwise have accepted the notability of the topic. There's also quite a few in-article external links (i.e., links inside the main text that take the reader outside of Wikipedia). These are almost never acceptable. So, if you do choose to re-submit, you might want to address those matters first. Whatever your choice, I wish you good luck. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Nayirim: Thanks for the context. Please be aware that at the moment, different reviewers are operating to different standards. Our basic requirements for acceptance of new articles are notability lack of copyright violation issues and a reasonably neutral point of view. As NewYorkActuary points out here, we have some reviewers who will decline for other less significant concerns as well. As I read it, the advice given to you was to resubmit immediately and while you are waiting for another review, go ahead and make some of these further improvements to address the less significant concerns. We don't actually expect a new editor such as yourself to figure out the preferred way to present external links. If your draft gets rejected for something like this, please contact me and I will try to help. ~Kvng (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This is really useful, thank you! I will get the draft resubmitted.
Request on 20:21:33, 29 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Architecdesign
- Architecdesign (talk · contribs) (TB)
November 30
02:51:19, 30 November 2017 review of submission by Skdwived
Hi, can anyone please help on like how I can merge this page Draft:Geeta Arti with Gita Jayanti.
Skdwived (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Done – Joe (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
14:00:00, 30 November 2017 review of submission by Ansh Rathore
- Ansh Rathore (talk · contribs) (TB)
I sent the link the link of IMDB as reference which got declined. So If imdb can not be reference then what references are valid? Ansh Rathore (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Ansh Rathore. Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. If that's what you're trying to write, please don't. A subject who has had cameo roles, worked as an assistant director, and directed a short film, is unlikely to have received the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that is necessary in order to be included in Wikipedia. As his career progresses, more people may write about him in reliable sources.
- Among the links you were given on your talk page and on the draft in connection with it being declined is one that describes characteristics of reliable sources. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources lists specific resources that have been found useful for writing about film. Many of the same sources can be used for writing about actors and directors. The essay "Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs" lists some India-specific resources. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
20:43:05, 30 November 2017 review of submission by Meredith hudson00
- Meredith hudson00 (talk · contribs) (TB)
We have received feedback that our references do not adequately show our notability. What kind of references would make this page seem notable? The sources are from magazines and other publishers that have written articles about the company. In addition, is there a way someone could point out which parts of the article seem to have a promotional tone? This would be extremely helpful.
Thank you! Meredith hudson00 (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Meredith hudson00, You said "We". Does this mean there are multiple people using your account? If so, WP:NOSHARING states this is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. If not, are you speaking on behalf of the company that your page is about? If so, you must declare a conflict of interest per WP:COI, or, if you were paid to create the page, you must disclose this per WP:PAID. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
21:16:31, 30 November 2017 review of submission by Sanjunair
Hey! I just wanted to know how do we go about creating a page for a legit/operational start-up like Nocializer? I tried creating the page, however the effort was not approved at this time. How do thriving start-ups like us create an article on Wiki? Thanks. Sanjunair (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- You don't, Sanjunair. This is an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. Our volunteer editors write articles on notable companies if and when they have been subject to substantial coverage in other published sources. Per our conflict of interest policy, you should not write about your own company. – Joe (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
December 1
03:31:29, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Myuvaraj17
I have created a new article for a laundry company. How can confirm whether the article is submitted for review or not? May I get an email notification after the review successful? how can track this article submission?
Myuvaraj17 (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Myuvaraj17. Draft:Fabricspa has been submitted for review. Its status is indicated in the yellow box at the top of the page. There is currently a backlog of over 2000 submissions so I'm afraid it will take some time to be reviewed. You can track it using your watchlist and get email notifications by ticking "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" in your preferences. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
04:15:33, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Nateannoyingkerkhoff
I submitted my article for review and was declined. The reason was clear, fair, and helpful. I am missing notable sources, but my page is for an organization that is not from the United States. We are currently translating material, but most of the sources are in Korean. What is the best way to approach this? Nateannoyingkerkhoff (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Nateannoyingkerkhoff. Feel free to cite the sources in Korean. Whilst this is the English Wikipedia and English sources are preferred for our readers' convenience, if they are not available then sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable. – Joe (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
09:48:19, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Chiaradalmaso2
- Chiaradalmaso2 (talk · contribs) (TB)
The English voice about Filarmonica is considered as missing Reliable Sources. I don't get what it means actually.
Could you address me through the steps to solve it out?
Thanks very much
Chiaradalmaso2 (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Chiaradalmaso2. On Wikipedia every piece of information should be referenced to an external, reliable source. Your draft currently has no references, which means that none of the information can be verified by others. You will need to add references to where you got the information from. For instructions on how to format them see referencing for beginners. – Joe (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
12:34:44, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Lisaconnick
- Lisaconnick (talk · contribs) (TB)
Draft:Lily Cassandra Alphonsis
Lisaconnick (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Lisaconnick: I'm afraid I have had to delete this draft as it could be considered libel. I don't know anything this woman and my main thoughts about Harvey Weinstein are "how come he's getting just desserts while Donald Trump is getting off scot free?", but we cannot write about accusations of criminal behaviour without excellent and well-respected third party sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
16:00:08, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Tihonata
{{LafcTihonata (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Tihonata=Tihonata|ts=16:00:08, 1 December 2017|pending=Draft:Portea_-_Home_Health_Care}}
Good evening, question is whow long it will take to publish article?
Tihonata (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC) 16:00:08, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Tihonata
- @Tihonata: Unfortunately things are quite backlogged here. We have some submissions that have been in the review queue for nearly two months. Reviewers here are WP:VOLUNTEERS and decide for themselves which submissions to review so things are not always reviewed in the order they're received. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
19:43:34, 1 December 2017 review of submission by Fritzgoebel
- Fritzgoebel (talk · contribs) (TB)
It may not be clear where this proposed page, 'Named passenger trains of the United States', belongs in Wikipedia. My idea is that the page 'Lists of named Passenger Trains', will link to it, while the proposed page will then itself link to the pages of alphabetized lists of American trains. In short, the proposed page provides background for the Wikipedia user to help them understand that there can never be a 'definitive' list of named American trains, given that there is often uncertainly about whether a train designation is really a name or just a description.
Fritzgoebel (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Fritzgoebel: I would think this is something you should discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains or Talk:Lists of named passenger trains. We have an active community of Wikipedia editors dealing with rail topics. ~Kvng (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
December 2
01:37:41, 2 December 2017 review of submission by Blueant2
Hi, sorry I had to create a new account. I forgot my password over the past few months.
I created the Bugcrowd page and included links to several reliable sources, many of them were major national news networks/sites, and the articles do not promote the subject they just cover the news about the subject. Can you help me understand what the issue is with my sources?
When writing this page I looked at a similar company, HackerOne, which includes very similar sources and doesn't even cite sources for many claims. Yet it was deemed notable and worthy. Can you help me understand the discrepancy?
Thank you, BlueAnt
- @Blueant2: Hello, Blueant. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. As for why your submission was rejected even though a similar company has an article, Wikipedia has well more than 5 million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they should not. But the existence of that article will not relieve you of the need to demonstrate that this particular new company has received substantial coverage from reliable independent sources. And even with the new references added earlier today, I don't see that you've made this demonstration. Most of your sources merely confirm that the company has particular clients and that it received financing from particular sources. But none of that is encyclopedic. Of the other references, some just make routine announcements of changes in management, one is an interview and another barely mentions the company at all except for quotes from an officer about bug bounty programs. And there's the piece from Forbes, which was written by a contributor and, thus, can not be considered a reliable authoritative source. In all, and despite your use of fifteen references, I don't see enough evidence to suggest that this new company is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
07:46:31, 2 December 2017 review of submission by LindsayUittenbogaard
- LindsayUittenbogaard (talk · contribs) (TB)
I recently drafted a page on Social Alignment. At the time I was not so close to this subject matter, so indicated this on the draft page creation. For one reason or another now I am close to it - it underpins the a business concept I am working on. Do I need to change this if if yes, how? Thank you! LindsayUittenbogaard (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi LindsayUittenbogaard. That doesn't sound like a conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia is concerned, so you don't need to do anything, no. – Joe (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
11:46:25, 2 December 2017 review of submission by Khannarahul
- Khannarahul (talk · contribs) (TB)
- @Khannarahul: Hello, Khannarahul. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
18:58:38, 2 December 2017 review of draft by SteveLHarris
- SteveLHarris (talk · contribs) (TB)
This is the first time I've contributed an article to Wickipedia (Balch, Frederic Homer) and I need help in several aspects of the entry: When I click on the "I" button for italics to list book or magazine titles, a whole succession of letters appears on the line, but nothing I type is printed in italics.
Also, how do I insert footnote numbers in the main text and what format do I use for the footnotes themselves? How do I list items in a bibliography? And how do I list news & magazine articles about the subject?
Thanks for helping out.
Sincerely,
Steve Harris (User Name: SteveLHarris)
SteveLHarris (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi SteveLHarris. If you're editing the source, clicking the "I" button should insert the text
''Italic text''where the text cursor is. If you were to preview the page you would see it rendered as Italic text. The idea is that you should replace the words with the text that you want to be italic, leaving the markup around the words intact. Once you know the markup, it's easier to ignore the button and just type two apostrophes before the words you want to italicize, and two more apostrophes at the end of the italic text. This technique works well for things like book titles in running text (such as The Bridge of the Gods). Footnotes are a bit different.
- The best starting point to learn about footnotes is Help:Referencing for beginners. The most counter-intuitive thing about them is that you don't write anything in the "References" section. Instead you intersperse the references with the text. I've redone one inline citation in a recommended format, using {{cite book}}. It takes care of italics within the citation automatically. There are similar templates, {{cite news}} and {{cite magazine}}, for other types of sources. There's a lot more you can do, using the same reference again, avoiding Ibid, using groups to separate notes from references, and using shortened footnotes to avoid repetition (which may be what you mean by a bibliography). Start with the basics. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
December 3
Request on 13:26:24, 3 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Maxkostenko
- Maxkostenko (talk · contribs) (TB)
I want to make a good name of the page. Now it is User:Maxkostenko, but it have to be ... Ninja
Maxkostenko (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Maxkostenko. If a reviewer were to accept the draft, they would assign an appropriate title at that time. Because Wikipedia articles only cover notable topics—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, there is no realistic chance that the draft will be accepted for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
14:18:33, 3 December 2017 review of submission by Swollards7775
- Swollards7775 (talk · contribs) (TB)
My apologies for misunderstanding what is expected when posting an article on Wiki. I am having difficulty in understand your guidelines in submitting an article. I have attempted to properly describe what the core foundations are without it being biased. What parts should I change which will help that not to sound like such? Also, I was told that I need polished sources to cite from. What if the organization is fairly new and has a few external interviews but not a lot which can back up the facts which need to be stated about the organization? Please help me to properly do this as I feel people should be aware of our organization and what it consists of.
Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. Please know that I am really new at this sort of thing.
Swollards7775 (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Swollards7775. Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Student sources may be discounted because of their narrow audience and because student journalists are by definition still learning their trade. If the organization is too new to have been widely covered in more mainstream outlets, then it is not yet a suitable topic for the encyclopedia. This is not the place to "get the word out" about anything, so your motive in writing the draft is at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
17:58:03, 3 December 2017 review of submission by Amitagarwal3000
- Amitagarwal3000 (talk · contribs) (TB)
- No draft specified!
Amitagarwal3000 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amitagarwal3000
but i dont understand why mine article was decline i am producer of this album mine site is amit02.com
please tell me what to remove from article i will do that thanks
- Hi Amitagarwal3000. Wikipedia is not a directory of every album in existence. Articles cover notable albums—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. If the album is not notable, no amount of editing Draft:Amitagarwal3000 will make it acceptable.
- As the producer of the album you have a conflict of interest when writing about it, so it is a bad idea for you to continue with the draft. Wikipedia is not for advertising, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Request on 18:46:32, 3 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Clofback
I'm trying to add an article for a James Taylor concert DVD, but it is getting rejected for lack of citations. The article simply provides track information and a summary of the description printed on the DVD case. I tried citing the DVD but it still got rejected. What do I need to do?
Clofback (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Clofback. Thanks for getting involved as an editor. See WP:NALBUM for an explanation of why a draft consisting only of information copied from the DVD and packaging will not be accepted as a stand alone article, and of what sort of independent coverage would be required for acceptance. Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums may be able to suggest sources.
- Creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time-consuming, and frustrating things to attempt on Wikipedia. There are many easier and more productive ways to contribute. You can find suggestions from WikiProjects that align with your interests, or at Wikipedia:Community portal. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
December 4
00:23:30, 4 December 2017 review of draft by Rowlandrobinson94
- Rowlandrobinson94 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Rowlandrobinson94 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
hello, I am trying to make a page and I do not know anything/ am very confused. Help lolRowlandrobinson94 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Rowlandrobinson94. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page to help you get started. It's easiest to begin by improving some of our 5.5 million existing articles before trying to create a new page. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
01:56:45, 4 December 2017 review of submission by Sofbar1
How do I change the name of a "Draft" that has already been submitted for review/
Sofbar1 (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Sofbar1. In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). Focus on the content first, before worrying about the title. The current content stands no chance of being accepted for publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Request on 03:46:25, 4 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Editor0088
- Editor0088 (talk · contribs) (TB)
There are thousands of entries with the same sources from my article, but mine is not approved? Please help.
Editor0088 (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Editor0088. Encyclopaedia Metallum (metal-archives.com) and discogs.com, being user-generated, are not reliable sources and should not be used as references. If thousands of articles reference them, then you can help to improve thousands of articles by finding replacement sources that are reliable. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has some suggestions. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
11:06:31, 4 December 2017 review of submission by Theunveiledvisage
- Theunveiledvisage (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, It has been more than 2 months now since I had written the draft on "Suhail Chandhok". After it got rejected because of having used the peacock terms, I rectified the same. However, there is no update on the article being accepted or rejected. I'm anxious now and need to know what the status of the article is. Kindly look into the matter and give me an update regarding the same. Your help will be appreciated. Thank You. Theunveiledvisage (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Theunveiledvisage. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed since October 27. About 430 drafts have been waiting for review longer than this one. With the current backlog, the draft is likely to be reviewed within the next three weeks. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Request on 11:08:08, 4 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jojooo75
Hi! I am looking to publish a Dutch article on a Dutch politician, but apparently I am in the English section. How do I get to the Dutch Wikipedia so I can have my texted reviewed once more?
Thank you so much.
Jojooo75 (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Jojooo75. The url for the Dutch Wikipedia is https://nl.wikipedia.org/ --Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
12:23:08, 4 December 2017 review of submission by Supersickmemes
- Supersickmemes (talk · contribs) (TB)
Supersickmemes (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Supersickmemes: Hello, Super. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Request on 12:24:07, 4 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Chinna98
Chinna98 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@Chinna98: Hello, Chinna. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
14:50:14, 4 December 2017 review of submission by Paul Hermann
- Paul Hermann (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello, I tried to publish a wikipedia article about a French brand called "Gifi" but unfortunately my article has been refused two times already under the claim that it did not include "independent" sources. After my article was first refused, I included new sources which mentioned this brand but weren't directly linked to it before re-sending it, but again my article was refused because of a lack of independent sources. Could you please tell me why my sources aren't considered as independent ones? I thank you in advance for your answer. Regards, Paul Paul Hermann (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Draft:Gifi doesn't cite any sources at all. So the claim that it does not include "independent" sources is irrefutably true. Maproom (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Paul Hermann. Possibly you are confusing external links with sources. From the draft it appears you are struggling with some of the basics of writing for Wikipedia (which is not unusual, none of us was born knowing how to be a Wikipedian). I've left a basket of welcome links on your talk page that may help you get your bearings. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Request on 19:52:24, 4 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 68.102.39.189
- 68.102.39.189 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Can you Move the 2018 In American Music from the Draft to the main Article Space if you please there's 3 references. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
68.102.39.189 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- A. It is not submitted for review.
B. Where are your three references? I see none. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think the request actually pertains to Draft:2018 in American music. Bradv 18:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
December 5
17:49:36, 5 December 2017 review of submission by Tbliss558
Retaliatory rejection Tbliss558 (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC) The draft was in the queue for review. Some wikipedia editor had already suggested I change the pagename to Richard Levine (director). Levine is better known for writing so on December 1 I contacted the user talk IRC page simply to clarify the general rule regarding these titles. I was immediately greeted with "he's not notable, my Dad directed X tv shows and doesn't have a page...." and so on and so forth. I replied that i did not ask for an accelerated review, that the user talk IRC page explicitly says that asking questions here would not accelerate a review, that I was simply asking a general question. TJH2018 was offended and, THAT SAME DAY, retaliated by accelerating the review of the article and rejecting it. The ostensible reasons for the rejection are inapplicable to the subject. This rejection is retaliation. How do I appeal this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Tbliss558. I am an impartial reviewer and not connected to the editor who conducted the previous review, TJH2018. I have looked at the draft article. I see lots of productions that Levine has been involved in, supported by IMDB references. These are not considered reliable references because IMDB content is largely user-generated. See WP:IMDBREF and WP:Citing IMDb. The two references that aren't from IMDB include only mere mentions about Levine, whereas the notability guideline for biographies (used to determine which people there should be Wikipedia articles about) requires that there should be substantial, in depth coverage about the person in multiple reliable, independent publications. As the draft currently doesn't meet the notability guidelines, the previous reviewer was right to decline the draft for the reason given in the grey box. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
20:27:16, 5 December 2017 review of submission by Lloan
I have wrote this article based off one of Fit Body Boot Camp's competitors Wiki Page: Orange Theory Fitness. They also refer to their main business site in the same manner that I did. We also utilized independent sources. Would it be possible to point to what sections specifically shouldn't be included? The response given for rejection was, with all due respect, a bit vague. Would it be possible to get a bit more as far as clarification? I would very much appreciate that, thank you for your time.