Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
| Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category, 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 |
|---|
March 28
03:40:35, 28 March 2020 review of submission by Pilot333
Pilot333 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The comment left by DGG is really vague and they haven't replied on what part of the Wikipedia guidelines this is failing. I'm assuming it was something they derived from WP:NOT but there's nothing there about press releases, so I can't find more specific info. The article put forward has no events or announcements, but rather just basic history, backed by some media coverage, which basically the bare minimum to get an article started while meeting WP:SIGCOV. I think it's clear the stub has no recruitment, opinions, scandals, gossip, or advertising and maintains a neutral point of view because of that. There's a lot of notable companies in the media that should have stubs (and AFC demonstrates this) but it can be hard to do so when the instructions are unclear.
- Typically what "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is referring to is an article written in a solely promotional tone. Your article seems to be notable, but would need to be almost completely rewritten to be written in a neutral tone. To be more specific, as that is what you request, the first sentence of the article is good. The second sentence "Founded in 2011 by John Dean and inspired by the street style of Southern California, Renowned LA is worn by celebrities such as Nicki Minaj, Bryson Tiller, Tyga and Chris Brown who wore a T-shirt on the cover of Nylon in 2013," for instance could be changed to "The brand was started in 2011 based off of "street" clothing in Southern California. Renowned LA has been noted in media outlets for being worn by Chris Brown." I only mention Chris Brown here because the article you cited simply says that that person worked with various celebrities, not that they wore his clothing. Even if you could provide verification that it was worn by multiple celebrities, it would be "more neutral" to write "various celebrities" instead of listing them. Hopefully this gives you a starting point. It would also be helpful to expand on the article to not only list the attention it has gotten in the media and provide actual details of the brand (for instance, descriptions of the clothing?). If you have further questions, follow up with me on my talk page. Your article has been rejected which usually means it can't be resubmitted but if you legitimately write it in a neutral tone, I'll review it (again, let me know on my talk page). Sam-2727 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
04:26:12, 28 March 2020 review of submission by BharathSD
Added references from cbs19news, parade https://www.cbs19news.com/story/41948184/spark-databox-online-software-training-institute https://parade.com/1014515/jessicasager/free-online-courses/
BharathSD (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
05:11:35, 28 March 2020 review of submission by BharathSD
Added proper categories, few notable mentions about Spark Databox. Kindly review and approve. BharathSD (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- BharathSD Your draft has been rejected, meaning that the topic is not suitable for an article at this time. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Request on 10:57:13, 28 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Scomic12
Hello, I do not understand why this documentary does not deserve a page while other documentaries by the same director has a page (Fear, Amar Lenin, Ramkinkar Baij). The reviewer mentioned a lack of significant coverage in the references, but the other pages also have similar references or less. The only additional reference that the other have is from a book which does have this film as well but I don't remember the page or have access to it at the moment.Thank you. Scomic12 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Scomic12 It's not generally good to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see WP:OSE. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about; feel free to point out other problematic articles that need to be addressed. Not every film by a filmmaker will merit a standalone article; if it does not get significant coverage in independent sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable film, it will not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
15:19:10, 28 March 2020 review of submission by 2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:D05A:43CD:3E59:27E1
What can I do to improve this article?
2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:D05A:43CD:3E59:27E1 (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- They would need to pass one of the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN to qualify for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
16:44:53, 28 March 2020 review of draft by JLbranch40
- JLbranch40 (talk · contribs) (TB)
In response to the latest rejection of the Wikipedia article submission, for artist Brian Hochstrat, the claim that the article does not meet the “significant coverage” requirement to justify the creation of a Wikipedia page is inaccurate, showing a lack of follow-through research, potential personal/political/cultural bias, and lack of subject matter/industry knowledge regarding the subject matter in which the artist works, on the part of the Wikipedia editor’s/reviewer(s). If the reviewer(s) would do their due diligence, the sources listed under the artist’s name, they will clearly see, the artist has been directly cited in seven “published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject”, spanning a number of fifteen plus pages that showcase and feature the artist's work, not to mention the venues at which the artist's work has been and is featured in, including several pieces on display in noteworthy museums. The publications and exhibits encompass the industry leaders, there are no higher gatekeepers. According to Wikipedia’s own definition of “significant coverage” as found at the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. The artist has received coverage in several objective, industry-leading publications that meet and exceed the objective requirement of “significant coverage” and thus warrants the “honor” of having a Wikipedia page. For example, on the Wikipedia page of Buster Warenski, a well-known knifemaker, only six sources are listed and that Wikipedia page is “notable” enough to have been published.
I do no understand how my sources can continue to be rejected. I am not a fool. I have a bachelor's degree in journalism. I know what published, reliable sources are. The most recent rejection also details that I have not added any new sources since the last rejection. It's simply not true. I added "Turpin, Tom (Outdoor writer). Modern custom guns : walnut, steel, and uncommon artistry (2nd ed.). Iola, WI. p. 160. ISBN 9781440236440. OCLC 825734074." The three main sources are published books by industry experts. Here are the Amazon links. Someone, please explain to me how these are not sufficient.
The other sources are published professional magazines and official websites. I am increasingly becoming concerned that the article is being rejected because of the editors' personal feelings toward the subject of guns. Please, if that is not the case, enlighten me as to how these are not reliable sources.
JLbranch40 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- "Hochstrat hand engraves collector-quality firearms and knives using gold and other precious metal inlay, featuring extensive fine bulino and scroll coverage"... content like this would be fine on his own website but sounds too promotional for an encyclopaedia article. Are any of the awards notable? You are a single purpose account do you have a connection with the subject by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
21:08:51, 28 March 2020 review of submission by Gtrebg
Gtrebg (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- You haven't asked a question. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
23:35:24, 28 March 2020 review of submission by WriteIncunabula
- WriteIncunabula (talk · contribs) (TB)
- No draft specified!
Hello! I was thrilled to receive a message that a page I'd created, Dan Lam, made it into DYK. When I went to check it out, I noticed that more photos than I had remembered were removed from the gallery section. I can't seem to get a handle on what stays and what doesn't. I also know that a photographer who took some photos of the artist's work, posted some of them, but they were removed, too. My question is, can someone help? Not only are there many articles with pictures of the work, the artist's own flickr gallery has some that, as far as I can discern, have been tagged as open rights, within wikimedia commons guidelines for inclusion. Is there something relatively easy and obvious I'm missing? Any advice or help putting some images back in the gallery section would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! WriteIncunabula (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
WriteIncunabula (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi WriteIncunabula, it's certainly impressive that your article made it to DYK. I believe there was already a dense conversation that you participated in on the talk page to remove the image in the lead. That image was moved to another section because it didn't really contain a picture of the artist but really of her artwork. Looking at the history of the page, two images were removed because "the source of the derivative work wasn't specified." That is, because there was an inclusion of other content in the work not covered by its license, the source of that copyrighted content must be specified for the image to be kept in Wikimedia Commons. Then, once those files were deleted on commons, a bot came through and automatically removed them from the article. If you specify the source of the derivative work ensuring that the source allows free-use then you can add the images back to commons and use them on the article. I'm assuming (from the article) that the source of the derivative work is her artwork. If so, you must find reference that the artwork is free-use(I would be surprised if it was though). Sam-2727 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Sam, thanks very much. You're right about the lead image, but I managed to move on from that. My first, only, and accidental foray into an edit war and I learned from it. :) As to my current question, I did notice at one point in the history it mentioned specifying the source, and was confused because I thought that the photographer had done that. If I understand you correctly, it's not only that the photographer has to list the image as free-use, but the original artist of the piece in the photograph as well. That does pose a difficulty I hadn't expected. Frankly, I was considering contacting a gallery or journalist with a polite note encouraging them to post just one or two images to wikimedia commons so that they might be included on the artist's page. It's not something I'd normally do, and I'd prefer to just work on pages without too much real-world interaction in an article's sphere, if that makes sense. Not sure if that gives you a specific question, but I think at this point it's probably best if I drop it and move on. I'm extremely pleased the article garnered some attention, and will watch to see what more experienced editors do with it as time passes. I really appreciate you taking the time today. WriteIncunabula (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'd recommend asking more questions on this over at Wikimedia Commons as I'm not the most knowledgable in this area. There actually is a process to get permission from artists. How it works is you tell them to contact via WP:OTRS giving proof that they are the artist and give permission to release the art under a free license. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- I really appreciate the guidance, and I'll dig into it more than I have. I probably should have found that on my own, but someone pointing one in the right direction is a huge help. Thank you again. Fascinating stuff and I'll get more on top of it. WriteIncunabula (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- WriteIncunabula sure thing! Glad I could help! And don't worry too much about making mistakes. Most mistakes can easily be fixed due to the extensive edit history available on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
March 29
01:26:24, 29 March 2020 review of submission by Patrick68005
- Patrick68005 (talk · contribs) (TB)
I think I understand - generally - the part about how the data in an article should be verifiable against reliable published sources. I believe this article actually fills a need not met by the other sources: providing information on the architect of the so-called Fitchburg Furnace in Kentucky that, admittedly, exists nowhere else. What I don't understand is exactly why one article, for example -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_(drink) -- was deemed acceptable but my article on Frank Fitch was not? I'll agree that some data in my article such as details of his early life and family referenced an unpublished family history Fitch wrote in the 1910s; that was the only source for some of that information. In the article on Ski above, I do not see that the sources used in that article are any better than the ones I used in my article. Thanks - I look forward to getting some additional feedback. Patrick68005 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Patrick68005, if references aren't verifiable than they shouldn't be used. An unpublished biography shouldn't be cited as a source, and any information that can't be verified in another source besides that should be deleted from the article (this doesn't mean the sources have to be available online, but they should be published at the very least). This is critical in all Wikipedia articles so that readers can trust the information in the articles is correct. The main problem with your article isn't that the sources you have are bad, they just don't support the notability of the subject of your article. You have a lot of sources so I'm not going to discuss all of them, but as an example [1] only has one mention of the subject of your article. I would say as a minimum a source must have at least a paragraph on this specific person to count towards the notability criteria. And besides a significant mention, sources must be independent and reliable. This would mean that, for instance, his notebooks don't count towards this notability criteria. Usually you need three sources under these criteria to be considered notable. The article that you reference does have references to meet these criteria, although I should note that not all Wikipedia articles are model examples. For examples to model your articles off of, I would look at Good articles and Featured articles. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Request on 02:16:48, 29 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Beatleswillneverdie
- Beatleswillneverdie (talk · contribs) (TB)
What references and sources can be used to make a song more notable?
Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Beatleswillneverdie, I would look over the general notability criteria for an idea of what to look for. I would start with looking for reviews of the song although sometimes news articles can be helpful. As pointed out by a reviewer, the article was previously deleted 12 years ago (which is I'll admit a long time ago) so try looking for sources that have been published since then that could establish notability of the article beyond that of the article that was deleted. Right now, a lot of the sources you have are just rankings of songs, which doesn't suggest notability as it gives no real information about the song (and is a trivial reference). Other sources also just include trivial references. Let me know if you're still struggling after looking for these types of sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Sam-2727, I have been looking for hours and can't find any good sources. Can you please help? Beatleswillneverdie (talk)
- Beatleswillneverdie as has been pointed out to you a few times now, some songs just aren't notable, even ones written by notable bands. If you aren't able to find additional sources to show notability, then it is likely this song just isn't notable. This song in particular has failed an AfD in the past and there's nothing to indicate it has become notable since. The first step in creating an article is first finding and confirming there are sources to denote notability and if there are THEN create a page. Otherwise, you're just going to keep getting yourself stuck in these points of disappointment where you create an article and then have to abandon the work you've put into since you didn't first check if it was notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Beatleswillneverdie: Returning to your original question, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources lists sources that Wikipedians have found useful when writing about albums and, by extension, songs. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
04:18:09, 29 March 2020 review of submission by 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:28B3:374B:3E3C:8568
- 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:28B3:374B:3E3C:8568 (talk · contribs) (TB)
- No draft specified!
2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:28B3:374B:3E3C:8568 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
06:26:41, 29 March 2020 review of submission by A117.sau-rav
- A117.sau-rav (talk · contribs) (TB)
A117.sau-rav (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not for promoting anything. That page has been deleted, so nothing left to do here. If you make a new attempt, please avoid puffery. Wikipedia should maintain a neutral point of view. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
15:35:56, 29 March 2020 review of submission by TheFuzzyDonut
- TheFuzzyDonut (talk · contribs) (TB)
TheFuzzyDonut (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Spignesi_Band
Good Morning! Hoping this message finds you well. Just looking for some tips/clarification on how to improve this article for approval. Thanks for all you guys do. I can't imagine this is an easy job ha!
- Hi TheFuzzyDonut, I think the main way you can improve your article is to add sources that meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia. That is, add sources that are independent of the band and reliable and mention the band non-trivially. Currently, sources like [2] don't establish these criteria as it's really just a list of bands, not really anything in depth about this band in particular. Generally interviews like [3] aren't considered independent of the source. Finally, try to state everything in a neutral tone. Sentences like "The loss of Bob and his unique bass style was a devastating blow for Spignesi, having felt that JSB would never recover" are kind of dramatic (the word devastating and unique). Avoid stating opinions as if they were fact. Let me know if you have further questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
15:36:12, 29 March 2020 review of draft by LL19861
I do not want broke any rules or any law regarding placing those informations on Wikipedia (maybe improving it as format & graphic) about the short film "Mommy Doesn't Wants" (2016) produced by Amedeo Gagliardi, so i'm asking your help.
i received the authorization to do so by Mr. Amedeo Gagliardi himself which i'm honored to consider a friend.
LL 15:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi LL19861, check out other Wikipedia articles as examples on how to format yours. Currently, you're trying to include links using html, but you can't do this on Wikipedia. Instead, you use brackets. For instance, to link the website example.com, I write [example.com]. Also, try writing in prose format. That is, instead of listing facts, write in coherent paragraphs. Hopefully this helps! Sam-2727 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
17:25:47, 29 March 2020 review of submission by Kutuloncat3
- Kutuloncat3 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, I republished the page since 18 March but I did not get any further replies/comments/feedback.
How long does it usually take for a page to be published in Wikipedia?
Thank you. Jen Kutuloncat3 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Kutuloncat3, it can take months for an article to be reviewed again. This can happen many times, so there is no set timeline for a Wikipedia article to be "published". It all depends on the quality of the article (the higher quality it is, the less time it will take to be "published") and a bit of random chance as reviewers make their way through submissions. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi (talk), I understand that is the case. However, I have come across this particular page that only lists two sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Securities_Indonesia,_PT). May I know is it still possible to get a Wiki page published with two secondary sources?
Thanks
Jennifer Kutuloncat3 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
18:48:09, 29 March 2020 review of submission by Lx005
This artist recently released a new record and gained popularity, having notably had coverage on Kerrang! and Rock Sound, also including a Rock Sound premiere and a Kerrang! print review in their March 14th 2020 issue (both outlets are listed as Reliable Sources here). Dead Press also reviewed the record here and they are also a part of the Reliable Sources mentioned previously. This artist also recently toured Europe with Icon For Hire which contributed to increasing their popularity. The information can be found on the previously mentioned Rock Sound article. This artist is also playing Two Thousand Trees Festival 2020, which has been announced on several Reliable Source websites such as Rock Sound or Dead Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx005 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Lx005 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Lx005, I have removed the reject template which will allow you to resubmit it. However, you will need to incorporate all of those sources you mentioned before submitting or you'll likely face the same result. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
19:15:55, 29 March 2020 review of submission by Pennsylvania2
- Pennsylvania2 (talk · contribs) (TB)
The AFD determined more sources needed to be added. I added more sources including from books. Should be a wikipedia page because there are sufficient sources.
Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pennsylvania2, John from Idegon has rejected the article which means it was determined that no amount of editing or revision would make the page appropriate for mainspace. You were advised multiple times that we needed to see coverage aside from just WP:LOCAL and WP:ROUTINE news. You also were advised at multiple times to remove the overly promotional language of the article and write it formally and neutrally. You failed to do so and were wasting the time of multiple volunteers by continually resubmitting without properly making an effort to address the issues. In the future, I would advise against creating article that you have a clear WP:COI with. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- So more than 5 books are not reputable?
- Pennsylvania2, The books don't count towards the notability criteria if they are written by someone closely connected to the school, which I suspect from the titles of the books. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Where is the proof of that?
- @Pennsylvania2: Child and Adolescent Development for Educators and Raising Reading Achievement in Middle and High Schools cite Irene W. Gaskins, the founder of Benchmark School, exclusively and heavily respectively. The chapter in Instructional Models in Reading is co-authored by Gaskins, and your links for Phonics from A to Z and Word Recognition in Beginning Literacy lead to Success with Struggling Readers, authored by Gaskins. The last may be a mistaken link on your part. You may have intended to link to chapter "A Beginning Literacy Program for At-Risk and Delayed Readers" in the named book, a chapter authored by, you guessed it, Gaskins. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Where is the proof of that?
- Pennsylvania2, The books don't count towards the notability criteria if they are written by someone closely connected to the school, which I suspect from the titles of the books. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- So more than 5 books are not reputable?
20:58:47, 29 March 2020 review of draft by TheFuzzyDonut
- TheFuzzyDonut (talk · contribs) (TB)
TheFuzzyDonut (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
TheFuzzyDonut (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Spignesi_Band
Greetings -
Any tips for how to improve this piece for approval? It is my understanding that these sources are reputable as they are connected with BandCamp and Spotify, as well as the Press Release for the album. Any advice you have is much appreciated! Thanks for all you do!
- TheFuzzyDonut As noted when your draft was declined, the sources do not indicate how this band meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable band. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Spotify isn't an indication of notability because there is no fact checking, not sure about BandCamp (but in your article I don't see this), and a press release is not independent of the subject. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
21:18:45, 29 March 2020 review of draft by Nwebste4
I am attempting to publish an article about the sport NitroBall and have no relation to any person or company associated with this sport but it appears as if my draft was rejected because reviewers believed that I was affiliated with it. What can I do to show that I have nothing to gain from this article being published or that I am not attempting to advertise? Nwebste4 (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nwebste4 The reviewer might have suspected you have a conflict of interest because you only offered two sources and stated that you wanted to "initiate it and "get the ball rolling"", which sounds to others like you are here to promote the sport. Two sources is not enough; you need to have multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the sport in order to show that it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If there are no other sources, it would not merit an article at this time. You cannot use Wikipedia to spread the word about this sport; independent sources must take note of it and write about it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
March 30
12:24:01, 30 March 2020 review of draft by WeeRedLass
Thank you for your input. I'll work on changing the language of the article to be appropriately neutral. If there are any other suggestions for improvement, please let me know.
00:29:08, 30 March 2020 review of submission by George Genovezos
- George Genovezos (talk · contribs) (TB)
George Genovezos (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- George Genovezos, articles must be written in a neutral tone and provide sufficient sources that qualify the source to be in Wikipedia under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Currently, your article does neither of these. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
03:56:35, 30 March 2020 review of draft by WeeRedLass
Hello, Can you please elaborate on the reason for rejecting this article? Thank you.
WeeRedLass (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- WeeRedLass, The page just looks like an advertisement for the dance group. I would recommend reviewing the links provided in the decline message. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
07:21:58, 30 March 2020 review of draft by Dora's ice lolly
- Dora's ice lolly (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello
I have moved my draft article to Harry Styles' main article as advised by the Wikipedia reviewer, under the heading Treat People with Kindness.
Now there are a couple of things I did not manage to do (please reply in simple language as I find all Wiki instructions a nightmare to understand):
1) My external links don't look right in Read mode, for example link to the music video for the song Treat People with Kindness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi2Gy7DG75g&list=OLAK5uy_l-oeXy89ZqIF0Dw3adjIVcpTKpj_diYNY&index=12&t=0s%2F
2) We now need to have a desambiguation page for Treat People with Kindness. It is both a song and a slogan. Please can you show me how to do it. Thank you.
Dora's ice lolly (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Dora's ice lolly, great job on moving the article. What do you think looks wrong about the link? That is generally what external links look like. Generally though, having external links in the article is discouraged so I'd recommend you remove them. I'm hesitant to make a disambiguation page though because typically disambiguation pages are for more than three topics. I'm going to put a hatnote (tiny text that tells people there is another topic with the same name) on the section in case people get confused. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
10:50:40, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Nesherin
Hi, I've been working on this page for a while and I dont quite understand why it is not accepted. This page is about a theatre group that doesn't exist anymore and that should be indicated in Wikipedia for historical perpose. There is no publicity intent and no selfpromotion, rather it is an archive of past work of a theatre group that was active especiually in the last century. Why is it so diffiult to submit this page? Please advise!
thanks, Nesherin Nesherin (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nesherin, if you aren't associated with the article, then is there a reason that your username is the same as the article's title (or similar)? The article just lists various accomplishments. This makes the article read like a resume, and not an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic articles should give a summary in prose of the subject from reliable sources, but yours currently effectively just lists accomplishments. Your article has been rejected, which means that unfortunately no further action can be taken on it (i.e. it won't be reconsidered). Sam-2727 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
11:57:22, 30 March 2020 review of draft by Joshua Beschutzer
- Joshua Beschutzer (talk · contribs) (TB)
Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Joshua Beschutzer, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear Sir (or Ma'am, as the case may be)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Company_C,_6th_Florida_Infantry_Regiment
Submission declined on 30 March 2020 by DGG (talk).
1. "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
I respectfully counter that the 15 sources from which the article was created are in fact "published" and "reliable".
2. "Comment: There is no reason to think that this particlar company of the regiment is notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)"
I respectfully respond that the comment is subjective. I have the honor to have had four "company" articles previously accepted; specifically,
Company K, 7th Florida Infantry Regiment Company A, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment Company B, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment Company H, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment
I very greatly desire to understand how this particular company fo the regiment ("Company C, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment"), is any less notable, or its references any less acceptable, than was the case in each of the four previously published articles.
Very respectfully, Mathew "J" Sterman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshua_Beschutzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Beschutzer (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry Joshua Beschutzer, there are so many sources here that it's hard to go sift through all of them. Could you list maybe three or four sources you think satisfy the notability guidelines. That is they are independent, reliable, and mention the subject significantly? This would help me in determining if the subject was actually notable. Also, notability might be up to debate, but it isn't really a "subjective" concept. Wikipedia has strict guidelines (as outlined in the comments in the article) for what is notable and what isn't. It may very well be that other regiments are notable but this one isn't. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sam-2727. Per your request -
United States War Department. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C.
Robertson, Fred L. (Compiler) (1903). Soldiers of Florida in the Seminole, Civil and Spanish-American Wars. Democrat Book and Job Print, Live Oak, Florida.
Hartman, David W. (1995). Biographical Rosters of Florida’s Confederate and Union Soldiers, 1861-1865: (Volume 2; 5th Florida Infantry – 8th Florida Infantry). Broadfoot Publishing Company, Wilmington, North Carolina. ISBN 1568372884. Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- What do these sources discuss? Do they have in-depth content about the company? Not the individual persons, but the company itself. And not the sort of directory entries or standard records or forms, but actual written description, history, etc? The titles of the books suggest these are just archives or records, but do they have any descriptive material? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Joshua Beschutzer, I've sifted through your sources. The first one seems to be a collection of primary sources, which wouldn't qualify it to support the notability guidelines. Also, maybe I'm searching the wrong terms, but I can't find the actual regiment mentioned in it. Your second source seems to be more or less an indiscriminate listing of names of regiments. While it does establish the notability of the entire infantry division, it doesn't establish notability of this specific company. The third source isn't public ___domain yet, so I can't look inside it, but based off of the name of the book, seems as if it would be similar to the second source. Do correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption though. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sam-2727, The "Official Records" are a 128-volume compendium of official correspondence, reports, &c. penned by various cabinet officials, general- and field grade officers of both US & CS armies (and navies). The 6th Florida is mentioned numerous times in specific actions (e.g., Chickamauga and Missionary Ridge). At the company level, there is only one specific mention that I have located, and that is for the "honor roll" subsequent to Chickamauga.
"Soldiers of Florida" was published in 1903. "Unit" histories are rather sparse (if any); however, each regiment has listings for both "Field & Staff", as well as company rosters identifying men enrolled. There is little (if any) information documented aside from date/rank in, date rank out...and even that is "sketchy".
"Biographical Rosters" was published in 1995 (I am very fortunate to own the complete 6-volume set). It is somewhat more informative, in that i draws upon information obtained from NARA Compiled military service records, and occasionally whether a pension was warded.
As that may be, my underlying and primary question remains; spec., why is this "company" article found wanting for both references and..."notability", when such was not the case for the previously submitted and accepted four company articles?
Very Respectfully, Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Joshua Beschutzer to be frank it may be because the editors reviewing it saw that there were quite a bit of citations and didn't choose to go any more in depth into the actual quality of the citations. Mistakes do happen at Articles for Creation. The "official records," even if it does mention the company, wouldn't be notable as it is a primary source and doesn't have any sort of fact checking process. The "Biographical Rosters" still seems to just be a list of people in the regiment and nothing beyond that sort of trivial coverage. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sam-2727, I have added two more references; spec.,
National Archives and Records Service (1957). Microcopy No. 225: Index to Compiled Service Records of Confederate Soldiers Who Served in Organizations from the State of Florida. General Services Administration, Washington, D.C., and
National Archives and Records Service. Microcopy No. 653: 1860 Federal Population Census – Part 4.
I have also provided each member's entry with at least two (and as many as five) references from which his content was derived.
It is my intention to resubmit the article as above revised; should it be again be declined, I will remove it.
Thank you for your attention, and your patience, both of which are very greatly appreciated. Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
12:30:22, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Hotstar90
Hotstar90 (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hotstar90: Do you have a question? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
14:03:48, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger
- Exiledstranger (talk · contribs) (TB)
Exiledstranger (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Hi Sir,Each every line has its reliable source please check it and then decline it.Thank you
- Declined 6 times and now rejected, probably time to give up? Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
14:42:24, 30 March 2020 review of draft by Mlo17
Hi, I would like to ask you for more details on the citation issue in my article. I tried to read your suggested materials for writing Wikipedia articles but I am not sure if I understand what is the real problem in my specific article. Do you need more citations for the "About" section? Or is that I should not cite as much in the "Artwork" section and rather rewrite it? I thought as it is a living person that you require more specific citations.
I would really appreciate if you could be more specific and maybe give example rather than generally say that it doesn't meet Wikipedia citation requirements. I would really like to write it right. Thank you very much for your kind help. Michaela
Mlo17 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Mlo17, more citations in the about section is what I would look for. Also, see the comment on the article that your citations should be inline. You have quite a bit of "external links," but these should be embedded in the article. The subject of your article, upon cursory glance of the sources, does in fact seem notable from what you've provided, so that's good. Also you should look at other articles as examples of how to write in a neutral tone. Currently you have phrases like "all over the world" which are stating opinions as fact. Wikipedia should be written in a neutral tone. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
14:57:26, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger
- Exiledstranger (talk · contribs) (TB)
Exiledstranger (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Hi Sir,Now check the draft and tell me.
- Ref bombing is not helpful; budoshin.com is a primary source, you cannot use Wikipedia articles as a source, Amazon, eBay, Yelp, guidestar , videos and Pinterest are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
15:37:17, 30 March 2020 review of draft by नलिनी मिश्रा
- नलिनी मिश्रा (talk · contribs) (TB)
on 29 March 2020 I had created page for an Organization, But after the review it got rejected and I am unable to follow the reviews made. So, I seek help how may I edit the page so that it can be published.
नलिनी मिश्रा (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
नलिनी मिश्रा, your submission hasn't been rejected yet so once you make the requested changes (that is, adding reliable sources and cleaning up the language of the article so it doesn't read like an advertisement), you can resubmit it by pressing the blue "resubmit" button. You can still edit the article as usual by clicking "edit source" at the top of the article (next to "view history"). Let me know if this isn't helping. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
15:38:49, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger
- Exiledstranger (talk · contribs) (TB)
Exiledstranger (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Sir remove the things that are not reliable.please
- Exiledstranger, we aren't going to write the article for you. For sources, it's hard to make a determination of what is reliable vs. not independent of the source, and since you have so many sources, I suspect I'd have to remove quite a bit of them to remove all unreliable sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Request on 15:46:37, 30 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Thson10
Hi - had my article declined because of lack of significant coverage. Could you advice what kind of thing I'd need to include?
Thanks
Thson10 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Thson10, significant coverage means that sources should meet the notability guidelines. That is, there should be multiple sources (so at least three) that are independent of the subject and reliable, as well as covering the subject of the article non-trivially. Usually, BBC is a reliable source, but in this case it isn't independent of the subject (since he presents for BBC), so that doesn't count as reliable. For starters, I would look for news coverage. Not by the BBC, but by other sources independent of this person. Another place you might find significant mentions is in reviews of the shows that he does. Let me know if you're still stuck when you give looking for these types of sources a shot (although that might mean unfortunately this person isn't notable). Sam-2727 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
15:51:02, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Commercialspaceflightfederation
Hi, my page was rejected based on sources. This is a page being created for the individual in question. All the sources that were used are pretty much the only written pieces on him. How do I make it so we can publish this page? Commercialspaceflightfederation (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Commercialspaceflightfederation, you have been blocked as it is suspected you aren't disclosing that you are being paid to edit. Please respond to this inquiry on your talk page using the isntructions given there. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
16:53:29, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Bokhan.evgeniy
- Bokhan.evgeniy (talk · contribs) (TB)
Dear Wikipedia support team, please advise I made all changes for my new article, previously was a problem with reference links. Please tell me if there is something that I need to change. Thank you Bokhan.evgeniy (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
17:12:33, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger
- Exiledstranger (talk · contribs) (TB)
Exiledstranger (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Exiledstranger, As already pointed out to you, the article has been rejected (after 6 declines) and will not be considered further. Repeatedly posting questions here isn't going to change that. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir these all refereces have Information about Budoshin Jujitsu so please check.
- Exiledstranger, information on the subject is not enough. The sources must also be independent of the subject of the article and have a reputation for being reliable sources (that is, some kind of fact checking process). Sam-2727 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Request on 17:12:39, 30 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mrcola1337
- Mrcola1337 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Why did my Draft:NMC get denied? NMC has also a German Wikipedia-Page and is one of Belgium's leading foam company
Thank you!
Mrcola1337 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mrcola1337, Per the decline message. You need to review WP:NCORP and pass those guidelines. As it stands the page does not come close to showing the required WP:SIGCOV needed to prove notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mrcola1337 Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own independent project, with their own policies and editors. What is acceptable on one isn't necessarily acceptable on another) 331dot (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! I have added some more references but I don’t want to add TOO MANY because it’s just unnecessary. --Mrcola1337 —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mrcola1337 Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own independent project, with their own policies and editors. What is acceptable on one isn't necessarily acceptable on another) 331dot (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
17:36:45, 30 March 2020 review of submission by 2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:A84A:1BA4:ECA0:4D1B
2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:A84A:1BA4:ECA0:4D1B (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your article has been rejected, which means no further action can be taken. This is because your article wasn't sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
20:07:16, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Olforlife
Hello, I am interested in learning why my article was declined submission for review. Once I know then I can fix it.
Thanks Olforlife (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Olforlife The reason was given in the decline message you received, at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I read the message at the top previously. It is very vague. I read the articles linked there as well. I'm not sure why my article was declined for lack of notability. Was it not long enough? Were there not enough sources? Does it need more history about the park? Or more information about the facilities? Should the topic be integrated into the page on Springfield, TN rather than have it's own page? Or should this page be expanded to cover all the parks in Springfield, TN? There are several which are listed in the Wikipedia page for Springfield, TN. Since this is my first article, some specificity about my page in particular would be helpful.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olforlife (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Olforlife The sources you have offered do not have significant coverage of the subject(the park) They just cite the existence of the park and its namesake. Are there in depth writeups about this park in the news? Books about its history? That sort of thing. We need more than just the fact it exists and its offerings. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- 331dot Well there is certainly a fair amount of coverage of its history and development in past news articles. There was a legal battle over the land that lasted a few years. The cabin mentioned in draft article has a lot of history around it and has been featured in the news several times on its own because it is one of the oldest structures in Tennessee built the same year the state was formed. I don't believe there are any books about the park, but it has a storied history for sure. Probably enough to fill 3-4 paragraphs on a wikipedia page, but not a full book. So would it be more appropriate to dedicate a page to all the parks and greenway in Springfield? There are 3 major parks and a significant greenway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olforlife (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Olforlife, if you have enough for three paragraphs of history, that's sufficient. Just make sure you have at least three sources that are independent of the park (so not created by people closely associated with it), reliable (some kind of fact checking in place), and cover the subject nontrivially (which you're probably good for because three paragraphs, even if split among sources, would be nontrivial coverage usually). Sam-2727 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
21:56:03, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Dangatangmusic
Hello all. Thank you for your repeated reviews and edits.
I believe the manner in which this is written is not significantly different from other comparable companies with a wikipedia presence. I'm also confused as to why a startup company that operates nationally and partly owned by a public company is any less noteworthy than comparable entities with a presence on site.
Here are a few comparable companies with established articles. The first two are local non-public companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbo_Moving_and_Storage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Mini_Storage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Storage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Space_Storage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lok%27nStore, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Yellow_Group.
Dangatangmusic (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Dangatangmusic: You've completely misunderstood the point of this volunteer-driven encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. Those articles are not billboards put up by those companies, they are summaries of independent news sources written by unaffiliated volunteers. We are not a place to promote your business, or "create a presence" or whatever you want to call it. If there are no independent reliable sources on a topic, then we don't want an article on it.
- You must disclose your employment per the instructions I'm leaving on your talk page. It's also in your best interest to carefully read our policies on editing with a conflict of interest. After you've done that, you may want to look over these instructions on how to write an article that won't be rejected or deleted.
- Any problematic articles that have slipped through the cracks do not justify further mistakes. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
21:56:47, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Marindthaqi
- Marindthaqi (talk · contribs) (TB)
Marindthaqi (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Marindthaqi, your article was deleted as it was written in a purely promotional tone. Please remember that Wikipedia isn't for advertising. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
March 31
01:52:45, 31 March 2020 review of submission by Alekh99
Alekh99 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
05:40:41, 31 March 2020 review of submission by Lendale Johnson
- Lendale Johnson (talk · contribs) (TB)
Lendale Johnson 05:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Lendale Johnson (born August 24, 1986) is an American professional tennis player, actor, model, celebrity tennis coach, and reality tv star. [[4]]
Johnson has an uncredited part in the pilot of Empire in 2015, where he can be seen briefly in a panning camera shot at a boat party.[[5]]
He is also an ambassador for WalkOff, a social movement focused on driving racism out of sports and has previously commented on racism aimed against Serena Williams at the 2016 Australian Open. [[6]]
Lendale is to star in “Deuces And Love”, a reality tv series highlighting Hollywood star interviews and his acting, modeling, and tennis careers. [[7]]
[[8]]
06:01:27, 31 March 2020 review of draft by Isaucier
Hello,
I am currently writing an article and my submission was rejected with the reason being The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations and to check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. There were no additional comments. I read the articles mentioned in the refusal message but it's still not clear to me which material in my article is lacking the reference(s). The visual editor has a notification that references are missing, but even if I did add them, it still appears.
I have added references to the article, but had IMDB as a reference and from other messages, I saw that this wasn't considered a reliable source in messages from Sulfurboy to other authors, so I removed it. I would like to understand what I am doing wrong so that I can correct it
Isaucier (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
09:11:52, 31 March 2020 review of draft by Александр Клепиков
- Александр Клепиков (talk · contribs) (TB)
Александр Клепиков (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Прошу Вас отменить блокировку и удаление. Я сам написал текст статьи. и исправил первый абзац, на который Вы указали
- @Александр Клепиков: это английская Википедия и эта страница помощи только для английской Википедии. Русская Википедия находится на https://ru.wikipedia.org/. У них другие правила создания статей, которые вам придется выяснить там. В любом случае, имейте в виду, что вы не можете копировать контент извне. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
10:24:00, 31 March 2020 review of submission by Tbiw
Tbiw (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Tbiw, you requested deletion (I think it was you). You can request undeletion here. Also may I ask why your user page has a copied and pasted request for bureaucratship? Sam-2727 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
10:33:15, 31 March 2020 review of draft by AraValatar
- AraValatar (talk · contribs) (TB)
<I really want to have some in game information from skyrim on the Dwarves in that game accessible on the Alexa, and I have wikipedia on it. I use Wikipedia to get all info on stuff and put it into pen later.
Because I dont have time to edit this article in the full online, and have more time without it because of household rules, I was hoping someone can provide images and neccesary edits to make this page publishable.
Thank you very much
AraValatar AraValatar (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- @AraValatar: Unfortunately, there isn't any editing we could do to make this publishable. Wikipedia relies on independent reliable in-depth secondary sources. All articles must have at least several such sources. This draft is what we would call WP:GAMECRUFT. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
14:56:11, 31 March 2020 review of submission by Kutuloncat3
- Kutuloncat3 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Kutuloncat3, articles should be neutral and not written as promotions. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
16:03:39, 31 March 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger
- Exiledstranger (talk · contribs) (TB)
Exiledstranger (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Exiledstranger, Request to do so has been put in. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
delete this page sir
18:34:15, 31 March 2020 review of submission by Everyusernamesrtaken
- Everyusernamesrtaken (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, I'm trying submit a page but it was declined, can you please kindly direct me of what needs to be corrected? Thanks! Everyusernamesrtaken (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Everyusernamesrtaken You were told what needed to be corrected in the decline message. You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person. Wikipedia isn't interested in what an article subject says about themselves, only in what others say about them. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- You have zero reliable sources, YouTube is not a suitable source and you have used it 10 times. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
20:03:16, 31 March 2020 review of draft by Sargyle77
Hi there - I'm looking for some guidance on an article I submitted which has not been approved due to issues with reliable sources. It is for a non-profit think tank, and I looked to other non-profit think tank Wiki pages as a guide. I have 6 references including media and the U.S. Congress. I'm not sure why this isn't enough or what other sources I should cite. In a previous submission, I was told not to cite publications from the think tank.
Sargyle77 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Sargyle77, let me see if I can give you some advice. First off, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source. It isn't considered a reliable source (plus, you could in theory write a fact into one article then cite it in another and then cite that article in the other article, creating a hopelessly unverifiable loop). I assume you know the notability guidelines. If not, in brief your article must be supported by multiple (at least three) reliable independent sources that mention the subject significantly (so no trivial coverage). [9] while perhaps a reliable source, is only trivial coverage as it mentions the nonprofit in passing. Your sixth source is just the homepage of the washington times, so I can't verify anything there, but I will warn you that the Washington Times has a track record of misinformation. [10] is again trivial coverage. [11] is trivial coverage. [12] might barely count as signficant coverage, although this is up to debate. [13] isn't considered independent because the person giving the testimony works at the nonprofit. Finally, [14] is not independent. Hope this helps! Sam-2727 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
20:57:31, 31 March 2020 review of draft by Sunvidal
I don't understand how to unmerge the Congressional Hispanic Caucus page and the CHCI page. They operate separately CHC is a political entity and CHCI is used as a nonprofit for education. CHCI is listed on Guidestar as a nonprofit that is for educational. https://www.guidestar.org/profile/52-1114225 When I tried editing the CHC page a couple of weeks ago with the correct info, they were deleted with a comment of "C'mon". Apologies, but I'm confused as to what is needed to add facts or get the pages submerged. Many thanks for any help you can extend.
Sunvidal (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sunvidal, It hasn't been merged, instead a merger has been proposed. If you wish to argue against that then you would need to post to the linked page in the merger notice. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
22:27:29, 31 March 2020 review of submission by AH FITness
22:27:29, 31 March 2020 review of submission by AH FITness AH FITness (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- AH FITness, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- AH FITness (talk · contribs) (TB)
- No draft specified!
If someone could please help me. I am the media rep for a high-profile venture capitalist/private equity firm owner (a 33 year old billionaire, son a a multi billionaire).
22:54:07, 31 March 2020 review of submission by Sy331
I am new to Wikipedia, although a good friend with a social media company is trying to help me. I own a PR firm and am trying to get a page up for an important client. I have indicated I am being paid for the page. I revised the text (which was required from the first editor) to remove all the adjectives, and it now reads like an encyclopdia entry; The next editor said the media links were inadequate, so I added a huge feature profile of my client published in Wall Street Journal, along with stand alone reporter-written (not press release) articles in Austin Statesman and Los Angeles Business Journal, among others; next, an editor said that I needed to show that I am being paid for this submission, and my friend helped me achieve that disclaimer (although another editor reviewed my submission and said that I didn't have the disclaimer - although I most certainly did. My client is a billionaire, and the son of a multi billionaire (an original investor in Apple). I would appreciate it greatly if someone could work with me on this page, as my client is quite deserving of a Wikipedia page and I am clearly in need of assistance! Thanks, Steve Sy331 (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sy331, The article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Being a billionaire does not make you notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Still seeking advice
23:27:05, 31 March 2020 review of submission by Sy331
My client is a leading private equity investor. He has investments in scores of companies across multiple industries and his activities have been reported on by major media, including (as I mentioned previously) the Wall Street Journal which profiled his massive auto collection. I respectfully ask for the opportunity to prepare a page that more effectively shares his current business investments, charitable associations and auto collection. Thank you. Sy331 (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sy331, This has already been answered above. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
April 1
00:05:14, 1 April 2020 review of draft by Mrcwee
Hey! Just had a submission for a studio album (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Grae_(album)) rejected, and wondering how I could improve it—particularly when it comes to sources.
Mrcwee (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mrcwee, Links were provided in the decline message, are you not able to see those? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mrcwee, I'll go through your sources and hopefully this can help you understand. I'd recommend you read Wikipedia's guidelines on this, but in short, an article must be supported by multiple independent, reliable (some kind of fact checking) sources that mention the subject significantly (not just trivial coverage). [15] could indicate notability, but seems to just be an announcement of the album's existence, nothing actually about it (so could be strewn as WP:ROUTINE. [16] doesn't mention the album. Twitter isn't a reliable source. Generally, interviews aren't seen as independent, but [17] actually seems to have a lot of commentary, which is good. This article definitely has nontrivial coverage as well. So you're almost there for sources! I would add probably two more just to solidify the notability of the subject. Currently what I'm more worried about in your article is your language that states opinions as facts. For instance: " a wide range of collaborators." Who's to say there is a wide range of collaborators? Just state a fact here and let the reader interpret that as a "wide range" if they really want to. Let me know if you have any other questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
05:12:08, 1 April 2020 review of draft by Mtsecurity
Mtsecurity (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Request on 06:38:55, 1 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Scherbakov G
- Scherbakov G (talk · contribs) (TB)
Dear Sir or Madam, I have recently submitted an English version of my Russian article (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F) but was rejected on this basis: "Currently article is promoting author's research. Some independent sources from the person that developed it would demonstrate notability." Could you please help me in my situation as I have not figured out yet how the publishing works on Wiki ?
Yours sincerely, G. Scherbakov
Scherbakov G (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
07:29:35, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Agastya99
considering the reviewer's comment, I have changed the article and made it neutral. If have any suggestions please help me with how to write a company profile of an agency.
Agastya99 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agastya99 Note that your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved to be acceptable, unfortunately. Please understand that there is not a single "profile" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has articles. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. In this case, the company must meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Because of this, not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even in the same field.
- I assume that you work for this company. You must read and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
08:34:21, 1 April 2020 review of draft by EB-lgbtq
Best,
I'm reaching out to you because the page ( Draft: Rémy Bonny )I created is being rejected for a third time. While the issues that were mentioned during the first two times were resolved (thanks to the generous help of other more experienced editors and reviewers), this time a totally other reason is being provided by the reviewer. The following reason is given: "This reads like a press release, and it fails to show notability , since almost all the references are his own work, or notes about his appearances".
This is really frustrating because this was not the reason the first two reviewers gave, so it is really inconsistent and it is not true as well. Some are references to his own work, to prove that he also wrote things himself. But the big majority of references are to articles from major news outlets like NBC, Le Monde, Bild, The Advocate and so on.
Hopefully this can be resolved soon-ish.
Best, Evert--EB-lgbtq (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC) EB-lgbtq (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
11:39:36, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Cimfalab
I have added external links (GitHub and OWASP) mentioning DeepScan for the notability. As of GitHub especially, DeepScan is a member of its Marketplace and now a partner of its Student pack recently. I know GitHub is the largest developer community/platform so to being with GitHub is an evidence of notability.
Also, when I search 'javascript static analysis' or 'javascript code quality' in Google, DeepScan.io is shown up at the very first rank.
Cimfalab (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Cimfalab: These are not sources usable for notability. They are both not independent and definitely not significant coverage. OWASP text seems to come from GitHub. In fact, both these links are discouraged by WP:ELNO as they are nothing but download/purchase links with no encyclopedic content. One official link per WP:ELOFFICIAL is sufficient. Search hits per WP:GHITS are not necessaries any indication of notability as defined on Wikipedia. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
12:00:43, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Dmayz
I created the Hana Rado article as a translation from the Hebrew Wikipedia. I am not sure what exactly in the text constitute as a press release and not a valid article. Will be happy to make the necessary adjustments, but would appreciate to know what should be changed. Dmayz (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Dmayz Your draft has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support its content. To merit an article on the English Wikipedia, a person must be shown with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article for more information. Please understand that each language version of Wikipedia is its own separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one language version is not necessarily acceptable on another. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
12:33:51, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger
- Exiledstranger (talk · contribs) (TB)
Exiledstranger (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC) delete this page
- Exiledstranger, already deleted as a copyright violation. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
14:43:33, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Renwang101
- Renwang101 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hello I am new to Wiki and I did try few times, looks like it is getting worse, is there a way to ask someone to help, to publish the article? Ren Renwang101 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Renwang101, I'd recommend you edit articles already created. Creating a new article is a very challenging task on Wikipedia. I'll summarize some of them here. First off, all statements made in the article (or at least the ones that aren't obvious) should be verifiable. Currently you have entire paragraphs without citations. Second, your article must be written in a neutral tone. This means that statements like "made very little progress until recently" shouldn't be included as they state opinions as fact. This also means that rhetorical questions like "What happened to the vehicles that have not been manufactured and are still in the design stage?" shouldn't be asked either as they are meant to lean towards a certain opinionated view. Hope this helps. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
16:13:26, 1 April 2020 review of submission by Eeberbach
Eeberbach (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Can I get a real help from competent Wikipedia editors, e.g., the anonymous editor who added Example section to our draft? The submission did not have luck with the last two editors, where it looked that the draft was close to publishing.
Please re-review the draft on evolutionary automata by specialists from computer science or evolutionary computation. Thanks for your help.
Eeberbach (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- I already suggested you ask for help here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Eeberbach, also some issues are more universal than would require specialist attention. For instance "one of the most compelling themes of modern science" is certainly not written in an encyclopedic tone. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- A strong case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, I'm afraid.
Facepalm Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- A strong case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, I'm afraid.
- Eeberbach, also some issues are more universal than would require specialist attention. For instance "one of the most compelling themes of modern science" is certainly not written in an encyclopedic tone. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Unsubstantieted accusation - you are rather a strong case of what you claim from superior and anonymous position of the editor. I needed constructive comments not accusations. In such a way it is possible to silence anybody instead to be constructive. By the way, I do not know what is wrong with "one of the most compelling themes of modern science" sentence if it used in many serious publications (see, e.g., Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Computation), and, additionally, is true. Evolutionary computation, together with (Deep) Neural networks are "one of the most compelling themes of modern science".
Eeberbach (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
18:34:16, 1 April 2020 review of draft by Curtbyers
I am wondering if a new Coronoavirus-19 response-relevant page could have expedited review.
I am an independent behavioral health and public policy researcher and consultant who has been tracking community of faith responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. I came across this organization which had just put on an online COVID-19 summit addressed by the Surgeon General "attendended by 4000 pastors. Its leadership and its product appear to be as legit and impressive--and generally far more so--than anything else I have found to date. But I was surprised and disappointed to discover their lack of Wikipedia page, apparently because they actually follow Wikipedia policy about not putting up one oneself. Their mission till now has not needed a high profile to execute well and they have not sought or caught the attention of a lot of press coverage.
For the first time the positive impact of their best work is completely dependent on the speed and scale of their superb COVID-19 church response manual being known and accessed by the thousands of churches and other commmunities of faith. Thanks.
Curtbyers (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Curtbyers, if the page really is important, then other Wikipedia editors will pick it up. I would suggest you contact WP:Wikiproject COVID-19. They can help determine if the project really is notable and qualifies for a Wikipedia article (and can help you improve it). As a starter for improving your article, I would look at examples of articles on Wikipedia. Your article currently as it stands doesn't really have the format of a Wikipedia article. Also, it seems to be written like an advertisement (one of the reasons it was declined recently). Articles should be written in a neutral tone, giving all mainstream perspectives equal weight. Another facet of this neutral tone is that opinions shouldn't be stated as fact. You have a lot of broad statements like "Research outcomes inform development of training that equips professional and volunteer humanitarian disaster responders and relief workers to care for the spiritual and mental health of disaster survivors with effective, evidence-based practice-informed resources and strategies," that aren't opinions per-se, but could be more specific and are likely generalizations. Finally, you need to provide sources that qualify the article under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That is, you must have multiple sources independent of the organization that are reliable and cover the organization significantly (so not just trivial coverage). Hope this helps. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
21:28:52, 1 April 2020 review of submission by D.Kerl
Why is it "blatant" adversary? Its an article about a relatively new product. Like about BMX or Sig Sauer, their coming flagship just mentioned short. The article could be better filled, yes but that is in future planning. If a consumer can't create a wiki page of a product he likes wiki is obsolete in 2020! D.Kerl (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- D.Kerl, if "better filling" is "planned for the future," why not just do it now? The advertising is stating opinion as fact:"Distinguishes the VapCap from all it's competitors of whom not one has an feature like this." In quotes like these, surely not everybody would agree that this distinguishes them from "competitors." Yet it is stated as if everybody does. Also, the article has no citations. I would recommend you read WP:Notability for more information on this. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
21:36:42, 1 April 2020 review of draft by Saumyagupta123
- Saumyagupta123 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, I was trying to add the article for the actor Kinshuk Sen. I believe it has been made into a redirect to his father's page. How do I break the link?
Saumyagupta123 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Saumyagupta123, if your article is accepted, the reviewer will take care of this for you. In the meantime, I would make sure your article establishes that the actor meets the notability guidelines (so multiple independent, reliable sources that cover the subject of the article significantly (not just trivial coverage)). Sam-2727 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
April 2
00:13:00, 2 April 2020 review of submission by Yyakilles
How do you go on corvel.com
Yyakilles (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- click me. If your aim was to create an article in Wikipedia about that website, please check that it meets WP:NWEBSITE and then read WP:YFA which should help you. If you have a specific question, please ask again. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
02:44:00, 2 April 2020 review of submission by Basketball1923
- Basketball1923 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Basketball1923 (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
03:01:42, 2 April 2020 review of draft by Articlegooroo
- Articlegooroo (talk · contribs) (TB)
I've also contacted the person that wrote the note, but I also wanted to put a note here to get as much feedback as possible for this article!
I'm unclear why this article seems to read like an advertisement. Most of the articles are direct references to the existence of the company and the product, with the primary article, being a full page feature in the New York Times (definitely not an advertisement), which goes into detailed length about the formation of the company and the founder.
The article that was referred to, the USA Today article, was grouped with 9 other articles to provide an example that the products of this company have been covered extensively in major, established outlets with extensive reach over a long period of time, which they indeed have. This statement does not even say whether they are positive or negative.
It seems that a major company such as this, that is available around the country and has multiple products that have been spoken about by major outlets, deserves to have an article, no? I see other similar companies, like Halo Top Creamery (there's a full list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ice_cream_brands) all have pages.
Also I might add that this page also lists major legal controversy (which I thought was also relevant) to illustrate neutrality as well.
Thanks again for your help! Trying to understand what needs to be changed to make this publishable - I'm unclear from this statement. I came across this company while reading Lisa Lillien's page (a major influencer) and thought there should be a connection.
Best!
ArticlegoorooArticlegooroo (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Articlegooroo (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Direct references to the existence of the company do not establish that this company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Wikipedia should only summarize what independent reliable sources state about the company, not merely confirm the existence of the company. Press releases and other routine coverage do not establish notability. The NYT piece consists of an interview with company staff, which is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
04:31:08, 2 April 2020 review of submission by MetaGary
MetaGary (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Would be helpful to know which sections of the Metaeconomics submission are too much like an essay, and which are enough like an encyclopedia. Overall, it was modeled on the Microeconomics site, which in many sections reads the same, e.g. in the Assumptions and Definitions. So, I am having difficulty seeing how it differs, that drastically, as in it all reads like an essay? Perhaps some sections could be changed, and I am certainly willing to work on those: Which ones?
It it very difficult if not impossible to edit something without more specific suggestions.
- It's about style and tone. The draft is telling us what the subject is, when it should be summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the subject. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
05:48:45, 2 April 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:1525:4B3C:565:CB79:A37:627B
Cohen is an extremely well known real estate entrepreneur, with press features across the board. These extend far past industry publications or mere mentions in national papers - he has full-page profiles, detailing his personal life, as well as his career. Feel free to Google, the evidence is there. 2605:E000:1525:4B3C:565:CB79:A37:627B (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- The "profiles" you refer to seem to consist of interviews with Mr. Cohen, which are primary sources and do not establish that he meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia should only summarize what others say about Mr. Cohen, not what he says about himself. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
10:08:12, 2 April 2020 review of submission by JomilchFrandem
- JomilchFrandem (talk · contribs) (TB)
}} Would someone be willing to take a look at this draft I've created for a journalist? Hope everything is on track? Thank you!
JomilchFrandem (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- As noted by the reviewer, you do not have independent reliable sources to support the content of the article and establish that this presenter meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia articles should primarily summarize what independent sources state- you have only provided sources from or related to the presenter's employer. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Have a query: She is one of the most well-known anchors in the country, working with a major national broadcaster, but there is no independent stories about her, as she's just a news anchor/reporter, that can meet Wiki's notability guidelines. However, she's notable in the country, a web/video search would show that, and among a handful of Indian women anchors (already under-represented on Wikipedia). What should one do in that situation, where primary sources remain the most reliable? Could @Theroadislong: reconsider it again, perhaps? Thanks for your time, in any case. JomilchFrandem (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid JomilchFrandem there is nothing to reconsider, if there are no independent sources we cannot have an article about her. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- The only source I have come up with is this [18] which says "Abhijit Iyer-Mitra files defamation suit against NDTV journalist Gargi Rawat for ‘liking’ a tweet" but this isn't in-depth coverage and doesn't help with notability. Sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid JomilchFrandem there is nothing to reconsider, if there are no independent sources we cannot have an article about her. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Have a query: She is one of the most well-known anchors in the country, working with a major national broadcaster, but there is no independent stories about her, as she's just a news anchor/reporter, that can meet Wiki's notability guidelines. However, she's notable in the country, a web/video search would show that, and among a handful of Indian women anchors (already under-represented on Wikipedia). What should one do in that situation, where primary sources remain the most reliable? Could @Theroadislong: reconsider it again, perhaps? Thanks for your time, in any case. JomilchFrandem (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Request on 10:19:40, 2 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Cavan.hill
- Cavan.hill (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi, I would like feedback on the article linked above (Draft:James Haworth)
I am not sure if I should submit at this stage. I have added multiple references to assist in notability.
Please reply with feedback on what I should do next, thanks.
--Cavan Hill (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Cavan Hill (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
11:52:38, 2 April 2020 review of submission by AlejandroLeloirRey
- AlejandroLeloirRey (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hallo, I am puzzled. I was told that the references I used are weak. Well, there are thousands of articles about Carlo Masi (especially about him becoming a professor) but I am not sure which one and how many I should pick. I wrote a version of this bio to include a good deal of these sources from all around the world but I was told it sounded too much celebrative. So i decided to remove them. Now I am told that Carlo Masi is not relevant enough for wikipedia. He has been the face and most important model of the studio he has worked for (colt studio). In fact, he is the only Colt Man Emeritus and he is on the cover of the celebrative book of the 40th anniversary of the company. Moreover, one of the most important italian writer (Walter Siti) wrote his biography (the publisher is Rizzoli, one of the top 3 publisher in italy), he has been the on tv shows in Germany, italy, Greece, Spain and other country and articles and interviews of Carlo Masi appeared all around the globe. This is very much for a gay porn star. All the gay porn stars bio I consulted to have an idea of how such a biography should be written are way less relevant, most of them did nothing apart from porn and even in the porn they didn't do anything more important than Carlo did. Also their references are usually one or two web sites. I suspect that this doesn't mean much here but Carlo's biography is on wikipedia in other languages (Spanish, French, italian and Polish), isn't there a common way to judge if a bio is relevant? I will appreciate any piece of advice or explanation you want to give me. Thank you very much for your time. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi AlejandroLeloirRey. Writing a new Wikipedia article is the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can attempt. It is much easier and more productive to edit existing articles, almost all of which need improvement.
- Of everything you write above, the only thing that would make me reconsider whether the reviewer was correct in rejecting the draft is the book-length biography of Masi published by Rizzoli. That would be the strongest source, but the draft uses it only to support that the book exists, not to support any biographical information about Masi. If you wish to continue with the draft, I recommend rewriting it so that it is based mainly on Siti's book.
- Editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. So use at least two other such sources, but not too many. Quality is more important than quantity. You don't want your best sources lost among poorer ones. Do not cite LavishStarsInsight or similar celebrity websites, they are not reliable sources. Do not cite Goodreads. Being user-generated, it is not reliable either. Avoid tabloid newspapers such as the New York Post, they have a poor 2reputation among Wikipedians. Although you may cite interviews of Masi, they won't help demonstrate notability unless there is significant independent analysis by the interviewer. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Worldbruce: hey, wow, thank you. It is the first time I am given such a complete and satisfying answer here. thank you. I still have some doubts. The first one is, are you sure that Walter Siti's (the author is one of the most recognized writer in Italy and winner of Strega Prize 2013) book could be used as a basis for the bio? its written in Italian and not consulted on line (not for free, the book just came out so it is out for being sold and it takes years for a book to be translated). There is a preview of the first few pages of the book online and different articles on newspapers about the book, would that be enough to use the book as a main source?. I read italian and I read the book, should I refer to the exact page or chapter or should I generally refer to the book? as a source for specific facts of his porn career would you consider https://avn.com/ and https://www.xbiz.com/ enough reliable? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @AlejandroLeloirRey: I am sure that Siti's biography can be the basis of a draft about Masi. A Wikipedia article should represent fairly and proportionately all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Siti's biography is the most significant view of Masi, so it should be the main basis of any article. What language the book is in and whether it is online is irrelevant to acceptability, although it could affect how long it takes to be reviewed. Reviewers who don't speak Italian (most reviewers) may avoid the draft, as may those who can't obtain the book through a library (all or almost all reviewers, until coronavirus restrictions are lifted).
- For each statement you make, cite the specific page or two in the book that supports the statement. Various types of shortened footnotes can be used to avoid repeating all of bibliographic information in every inline citation. I'm not familiar with AVN.com or XBiz.com, but you can find some guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Worldbruce: you should get a medal for how nice and supportive you are, you are the first person here who gave me information that I can actually use in this project. For what I can see AVN and Xbiz are considered pretty reliable and I am using them just to support specific facts about his porn career so I think I am good with that. I am referring also to different Italian national news paper (repubblica, il giornale and corriere della sera) would you recommend me using only one of them? May be I can gather all the information from the same news paper as they all published more than one article about Masi, what would be the best to do?. How do i know if you would consider a web site reliable? I am using also Gay Star News but I could use as well PinkNews how do I know which one is considered more reliable? I think I am almost there with the project and this is thank to your help. thank you :-)
15:36:05, 2 April 2020 review of submission by Shahnawaz rules
- Shahnawaz rules (talk · contribs) (TB)
- No draft specified!
Shahnawaz rules (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Shahnawaz rules, You need to link to your draft or we're not going to know what you're talking about Sulfurboy (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I wrote a simple article for housing development following the standard of the wikipedia article writing but still declined .
Can you please explain why this is happening ?
- Again, you need to actually link to what you are talking about. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
15:57:31, 2 April 2020 review of submission by Yyakilles
Yyakilles (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yyakilles, Phone calls to what? Sulfurboy (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
how do I make phone calls and stuff and people could call me I don't know how.
16:11:42, 2 April 2020 review of draft by Abbsonmarketing
- Abbsonmarketing (talk · contribs) (TB)
I am not sure what is wrong with my article as I am using a wide range of sources and writing all facts. Is there more of an explanation?
Abbsonmarketing (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- User appears to represent a public relations firm, and has apparently drafted and posted a press release on behalf of a client, without responding to WP:COI concerns. That's merely the beginning of what's wrong. Also, I wasn't aware that Snopes was a left-wing website, but that factoid provides a window into the draft's quality. The editor has been reported for their username. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Request on 16:17:37, 2 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rayrunner
I am a board member for a nonprofit standards organization that is looking to identify ourselves and our standards on Wikipedia. I tried to model our page like the ANSI page on Wikipedia. I thought I had created enough content that informed about the group mission and the standards we support. I am not sure based on the rejection of what is defective in the page posting as specific action I can take. I would like help in identifying specific items need to met Wikipedia requirements.
Rayrunner (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Rayrunner, The article has deleted due to being unambiguous promotion. A subject writing about themselves is highly discouraged. If your organization is truly notable then someone will write about it eventually and from a more neutral standpoint. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
18:55:34, 2 April 2020 review of submission by AaronBir19
- AaronBir19 (talk · contribs) (TB)
- No draft specified!
AaronBir19 (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- AaronBir19, You need to specify what draft you are talking about. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I was told that my article reads more like an essay and that I need to take out instances of opinion. Could someone please point out specific spots where these things occur and how to fix it?
Draft:Potterless — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronBir19 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi AaronBir19. The bulk of any draft should be based on sources independent of the subject. The draft's two sources are the podcast itself and the podcast's production company. Neither is an arms length secondary source, so they do nothing to demonstrate that the podcast is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
20:18:57, 2 April 2020 review of submission by 93.143.167.191
- 93.143.167.191 (talk · contribs) (TB)
93.143.167.191 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
21:39:27, 2 April 2020 review of submission by Daniele Rolli
- Daniele Rolli (talk · contribs) (TB)
Daniele Rolli (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- 03:22, 3 April 2020 Seraphimblade talk contribs deleted page Draft:Infinitive os (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank) @Daniele Rolli: Please post advertisements here. 10:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
22:02:45, 2 April 2020 review of submission by Nnwitts
I believe the article subject is worthy of notice. Shall I include more reference to articles that have covered her to show this? Nnwitts (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nnwitts You need to show that this person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
April 3
Request on 00:49:02, 3 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Bince construction
- Bince construction (talk · contribs) (TB)
Bince construction (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- 03:20, 3 April 2020 Seraphimblade talk contribs deleted page User:Bince construction/sandbox (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank) Nothing more to do here, since the page was deleted and the user blocked for Username policy violations. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
09:03:04, 3 April 2020 review of draft by Irenemoresa
- Irenemoresa (talk · contribs) (TB)
Could you please help me identify the sentences or paragraphs where do you see missing footnotes at the Chelo´s Alvarez-Stehle draft? I thought I had it right. Please, I need help to understand my error. Thank you in advance.
Irenemoresa (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- There are a number of sentences in the career section with no sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
14:48:14, 3 April 2020 review of draft by Boxing8829
- Boxing8829 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Boxing8829 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
hello , I would like to know what changes are needed so this page can be posted. thanks for your time!
- User:Boxing8829 - An article on Anthony Martinez (boxer) was deleted two years ago after a deletion discussion. You will need to show that he has accomplished more as a boxer in the past two years (or that the deletion discussion should be reviewed). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
15:19:07, 3 April 2020 review of submission by Roger amanna
- Roger amanna (talk · contribs) (TB)
Roger amanna (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC) I need more advice on what needs to be added to have this article accepted. Any help would be appreciated.
- Roger amanna Your draft has been rejected the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You have zero independent reliable sources, they are an absolute prerequisite for a successful submission. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
16:57:27, 3 April 2020 review of submission by 109.146.54.212
- 109.146.54.212 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Hi. Please could I have help with editing the page I created as I have edited it three times. It is not clear why it has been declined. Is it to do with the references? Not enough information about the topic?
109.146.54.212 (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- If the only source you can find is a page on the subject's agents website, you have not shown that he is Notable. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
17:53:08, 3 April 2020 review of submission by 109.146.54.212
- 109.146.54.212 (talk · contribs) (TB)
Please could you have a look at my draft as I have added a bit more and included a new reference which I hope meets your standards 109.146.54.212 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry no, they are both primary sources and Linked in isn't reliable either, you need multiple in-depth coverage in magazines, newspapers etc. Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
18:27:42, 3 April 2020 review of submission by Rm 1309
Hello,
I'd really like to learn from you the basic changes that I could make to the draft: Agarwal Movers Group in order to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. I've tried talking to wiki volunteers over the IRC and I did do the changes required. I'm still confused. Maybe help me out? Rm 1309 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
19:12:08, 3 April 2020 review of submission by Mauliknayakofficial
- Mauliknayakofficial (talk · contribs) (TB)
Mauliknayakofficial (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
19:47:02, 3 April 2020 review of submission by Zoyashi
I'm just trying to write a appreciative summary of a book I really enjoy. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!
Zoyashi (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Zoyashi: Wikipedia does not publish essays or any other material that is original research. Unfortunately, there is no guidance we can provide for the article in its current state. You would have to start again from scratch and use reliable sources for most everything. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
19:49:08, 3 April 2020 review of submission by Zoyashi
I am trying to write an appreciative summary of a book I really enjoy. Any advice would be welcome!
Zoyashi (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Zoyashi Wikipedia is not for merely publishing book summaries. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable book). A plot summary is only a small part of such an article, and should not provide every detail. Any article about a book should focus on what independent sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
19:50:39, 3 April 2020 review of draft by Eforgacs
I would like to go over this draft to make sure that it meets the submission criteria. The first time I tried submitting, it got rejected because it was missing sources. Most of the sources are in Korean, but I was able to find a source that was in English (not sure if the language of the source matters), and I added that. I also removed some unsourced material as well. Please let me know what changes are necessary. Thanks.
Eforgacs (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say sources do not have to be in English. It helps, but it's not required. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
20:19:55, 3 April 2020 review of submission by 2606:6000:CC03:8300:4D8C:3972:B846:5E7E
This was modeled directly off the entries of similar behavioral scientists (Nir Eyal, Daniel Kahneman, etc.) and is the first of an effort to add more behavioral scientists to WP. We're trying to get one right before using that as a template for the others...rather than simply say "its not right", could you help edit it into being correct so that we have a template to use for the rest of the behavioral science community?
2606:6000:CC03:8300:4D8C:3972:B846:5E7E (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)