Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 2 << May | June | Jul >> June 4 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


June 3

[edit]

07:41:57, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Andrej Shadura

[edit]


I was told my submission has tone issues. Apparently the fact I wrote this submission prevents me from seeing them, but I paid attention to using neutral tone as much as possible. How can I improve on that?

I would also like to point out my original thought was to expand the article on Vuze to include the information on BiglyBT since in the situation when the original project is more or less dead, and continues under a new brand, it seemed like a better fit to me, but my initial addition of a paragraph on that has been reverted as an attempt to spam and I was told that not until an article on that is written and accepted, it can be re-added. I’m honestly a bit afraid of touching that article again (I did add a paragraph on the original project being dead and to be fair I expected it to be reverted just because I added it.)

I have no conflict of interest whatsoever in this case, this is not part of any promotion campaign, and to be honest it hurts quite a bit to be seen as a spammer after editing Wikipedia for many years and having proven track record of never spreading spam or being involved in any similar activity.

Andrej Shadura (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


June 2

[edit]

Request on 01:21:11, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Caryplace7

[edit]


Hello I have been trying for a few weeks to publish a bio of Journalist Mike Greenhaus, Editor-in-Chief of Relix Magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Greenhaus) This is my first bio, though I have added references and edit over 100 other articles, so I am still learning how to do this properly. I have gone few a few drafts with a few editors after being denied and have been able to successfully clear that there is no conflict of interest and that I have enough independent third-party sources focused on the subject to make this worthy of acceptance. However user Chris just denied by post within minutes of my posting it. Chris' comments suggested that a majority of the references I cited were by the subject I was writing about when in fact NONE of the links are by him, nor from the magazine he edits (expect the masthead as proof of his current position) The four articles I cited as best references had all been cleared as OK by another editor and are focused specifically on the subject of my bio. In addition, the other articles cite him as an expert reference which according to my research is the type of articles that should be included as proof of notability. I understood I have perhaps too many references; I was trying to balance a mix of articles focused solely on Mr. Greenhaus with citations on his work from larger references. Please let me know how I can improve. Thank you so muchCaryplace7 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caryplace7 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:58:09, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Acham

[edit]


Not sure why the many references "do not establish notability" for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_McNamara_(sportswriter)

"During his life, McNamara was a prolific journalist, covering sports and news in Maryland. He had written and edited for the St. John's College High School Sabre newspaper, the University of Maryland College Park Diamondback newspaper,[1] the Washington Post, the Hagerstown Herald-Mail, the Prince George's County (MD) Journal[2] and The Capital[3] in Annapolis, MD. He wrote three books on sports prior to his death,[4] and appeared as a guest commentator on line for the Washington Post,[5] and on radio on the Rick "Doc" Walker" show, and with Johnny Holliday to discuss Baltimore Orioles, and Washington Nationals baseball and on the Maryland Sports Radio Network. McNamara was a voter[6] in the Associated Press Top 25 NCAA basketball poll.[7] He won several awards for his writing from the Maryland - DC - Delaware Press Association. [8]"

I provided info on 4 books, on-line commentary, and multiple radio appearances. Can you provide specifics for what you need to establish notability? Of course, there are references are to his own writing, as would be the case for most journalists. However, 4 books, multiple interviews of him including in the Washington Post, and hundreds of articles that he wrote, would seemingly meet your qualifications. I am sure I have what you need, but I am having trouble imagining what else to include. Thank you.

Acham (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:20:41, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Nova9944

[edit]

I finished a userspace draft and clicked the "submit your draft for review" button. There was no indication as to whether it was submitted or not. Also I do not know how I will receive your reply so please email me if possible. Nova9944 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at WP:HD. @Nova9944: please don't ask the same question at two different places. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:54:29, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sachi1307

[edit]


I don't understand how to make it into an Article, different reviewers have different suggestion. Firstly, there are no any advertisement, and then it create by others with a draft not a article, why can I not create to be an article. Who can guide me how to do it？

Sachi1307 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:40, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RiHuang

[edit]

Could you please review it? I provided all the correct and authentic information! Thank you! RiHuang (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:45:13, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RixiangH

[edit]

How can I revise it to be able to pass? RixiangH (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:46:06, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Armonia3i

[edit]


Can someone please point to specific changes to make, so that the draft shifts to a more neutral perspective ?

(Quick background and disclaimer: my first car will probably be a Škoda Citigo iV; as such, I’ve searched Wikipedia for a summary of car and services information, only to find that there is very little available, so I proposed this dedicated wiki article to contain specific information about the features of each of their services/apps; I’m not connected with Škoda Auto in any way, but I have contacted their support email with questions.)

I already attempted to make it strictly factual, by summarising and referencing hour-long presentations, and official press releases (available services, exact features of each app, public statements on the brand’s future plans). Would referencing second-hand articles (that replicate this same information) actually aid give a more neutral perspective? Are there specific statements that seem speculative or advertorial?

The article seems to me to have a similar structure as other brands’ in the same electro-mobility category, like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i but yes, arguably more focused on a future owner or interested party than the general public.

Would contacting someone from the Transportation WikiProject help to get another perspective, and better alignment with existing pages for EV families?

Armonia3i (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armonia3i by basing the draft on hour-long presentations, and official press releases and the like, you are going in exactly the wrong direction. Such presentations and releases are produced by the company, and naturally give the most positive view of the product possible. A Wikipedia article should be based primarily on Independent published reliable sources, sources that have no connection with the company and no interest in whether the product does well or poorly. They should also be professionally published, not fan or personal sites. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:47:34, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RIXIANGHUANG

[edit]

Could you help me? I don't know why my wiki page is not approved. RIXIANGHUANG (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RIXIANGHUANG Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia does not have "wiki pages", it has articles typically written by independent editors. Please review the autobiography policy for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:47:38, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Kcsnooker

[edit]


I am new to Wikipedia and have a basic question

I would like to create an article about myself. It does meet the notability requirement. I have submitted a draft with article name "Kamal Chawla", but not sure if it will get rejected due to Conflict of Interest. If so, what is the best way to get the article published?

Kcsnooker (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are notable enough you'll need to have citations from independent websites, newspapers, books or radio. Generally, you can't make articles about yourself, I'm not an expert but I know you'll need lots of citations for the size of your article. Maybe consider copying and pasting it onto your user page? Freyr Brown (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:53:54, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Freyr Brown

[edit]


Hi, My article was recently rejected and now (after looking at some articles about notability and citations) I understand why it was rejected. I've now taken the time to get citations from newspapers, books, online newspapers and independent websites. I have cited lots of those and now I'm curious whether that will be enough. I'm also questioning if the amount of information there is online, makes it notable enough. I've found info from a lot of big newspapers and I think it should hopefully be good enough as a topic but I'm very new to all this and I'm not quite sure. I don't know exactly what my question is but if there's anything anybody could tell me that'd be great, thanks! Freyr Brown (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freyr Brown (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freyr Brown As you were informed by the reviewer, lower level schools are not typically notable according to Wikipedia's definition. Articles must do more than tell about the subject(as yours does); they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. Your draft just tells that the school exists and some things it offers. Note that even a school where a horrific shooting occurred, Sandy Hook Elementary School, does not merit a Wikipedia article(though the event does). There needs to be a great deal of significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond mere mentions, routine announcements, or just confirmation that the school exists- for a school itself to merit an article. For example, a school that is housed in a historic building that has been written about in that context. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:37, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Agnieszkasek

[edit]


Agnieszkasek (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your feedback regarding the Tools Up! Wikipedia page draft. I have some questions to ask in order to make sure that the next version of the article will fit the Wikipedia standards better. 1) The feedback mentions that the article "appears to read more like an advertisement" - could you explain which parts of the text read like that? 2) "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" - which sources do you deem unreliable? All listed articles are published and available online. Moreover, none of the sources is a material produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I'm looking forward to your reply. Thank you for your time. Best!

Agnieszkasek The "Gameplay" section in particular reads as if it came from a company promotion, and in any case Wikipedia is not a how-to manual or game guide. The "Reception" section, which lists only positive reviews and reactions, also seems a bit promotional For example, the revieew from Destrutoid (Currently Ref 1) says "To sum it up, there are hints of greatness. But just hints." but no hint of this modified rapture appears in the article, it is merely listed as "positive". No actual quotes from reviews are used. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:52:47, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Clifffyle2014

[edit]


Cliff 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

14:18:03, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Arebello103

[edit]

I have edited the content to be unbiased and added the review page from GreatNonprofits as a reference. Arebello103 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:29:27, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Arebello103

[edit]

I would like a re-review because WAA is an authentic organization, and I have edited the article to be unbiased and more informative, with additional sources other than the WAA website. Arebello103 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arebello103: If it has not been featured in any notable publications to this point, as your draft states, then it will not be accepted. WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:52, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS

[edit]

I am asking assistance for a question, here is the question: How do you request for an editor?Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 14:53:52, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS[reply]

Replied below, at #11:22:39, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:01:48, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Saalves

[edit]

16:01:48, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Saalves 


I have many reliable sources which I cited in the text using <ref> <ref>  I thought this meant that this code would populate the notes section. Not sure what is my next step. I checked how to cite my sources but I must not understand something important. Please help.


Saalves (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saalves You need to use a pair of <ref>...</ref> tags, not the / character on the closing tag. Withotu this they do not work correctly. Also:
  • Please refer to the subject by last mname only ("Smith" note "Janet Marie Smith") after the initial mention in the lead section, unless another person named smithy is also being referred to, and this would cause confusion.
  • Please read referencing for beginners. Please provide the title of each source you cite, and where that source is part of a larger work (such as a newspaper, magazine, or website), please provide the name of that work as well. Please provide the date if publication when known. Please provide the author when known. Please list the publisher when this would help the reader.
  • Section headers should be surrounded by paired double equals signs (==Header here==) for top level headers, and triple equals for 2nd level headers (===Second level here===). Headers should be in sentence case, not all caps. Only the first word is capped except for proper names or other things that would be capitalized in running prose. See WP:SECTION.
  • Please note that since Smith worked/works for MLB, sites run by MLB are not Independent sources, which are needed to establish notability.
I hope that helps a bit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:28, 2 June 2020 review of submission by The Cat 2020

[edit]

Hi, Who gets to decide whether the article is notable or not? I wrote an article about one of the greatest female philosophers of India. I presented citation of the moral sentences which are timeless. I wrote an article and the some reviewer made factually incorrect statements about it which resulted in the rejection of my draft. My article is written in strict accordance to the rules of English and Wikipedia. The citation is properly attributed, all the works used are properly listed. I met with clear bias towards my article from the very beginning when somebody incorrectly called it "an essay". Then somebody decided to make factually incorrect statements about the references and attribution. Now the final person wrote that, "The subject probably is notable, but this draft does not establish notability." If this is the final verdict then the person who wrote this must read a few things about Sir William Jones and his Asiatic Researches who I referenced in my article.He should also read a thing or two about the Asiatic Society and the mythology. Then he should consult Godfrey Higgins and Frederic Shoberl who wrote about Avyar in their works and cited her moral sentences. Are those persons are not notable enough as well? All the references to the works cited and/or used are clearly mentioned, attributed and listed along with the page numbers for your convenience. Finally, the phrase "The subject probably is notable, but this draft does not establish notability." clearly has a double meaning which is unacceptable. It is the polite but an unacceptable way of saying that my material is not welcome on Wikipedia. You should write a bulletin and state what people can or can't add to so-called free encyclopedia. You shouldn't exercise bias toward any material. You shouldn't block an important material from being published. You shouldn't provide false and factually incorrect statements toward the article itself when the facts presented are showing the opposite. I stand by the fact that my article is written in strict accordance to all the rules. The notability of the person has clearly established and the sources with great reputation are listed to prove that. Facts are on my side but the factually incorrect statements were made against me and my material. The latest statement is just a way of saying that my material is great but you are unable to publish it. No real reason for the rejection has been provided so far.

The Cat 2020 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment on your draft, it will need to be completely re-written before it can be re-submitted, it has too much inappropriately written content which I have high lighted for you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:32, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Naijaactive

[edit]


Naijaactive (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:01:27, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Mrjava2019

[edit]


My draft that i wanted to publish got declined beacause the references was not enough and i was told that i need more footnotes. Could you please specify or mark witch statements that need footnotes so that i can apply them? Mrjava2019 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:26:29, 2 June 2020 review of draft by DonGuess

[edit]


I have a problem with a pdf source, it's written in red letters in the "references" section so it's easy to see DonGuess (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done There was, as the error message said, a line feed (newline) in the middle of the title, DonGuess. Now please add citation metadata, such as the name of the publication, the date, the author (if known) and so on. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:59:55, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Lifedoory

[edit]

I have edited to avoid promotional content. Our wikipedia page also has published on Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cakap

Lifedoory (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lifedoory: who is "our"? Wikipedia accounts are for singlee-person-use only. Different Wikipedias are seperate projects with their own rules, so the existence of an article in one Wikipedia cannot be cited as a reson to include it in a different one. At least two of the current references are not independent, the first and the last one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:22:12, 3 June 2020 review of draft by Terminatorwil

[edit]


Could you help me understand why the wikipedia page did not get approved as there were enough citation in it.

Terminatorwil (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Terminatorwil. Some of the draft's sources, namely MSN, Radio and Television Magazine, Al-Wafd, and Saudi Gazette are generally reliable within their domains. I don't speak enough Arabic to judge whether specific pages from those outlets are independent (e.g. not press releases or churnalism), reliable (e.g. not editorial or opinion), and significant coverage. The reliability of the draft's other sources, Destination, Al Roeya News, elsaba7.com, Business Transformation, and The Modern East, is unclear. The draft would make a somewhat more favourable impression if you eliminated or replaced the questionable sources.
More fundamentally, Emara's accomplishments are unlikely to impress reviewers. Motivational speakers who give workshops on positive energy and have won obscure awards of dubious notability just don't stack up well against academics the likes of B. F. Skinner, Steven Pinker, or George Armitage Miller. Any draft about Emara is liable to sound promotional. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:06:28, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Rahulraop

[edit]

Dynamo is a public star and i think his info should be included on wikipedia.

Rahulraop (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No indication in the draft that he meets any of the criteria at WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:11, 3 June 2020 review of submission by VaJaMe

[edit]


VaJaMe (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VaJaMe: this draft is largely the same as the company website, and therefore, fails Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. It largely uses the company's website as a source and therefore also fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia articles should be based mostly on stuff others have written about the subject in reliabe sources, not what the subject has writen or said about itself. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:19:23, 3 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Dupontdupontdupont

[edit]


Hello, I would need some help to publish the article I started to write about Royal Limoges, the oldest Limoges porcelain manufacture still in activity. My article was refused for edition because of a lack of sources. There are many more sources in French but not that many in English. Can you help me to publish this new page?

Dupontdupontdupont (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English, but they do need to be independent reliable sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:25:30, 3 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rakesh862

[edit]


Hi, I am looking to create a page for an elder care service in Chennai. I have already made two drafts of the page and they were declined. I have used only verified sources. Can you please help me on what are the topics or sections need to be included for this page? The page is about a startup that provides elder care.

Also, please tell me what kind of sources I need to consider.

PS: I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first time making a page. 

Thank you Rakesh862 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh862 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh862 You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage, and the article (not just "page") should only summarize what those sources say. The sources you have offered are press release type articles or brief mentions. Please also read the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company to ensure this company meets it. If you are associated with this company in any way, you must read and formally comply with the paid editing and conflict of interest policies. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:39, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS

[edit]

How do you become an editor/become an Wikipedian? I want to join, but i might get confused alot. I might need explanations about things i need to know and i don't know how. I have an editor already, but i don't know how to do things, i'm still a newbie in Wikipedia/here. Thank you!---- (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


---- (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS. Being a successful Wikipedian is 90% reading and 10% editing. The links in the welcome box on your user talk page are a good place to start. Concentrate on improving existing articles instead of trying to start new ones, until you are experienced. A good place to find ways to help is Wikipedia:Community portal.
You may be able to get more specific advice if you describe in a few sentences on your user page your skills, interests, and resources. Many tasks require a high degree of fluency in English, but some can be done with limited English. A few require a command of another language. Access to good libraries, especially ones at world-class research universities, is very helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:50, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Iayaz

[edit]


Hi , i have written this page about an industrial area which is famous in punjab. Major development work has been completed . I have added 6 refrences for verification of its notability .Please review Iayaz (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:39, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Theonetwoandthree

[edit]


I submitted 'the Balkans' and was then asked to add more evidence, I resubmitted it with further evidence but was declined again. I can't see anywhere any numerical requirement that says a certain number of sources should be provided. I've followed all the help pages and still, it is declined. Would someone please be able to help me get this page to abide by the rules if it does not already do so. Im happy to provide any further evidence but I'm sure that cant be the issue. Many thanks Theonetwoandthree (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Theonetwoandthree (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and Amazon are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:00, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Shahmohammadimehran

[edit]


I wrote this article about Mahyar Shadorvan, a musician, singer, and teacher of Persian traditional music. Due to the focus of his activities in Persian local and traditional music, most of references existing about him are in Persian language. I wonder if rejection of my article is due to tone of writing or because of the references used. In training Persian vocal music, he is considered as one of the most known in Iran's capital. He was educated under well known vocal musician of Iran, including Mohammad Reza Shajarian, and Mohsen Keramati. He has professional and dedicated albums and books to learning and deepening the understanding of mixing vocal and music and poem in Persian

So I appreciate if I can get a feedback on why my article was rejected and how I can show the importance of this article.


Thanks, Mehran Shahmohammadi

Shahmohammadimehran (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahmohammadimehran: Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, at that would mean circularity. refs #7 and #8 are unnesesary, and can be moved to an "external links" section if they adhere to the external links policy (they probbably don't). This draft uses puffery words like great and various. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:08, 3 June 2020 review of draft by MVP2020

[edit]


Hello, What do I need to do so that my draft: Meike Peters will be reviewed? Thanks a lot!

MVP2020 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MVP2020 You simply need to submit it for review by clicking the blue button at the bottom of the grey review box at the top of the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

15:35:40, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Jeet Nakum

[edit]


Jeet Nakum (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeet Nakum: Wikipedia isn't an how-to-guide. You may want to look at WP:YFA to see what we expect from new articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:08, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Saalves

[edit]

For security reasons and to protect her privacy, I did not put in her birth date of December 13 and only put in her year of birth. The reviewer put in her birth date. How can I respond to the reviewer? I'm fine with changes for accuracy, better sentence structure or word choice.

Saalves (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saalves:You can talk to @Amkgp: on User talk:Amkgp, which is his user talk page and intended to leave him a message. In this case, I have sent him a notification about this discussion, so he will probbably respond here, as discussions should not be splitted across multiple pages. Howewer, as stated in the decline notice, there is probbably a bit more work to do to bring this to a state where it can be moved to mainspace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt and Saalves:, I have not interfered with the draft except reviewing. You can verify from the diffs. See diff1 and diff2. The edit what Saalves is asking may be referring to this. Please address the issue to the concern person. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 17:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Theroadislong and DESiegel: can provide additional inputs regarding the problems with the draft. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 17:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saalves Your accusation seems to be wrong I think. After scrutiny I found complete dates were provided by you. None of the reviews, editors or commentators have added it. See the 2nd paragraph here of your version. ~ Amkgp ✉ 17:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever added the exact date of birth to the draft, it should not be there as per WP:DOB unless there is cited evidence that it has been widely published outside of Wikipedia, or published by or with the obvious consent of the subject, such as on the subject's own website, or by the subject in an interview. In most cases the year of birth is enough to provide context, to place the person in their proper time. The Wikipedia style, as shown at MOS:BIRTHDATE, is to use John Smith (Born 1958) not Joan Smith (1958-) because the latter form can be mistaken to mean that the person is dead but the date of dfeath si not known, or not reliably sourced. @Saalves, Amkgp, Victor Schmidt, and Theroadislong: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:57:27, 3 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Kb vision

[edit]



Kb vision (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kb vision: no independent citations, no article. In addition, you are using a Username that implies its representing a group which is not permitted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:32, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Bobkuzi

[edit]

I have made some edits to the article, after it was initially declined. Could you please let me know if this is suitable for posting on Wikipedia, or if you have any specific advice on what I can do to edit it? Thank you! Bobkuzi (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobkuzi. Rejection is meant to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem, so volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. Wikipedia may not be used for any kind of advertising, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:04, 3 June 2020 review assistance needed - Indy beetle

[edit]


I'm able to launch the script to review this draft, but for some reason it will not let me "Accept" the submission. When I click it nothing happens. It does give me options for commenting or rejecting though. Either the script is useless or I am. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also having the same issue with Draft:Simeon Farr. Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:38, 3 June 2020 review of submission by EditorF

[edit]


EditorF (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignite India is inspired by Honourable Former President of India Dr. Abdul Kalam’s vision of “India  Beyond 2020”. Our aim is to fulfil his vision by empowering society and transforming India into a developed nation through education. We Design, Management and Technology professionals manage this initiative and help in providing quality education in the view of producing a new generation of creative, innovative and Ignited minds.


Website - https://www.igniteindiaedu.com/ Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSaHYcKbTZViku1Olq_vSQA Instagram - www.instagram.com/ignite_india


NEWS Links 1. - https://indiaeducationdiary.in/children-to-paint-their-imagination-of-clean-ganga-this-environment-day/

2.https://www.thestatesman.com/india/young-sparkling-minds-shine-apj-abdul-kalam-ignite-awards-2019-1502831357.html

3.https://www.deccanchronicle.com/science/science/150117/innovators-mission-to-ignite-abdul-kalams-vision.html

4.https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/politics/160619/anand-bhaskar-rapolu-proposes-to-declare-kalams-birthday-as-national.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorF (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EditorF, Your draft have been declined because of these following problems: (1) The tone of draft is totally WP:PROMOTIONAL which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. (2) Usage to WP:BAREURLS needs to be avoided. If you are not sure how to cite reference visit WP:REFB (3) Usage of words like 'our' and 'we' makes us to believe that the editor is closely connected to the subject and should comply with WP:COI terms. (4) In infobox website is of organization is mentioned as "http://www.nift.ac.in/" which a Government of India funded education institution. How is it connected to IGNITE INDIA missing. ~ Amkgp ✉ 19:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user has updated the draft and also changed the website. Its still WP:PROMOTIONAL. ~ Amkgp ✉ 19:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:55, 3 June 2020 review of submission by River44116

[edit]

Please give us a more detailed explanation of why we were declined and how can fix this. We would like for Organic Spa Media to have a wikipedia page and these articles were submitted from an event held by the company. River44116 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All you submitted were some external links, that does not constitute an article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello, River44116. The page User:River44116/sandbox currently has as its only content a URL linking to a page of an online magazine, one filled with ads by the way, apparently including a story about an event. It is not at all clear if you intend to write about the event, the magazine, or the event's sponsor.
A Wikipedia article about a topic must consist primarily of original prose describing that topic in a neutral manner. It must establish and demonstrate the notability of the topic. In the case of a corporation or similar organization, it should meet our guideline on the notability of corporations. The usual way to do this is to include citations to multipl professionally published reliable sources that are independent of the organizatio0n and of each other, that si they are not business affiliates of the subject, nor are they working from a press release, nor is the content largely an interview with the subject or a spokesperson for the subject. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_June_3&oldid=985275597"