• Heinrike Borko (talk · contribs)
  • Triton Poker Super High Roller Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Triton Poker Super High Roller Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Heinrike Borko (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC) I'm a big poker fan and when I searched a few months ago about Triton Series, the only page that I have been able to find on Wikipedia was a page in German: https://de.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Triton_Super_High_Roller_Series My draft article is an enhanced version of that page but in English.[reply]

• JDNAScreative (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Darren Palmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been informed that the page I have created is more like an advertisement and should refer to independent, reliable and published sources. The page I have created is a public personality, and the references used are all from third party sources, that have interviewed the personality.

If you could help in making it clear for me the areas that are not compliant, I would have a better idea of how I could fix it to meet Wikipedia's standards. Thank you.

JDNAScreative (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP blocked under WP:CORPNAME+WP:NOTPROMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• MisterJ4all (talk · contribs)

Hi admin, I have edited the page BitStarz several times now, trying to cover all the requirements by Wikipedia terms. It was noted that there was a problem with the references included in the article. The references are original source pages by the well-established and recognized leaders in the industry. I followed the form and the concept of the Casumo page and I really cannot see much difference in two pages. Can you please help me and show me the next steps. Thank you in advance, MisterJ4all MisterJ4all (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterJ4all: The three main things you need to focus on are citing professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, removing any other sources that do not meet that description, and removing any information that is not supported by reliable sources.

The Casumo article is not a good model to follow. In general, it's not a good idea to try to imitate other articles. My usual advice for writing an article about anyone or anything:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. Google Books is a good resource for this. Also, while search engine resutls are tnot sources, they are where you can find sources. Just remember that they need to be professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 3 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these cryptocurrency blockchain pages are just promotional. People that poured € £ ¥ $ into them want to promote them. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bitstarz Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Still, if I can't just speedy delete something and block the account (see section above), I like to give them the proper way to do things because they'll either (in order of most likely to least likely) give up, comply with the site's policies, or do something block-worthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigute from InkAgency (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Modus Energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The submission of my added information on Modus Energy was declined due to the references not showing significant coverage regarding the subject. However, the references indeed do have relevant information about the topic. The articles that were added to the reference list are from the most influential media, providing reliable and explicit information about the company. I was wondering, if the submission was declined because the references were mostly in Lithuanian and not in English? I was told in a live chat that it is allowed to have the majority of references in a different language.

Sigute from InkAgency (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Malek404 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shahan Kabondho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Malek404 (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sobatipep (talk · contribs)
  • Bram van Sambeek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Bram van Sambeek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am struggling with the fact to make the page less promotional. The reviewers are not very specific in their feedback and the link the last one sent, I did not find very helpful. It is quite subjective and open to interpretation. I however tried to make the text less promotional by taking out all adjectives and opinions. I took out the reference to a future album release and I also took out quotes and changed the use of first name to either the complete name or just the last name. I reordered some of the text and made special projects and experiments a part of Career as to not make it stand out that much. I think it is quite neutral now, so I am hoping for some positive and concrete feedback (if not positive).

Not sure how to submit the article for review again.

As a point of feedback, I want to say that if there are 1107 submissions pending, I think more specific feedback could save everyone time. I see many comments on Talk pages of people who are not clear on what they did wrong. I also think the same people should review drafts. Perhaps make it more of a mentoring thing with a group of people, reviewers are working with. I think it would motivate people more than these brief unspecific comments and it would help create better articles.

Thank you --Sobatipep (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have resubmitted your draft article again because you claimed you made changes and you have asked here as you should have. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jovanmilic97 :-) --Sobatipep (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KamKing260901 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kam King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

KamKing260901 (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 68.103.78.155 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:2019 NCAA Division I Baseball season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This Article 2019 NCAA Division I Baseball season article Was Suppose to be a full fledged article and it is not responding because it is not can you help me to move this article to Article space please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you answer me a few days ago. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 123pr (talk · contribs)
  • Jourdana Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Jourdana Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I get this to show on the google knowledge panel during google search results? 123pr (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DiplomatTesterMan (talk · contribs)
  • The Better India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I submitted this draft just now for an AFC review. I just want someone to quickly check if I have submitted it with the correct AFC tag since this is the first time I added it manually, or if anything else needs to be done before the actual review. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan, you should be fine. It's loading the script and the categories are correct so it should be in the queue. Regards, ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 20:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ProgrammingGeek: Thanks! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Amanda Ozment (talk · contribs)

I believe that the article I submitted for review does meet the first Musical Notability Criterion listed on your reference page: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]" Sources that I have footnoted include ABC World News Tonight, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, EMI, and at least one Wikipedia page that references Edisun directly. I'm hoping that someone can help me understand what the exact issue is with my submission so that I can properly amend and resubmit this article for approval. Thanks! Amanda Ozment (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mhoss322 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Azareen Van Der Vliet Oloomi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello please help! I have revised this article a few times to mirror another published page (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Valeria_Luiselli) and cannot understand why this keeps getting rejected.

Mhoss322 (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many reviewers think that putting "award-winning" in the lede sentence of a biography of a living person is a sign that it is non-neutral. Also, modeling a draft on another article is not always the best idea. The fact that the other article is in article space does not mean it is any good. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and maybe the other stuff should also be declined or deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Aksartindia05 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Aksartindia05/sandbox/Anilkumar Singh (aksartindia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aksartindia05 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Amanda Ozment (talk · contribs)

I believe that the article I submitted for review does meet the first Musical Notability Criterion listed on your reference page: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]" Sources that I have footnoted include ABC World News Tonight, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, EMI, and at least one Wikipedia page that references Edisun directly. I'm hoping that someone can help me understand what the exact issue is with my submission so that I can properly amend and resubmit this article for approval. Thanks! Amanda Ozment (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]