• MateoPerez21 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:EngageRocket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I would just like to know why this was declined. Please help me understand better so I can change parts of it. I've already removed the press releases of EngageRocket and their funding story (based on previous comments) Please let me know what else needs to be done. Thank you so much! MateoPerez21 (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MateoPerez2 Greetings. Pls click on the "blue text" where the reliever has left you a comment (beneath the pink panel) on the draft page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 37.252.80.170 (talk · contribs)
  • The William Saroyan House Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:The William Saroyan House Museum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know how it's determined if the article I posted is of an advertising nature or not (I mean, I know that it's not an advertisement, and I have supporting references, but you may consider it to be so, anyway). I need to know that so that I manage to edit the article in a way that it's not declined because of seeming to be an advertisement.

37.252.80.170 (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is the tone of your writing. Generally speaking having more references would help, William Saroyan is clearly notable, a museum about him is not certain to also be notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• You might consider expanding the article on the person with info on the building. I've not looked at the pages just making a general comment to help other new editors dealing with topics that are related to existing pages but may not make a good stand alone topic. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 169.149.58.60 (talk · contribs)
  • Malik Sajad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Malik Sajad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

169.149.58.60 (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Draft:Malik_Sajad

Please review this draft, so that it moves in the article space quickly.

• Approved. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hamidrezamodanlou (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Hamidrezamodanlou (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Can someone please help me and do me a favor and review my draft? I need to publish it and i don't know why it is still a draft

• You could try submitting it for review. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 96.235.193.85 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ulgoland: The Belgariad and The Malloreon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

my page was declined. My article is a stub. It is not complete because I want others to add on to it. If this dosen't qualify, let me know. Regards, Writer. 96.235.193.85 (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There are minimum standards for articles. You need to demonstrate notability with reliable sources. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• RobinYad (talk · contribs)
  • Linear earthwork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Linear earthwork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure why the page was rejected. It was suggested that the subject already exists under Levee but a leeve is a specialised kind of linear earthwork. Updating levee with linear earthwork would lead to confusion. The reason for rejection is wrong.

RobinYad (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RobinYad (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am inclined to agree, @Bkissin: declined the draft and may have other views on the subject. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Levees contain water. This is a different class of feature, though levees are a type of this feature. I've approved the page. Good job. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 106.66.37.154 (talk · contribs)
  • Lenskart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Lenskart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi, It has been more than 2 weeks since the draft is not reviewed yet. What can i expect it to be reviewed. Thanks.

106.66.37.154 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We are 3500 drafts behind. It takes time. I'll take a look though now. Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A candidate for speedy deletion as advertising and recreation of a page deleted by discussion. Legacypac (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for reviwing the article. I will make some changes to the article to make it neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.39.31 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheppey Red (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brian Diggins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, the issue I have is that the only online reliable sources for information as per Wikipedia's requirements about Brian Diggins are to be found at the British Newspaper Archive which is behind a paywall and requires people to pay a monthly or yearly fee for access. Can you tell me how I may address this? Thanks.

Sheppey Red (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You cite the sources as normal. Often the best sources are behind paywalls and using these are encouraged where freely accessible sources are not available. You will need to fill out a full citation, with author, date, article title, publisher, issue (if given) and other details. If you have a durable link/url then supply that as if it was a normal url, if the url is dynamic with a lot of institutional query data then simply make a citation without a link as you would if the source is not on the internet. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Sheppey Red. It is perfectly acceptable to use reliable sources which are behind a paywall if freely accessible sources are unavailable. See WP:PAYWALL, and provide full bibliographic information. It is not acceptable to use another Wikipedia article as a source, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Diane Coffey (talk · contribs)
  • Hannah Winbolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Hannah Winbolt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have now included references requested and I believe appropriately BUT I thought I had uploaded my out-of-copywright jpg image Hannah Winbolt to Wiki Commons but I cannot insert it into my article Hannah Winbolt Diane Coffey (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Diane Coffey (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the image on commons and put it in the article for you. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All resolved. Nice quality article Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Newsmel (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jose E. Latour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was rejected because of "notability" issues. I disagree with the editor because the editor said some references weren't "independent" when they are. I sent her links to prove they were, but no response.

Here's my contention: the other Jose Latour (crime writer) only has three references on his page. One is from his publisher (not independent), one is a review (for his book, not focusing on him) and the third is an archived blog in a local paper where he lived (not a national news site or even in the news section). There were no other references indicating a longevity of his celebrity or even that he has been interviewed by anyone else.

Yet, in this case, where I had TEN references, the editor said the bio won't work, alleging it wasn't reputable or independent. It was independent and was from an online music site relating to his music. The editor said a foreign news article where he was quoted didn't matter because it was "just a quote." That doesn't make sense because your editors said to include news articles where he was quoted! The editor said the Miami New Times wasn't an independent news source. It indeed is. It has been established since 1989. I sent the editor a link to the "about us" page that states all the journalism awards they've won. The editor also said that the piece didn't count because they "just interviewed him and others." Well, of course! That is what a news story is! Interviews! That is what your policies dictate - to reference articles where the subject is interviewed in a reliable, independent source. That meets that standard.

The editor said the other newspaper cited wouldn't work because it only talks about the guy's law firm. The purpose was to footnote what his firm does - immigration and foreign investment. The editor also said I couldn't use a primary source like government documents to verify his service as a diplomat. Previous editors said I was REQUIRED to verify his diplomat status with government proof, which I did THREE DIFFERENT WAYS. The editor had the same issue with other government documents I referenced, but they needed to be referenced to verify facts of his work.

This man has spoken on a world political stage and I verified that. He has done what he said. I verified that with references. He has been interviewed both as an attorney and for his music. Those things are listed. I have another news article I didn't list.

The decline came within five minutes of my submission, so I don't believe the editor really looked at it. I feel the editor glanced, didn't like or know (or had heard of) the subject or didn't like the fact I was being paid for it and instantly declined it.

Here's my beef: I did far more to validate everything in this article than the author of the other Latour article. I wrote it from a neutral view using the other Jose Latour page as a guideline. The Inc. article, the bio, and the Miami New Times piece should be enough to publish it if you compare it to the other Latour article. Those three references in the other Latour article match the three in his article. Yet, I provided more than the other writer did, so I exceeded the standard set in the other article.

I suspect the double standard - and it is a double standard - is primarily because I am getting paid to do this article. I have declared that and all other disclosures required, so I am within your policy on that. If you actually read the article, you will find it is neutral, stating only facts.

I want another review with a comparison to the other Latour article and judged by the standards set previously in THAT article. If there is something SPECIFIC I can change to get it published, let me know i.e two more news articles where he is quoted or something of that nature. I was told to get independent news sources before and I did, but now I'm told that isn't good enough. I want an exact policy of how many rather than discretionary and arbitrary information.

I also want to know why the standard is set low for the other Latour article versus this one. What is the specific difference? I asked the editor that question, but did not get an answer.

Thank you. Newsmel (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Newsmel Oct. 13, 2018[reply]

Newsmel (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You clearly missed my latest reply, check my talk page. I said that the writer José Latour meets WP:AUTHOR on the strength of having written books that meet WP:NBOOK, he would be notable even with no sources in the article. I also said your José Latour does not meet any of the special notability guidelines and frankly you would have more fun writing about someone else who is notable. I must admit that I had forgotten you were a paid editor or I would not have recommended picking a different subject. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you may be confusing policies here as well. A source that verifies information is good for WP:V. That same source may not count towards WP:N due to lack of independence. There is no exact policy on how many independent reliable sources which substantially cover the subject are needed, as it depends largely on the content of the sources. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]