• Djlcm123 (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Djlcm123 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know why my article did not get approved it was valid and I did not promote myself

• User:Djlcm123/sandbox is promotion of a nonnotable DJ. Please stop. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's written like an advertisement, and it cites zero reliable and notability-supporting sources. Are you really so self-unaware as to not understand what the problem is here? Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat - Some editors really are so clueless that they don't know that they aren't supposed to use Wikipedia for promotion, or don't know the difference between neutral description and promotion. If he says he did not promote himself, he may believe that. Some editors are completely clueless. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Luminaire Zeal (talk · contribs)
  • My Time at Portia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, i submitted an article for a game, but it was declined with the reasoning being "Looks like an advertisment". Could this be elaborated on? Is it just poorly written, or is something else wrong with it?

Nevermind that. There was a second box going into further information that I didn't see.. Thanks, i'll head over the teahouse and see what I can do to improve the article. Luminaire Zeal (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Powerofshark (talk · contribs)
  • On the Road with Ellison Volume 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:On the Road with Ellison Volume 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am simply adding the next volume in a series of recordings by the author, Harlan Ellison. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but I have successfully added the previous six volumes. Now a user is saying I don't have any sources to back up the page even though the record label link for this release has been included on the page submitted. Also, I'm having trouble remembering all the hoops to jump through to get the cover image approved. Any help most appreciated.

Powerofshark (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Powerofshark Greetings. please note notability of page need to be supported by independent, reliable (at least 3) sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length. Press releases, home page, user generated content source, listings, any sources associated with the subject could NOT use to demonstrate the notability requirements needed. Those 6 pages are in the same situation as of this one and they would be subject to be nomination for deletion. I suggest you to find independent, reliable sources to back up the contain claimed to avoid the pages to be deleted. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Harlan_Ellison_albums where all the existing pages could easily be deleted for lacking sources. Why does anyone caee about this artist? No one knows based on these directory type listings. Has anyone reviewed these albums? Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To make something notable enough to have an encyclopedia article, its referencing has to be to media, such as newspaper or magazines reviewing the recordings. "The record label link for this release" is not a source that supports notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• JanSchnabelHegelmann (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hegelmann Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, So I pretty much just translated the wikipage "Hegelmann Group" from the already published German page. So I dont quite understand why it got rejected. Of Course I maybe have a conflict of interest, but I did not add anything that wasnt aleady there, except One sentence, updates and a few links. So maybe someone can help to tell me what excatly is wrong, so I can write a proper article, that doesnt feel like an advertisement for the company, which it is not, it should just give generel information about the company, as there are many similar articles about companies. Thank you very much. JanSchnabelHegelmann (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article does not meet the policies of the English Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia is different with different rules and you need to completely rewrite the article to stand any chance of it fitting in here. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nh-expera (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Epsilon Grammar Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, i have made an article https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Draft:Epsilon_Grammar_Studio, that was denied to be published. I have seen other pages in similar fashion like https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Spirit_Parser_Framework and https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Scannerless_Boolean_Parser, and they are fine without any external citations. What is the page i made different from the referenced ones, so i can change it and be published? best regards Nh-expera Nh-expera (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both the examples you cite have 3 different external links that act as a type of reference. It is better if inline refs are provided but it is not required. You provided a single primary source. We have also tightened standards over time. Can you show how independent reliable sources have treated this this topic? Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now, will work on that. Thank you very much for your fast answer. Nh-expera (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cocolinovich (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Masternode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I made a submission a while ago on the subject of Masternodes. It has recently been declined because it "reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article". I want to keep working on the article and improve it, but I am unsure where to start. I would really appreciate it if I could receive some pointers on where the text needs to be changed (some examples would be great). Thank you very much!

Cocolinovich (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, there are potential issues with writing about the subject of the blockchain. Maybe Database is a good example to look at, I don't know what a masternode is similar to. The issue is partly how it is written, partly how the article is structured. Most your sources are unreliable and that will be a problem going forward. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• AstroEmy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jeroen Vandersteen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Help Desk, My article submission has not been accepted. However I disagree with the explanation provided by the reviewer. The reviewer writes: "The ones provided are either from non-notable blogs (board game geek) or school (KU Lueven) or primaries (his research paper) Engineering work appear to be low profile" Defining board game geek as a non-notable blog is absolutely incorrect. BoardGameGeek is the world-wide authority in terms of board games, as one can read from the BoardGameGeek Wikipedia page. The "school" is KU Leuven, one of the top European universities and the source is the campus newspaper. In order to write my articles, I took inspiration from several Wikipedia articles about board games creator, that all in fact refer to BoardGameGeek as main reference. For these reasons, I believe that the reviewer assigned to this article was not knowledgeable enough about the topic and his assessment is incorrect. Kind regards, Emanuela

AstroEmy (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Campus newspapers are generally treated the same as local newspapers, which is as not showing notability. You can't expect a biography to be accepted based on a review of his game in Boardgamegeek. Sorry but I agree with the reviewer. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• AfC reviewers are not assigned, we are volunteers approved to use the interface and we pick and choose what to review and when. Some of us target selected topics and others try to clear all the submissions left to review from a day regardless of topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also , WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Just because those other sites used the blog as a source doesn't mean it is correct and within policy. JC7V-talk 19:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DLLHell (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I created this article because I'm a user of this software and have been for about 20 years, but it's not represented in Wikipedia like many other similar FTP software. I based this new article on an existing article regarding similar commercial software, CrushFTP Server, and my article reads no more like an advertisement than the existing one. The reviewer also said that it "refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed", but from what I can see, my references are almost exactly the same quality as the Crush FTP article, so I'm mystified as to why Crush FTP (and many other FTP software products) is allowed to have an article but Rumpus is not.

My desire to make an article for Rumpus is because I want to have it included in the Comparison of FTP server software page, as a reference for Mac users who are seeking FTP software (because Apple is eliminating their official Server softare that does FTP), but that page does not allow simple red links...so I'm trying to create a good article for Rumpus. All of the articles on commercial software linked from that page seem very similar, and all have been allowed to become articles, so I'm not sure why I'm not allowed to add this one...it seems like there's a double standard being applied, or a standard not being applied uniformly.

Maybe I'm missing something, so I'd appreciate it if you can assist me with suggestions on how to improve this article to allow it to pass muster, as apparently many other very similar articles have.

Thanks! DLLHell (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia's standards have changed over time, many if not most articles about software would not be approved if they were written now and may even be eligible for deletion. The modern and stricter standards for inclusion say your article is substantially below the minimum requirements. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd then venture to say that the entire Comparison of FTP server software, and all contained articles, are candidates for deletion, and in fact have no business being on Wikipedia (although I personally consider it very useful). Having only a partial list of software is misleading to readers, and the fact that the list consists of many articles that don't meet current standards (and yet the list requires articles, not red links) has already relegated it to a hopelessly out-of-date status. Would you say that's an accurate take-away from this inability to create a new article to keep the Comparison of FTP server software article up-to-date and as complete as possible? If so, in the interests of assisting as an editor in bringing Wikipedia up to standards, I'll begin that process, referencing this discussion.

DLLHell (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is right approach I think. Make sure to read about WP:AFD beforehand, and don't do too many nominations at once because it is considered disruptive to try and deleted many articles at the same time. It is prefered to do it gradually, and yes this is a primary reason for why there are so many unsuitable articles. Another point is not to try and delete articles such as Internet Information Services, because Microsoft branded products are generally considered to be notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sawsyon (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arms and armor museums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My proposed page was rejected because of lack of secondary sources, but I was not trying to make a content page, but rather a category page like https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Category:Military_and_war_museums. It is not the kind of page that has any secondary literature.

So perhaps my mistake is in titling and I should change "Draft:Arms_and_armor_museums" to "Draft:Categories:Arms_and_armor_museums"? If this is a task that I can continue with, I am happy to do so, but perhaps as a Category thing, this is beyond or not the purview of the usual contributor like me.

Thanks. SW Sawsyon (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved the page to Draft:List of arms and armor museums so it can be treated as a list class. However looking down the list I see a number of places that are not known for showing arms. Most museums will have some sort of weapons on display (it would never surprise me to see something) so I would think confining the list to places that focus on arms would be much better. That would be a short defined list of places. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Category pages are created blank, the Wikipedia software automatically adds the entries after you tag the pages you want to be in the category. You could ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history on creating a new category if you want. Normally only experienced editors create categories. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dbmoelle (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Stacy Stubblefield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am requesting help on an article I am trying to submit from my sandbox. Apparently I repeated the text several times? I am very tech illiterate so I am positive this is user error. I am specifically asking for help to clean up the article I am trying to submit from my sandbox. Dbmoelle (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see in the article edit history that you have managed to fix it. I resubmited the article for you and someone will review it presently. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• TheAutomobiserCo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Automobiser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TheAutomobiserCo (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than this be a prank it is a school project that I thought would go rather smoothly however, I would like to know if there is any way to still get it published.TheAutomobiserCo (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a chance. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]