Help desk
< June 24	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 26 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

• EmilLattelife (talk · contribs)
  • User:EmilLattelife/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have done a few more citation and references, what more do i need for this article to be approved?

EmilLattelife (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EmilLattelife. The draft cites exactly one source, which hardly says anything about King, and fails to verify the statement for which it is cited. It says "King ... claimed to have been interested in purchasing the regional assets from Nine for around $92m ... It is not clear how King, the 24-year-old publisher of Latte Life, would have funded his proposal." This significantly differs from the draft text, "Cristian King formed a consortium bid of $92.4mil for the Australian Community Media ..." Claiming to be interested is a long way from forming a consortium bid.

Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. Based on my own searches, I concur with the reviewer that no such sources exist, so no amount of editing will make the draft approvable. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• AmericanLegalNet (talk · contribs)
  • User:AmericanLegalNet/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

American LegalNet, Inc. is a company located in Encino, CA. We are trying to make a company Wikipedia page. 00:14:37, 25 June 2019 review of submission by AmericanLegalNet

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

AmericanLegalNet (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AmericanLegalNet. Most businesses are not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Searching for independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of American Legal Net found only: The Internet Guide for California Lawyers. Continuing Education of the Bar--California. 2001. pp. 116, 129. ISBN 978-0-7626-0585-9. That isn't nearly enough to justify an encyclopedia article. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• EmilLattelife (talk · contribs)
  • User:EmilLattelife/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission of this article have been rejected. Im totally green on wikipedia and this is my first article. Im doing this article for my employer (Im a personal assistant) and for what i can see the reason for rejection is possible COI? How do i prove there is no COI and how do i move on with this article? All information in this article have been handed to me and i am just trying to set up the page.

Hope you can help me out here

EmilLattelife (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EmilLattelife, your submission was rejected because it does not contain enough sources, either to verify the material in the article or to prove that King is notable enough to justify having an article in the first place. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, Facebook or a business directory, and the person who gave you this assignment seems to be under a bit of a misapprehension about what Wikipedia is for. In order for a person to be notable enough for an article, multiple independent, reliable sources (newspapers, books, etc) must have written significantly about them (not in passing as the one source you've included does). As of now, the submission does not meet our guidelines. Nole (chat·edits) 07:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• AdrianWikiEditor (talk · contribs)
  • Belle Delphine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Belle Delphine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

COPYVIO! https://everipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/lang_en/belle-delphine/

Plus lots of unreliable sources. Lots of publicity lately so notably might be ok. Might want to delete and start again. I'd rather create a stub with the barely notable sources then get the page taken down for copyright later.

I did not write this article so please inform them about it,

AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nadun welivitigoda (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Adeesha Welivitigoda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How about now? Draft:Belle_Delphine AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since she didn't have significant enough coverage back on the first of June, she does have enough so can we get a redirect to Belle Delphine. I wrote a new and improved version.AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ferdig75 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Palumbo Superyachts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

can I know why the article was rejected?

Ferdig75 (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferdig75. See the reviewer's comment below the stack of large pink boxes at the top of the draft. Super Yacht Times appears to be a trade publication. Such sources often have a too-cozy relationship with the companies in their target industry, so they do not count towards establishing notability. Replace that source with a third one like the articles in the further reading section from La Stampa and Corriere della Sera. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fans of samrat (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Samrat Raichand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've given reference of News Article published on my name. Twitter and IMDB are external links. Hope to prove my self an actor and my work in that film, one News Article is enough. Get that published.

Fans of samrat (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fans of samrat. The actor is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). That may change as his career progresses, but it is currently WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soprano2019 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Soprano Plc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I added some information what the company offers, company's industry and more valid references for example from Nasdaq.

Soprano2019 (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soprano2019. Stock quote pages such as the Nasdaq Helsinki don't help establish notability. You need significant coverage in, for example, independent press and analyst reports. The bulk of the article should come from such sources, not from the company (not their website or press releases).

Find at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage and rewrite the draft from scratch using mainly them. A starting point might be this article in Helsingin Sanomat. It is paywalled, so I don't know if it contains enough independent secondary coverage to count as one of the three. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MattMatt73 (talk · contribs)
  • User:MattMatt73 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted and article on the Wellspring Community in Peckham. I accept that it was not to the standards of the Wikipedia, but can I have the original copy that I submitted, so I can correct these errors?

Cheers,

MattMatt73

MattMatt73 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MattMatt73. User:MattMatt73/sandbox/The Wellspring Community Peckham was deleted for infringing copyright, so no, it will not be restored. If you still want to write about the subject you'll need to start from scratch. Start by identifying three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the organization. If you can't find such sources, the topic is a non-starter. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cjgoff (talk · contribs)
  • Emmett Stull Goff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Emmett Stull Goff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reviewer on my last submission included the following note: "On a related note, I see you've got a copy of this in User:Cjgoff/sandbox. We prefer that you don't keep multiple copies of the same article, it just leads to confusion." I understood the sandbox was where the work-in-process for the prospective article was to be stored. If not, what is the sandbox's purpose? Cjgoff (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cjgoff. It's common to draft an article in your sandbox (where it's called a userspace draft). People will more or less leave your sandbox alone if you're following the rules for using it. An alternatve is to draft an article in draft space. It's an area more conducive to collaboration than your personal sandbox, but there's a firmer limit on how long material is kept - after six months without improvement, it's eligible for soft deletion (soft because you can ask for it to be restored, in which case it usually is). User space drafts are commonly moved to draft space after they are submitted for review at Articles for creation, because at that point the author is seeking input from other editors. Once it has been moved to draft space, all further development of the topic should take place there. I hope that helps. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rajsamand Blog (talk · contribs)
  • User:Rajsamand Blog/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rajsamand Blog (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajsamand Blog: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to advertise your blog. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ferdig75 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Palumbo Superyachts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

as suggested by Help Desk I replaced the source with a more authoritative one

Ferdig75 (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferdig75: the subject still fails to meet the WP:NCORP criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 64.78.253.199 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Liftnow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello- I resubmitted this page, trying hard to make it content-only. There are other similar companies with pages. Please let me know what to do so that it can comply. Thanks! 64.78.253.199 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@64.78.253.199: No matter how much you edit the draft to make it less promotional, you can't fix that the subject is not notable. See WP:NCORP for our inclusion criteria for companies. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FrankyCentaur (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Murder of Holly Branagan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, a few months back I created a draft for a page (and it was my first time doing so,) I waited quite a while for it to be reviewed just for it to be declined immediately, which is disheartening though understandable. The page is https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Draft:Murder_of_Holly_Branagan Now the main reason I'm here is to get some help and understanding. I was told the page was declined due to copyright, claiming that one of the links I used was infringing on it- however, the article provided was just a link to a news article. What's confusing to me is that I've seen tons of other wiki pages use references and links to news articles, so why exactly was mine declined because of that?

If because of that the article is not in the condition to be published, could I get some help to get it to a publishable point?

Thank you!

FrankyCentaur (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrankyCentaur. Linking is not the problem; linking is good. The draft infringed copyright by copying content from the linked newspaper article. You may only copy a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. Aside from limited quotation, you must paraphrase in your own words all information you get from the source.

The copyright violations have been removed from the draft, but without any effort at rewriting or adding attribution. If you think the event is notable, then you'll want to patch up around the removals. I'm not sure the topic meets the geographical scope requirement for notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Samcherry5 (talk · contribs)
  • Craig Jones (Royal Navy officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Craig Jones (Royal Navy officer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wanted to ask about the article review process. I created an article which took 2 months to be reviewed, corrected the article following feedback (added additional sources as requested), now its been re-submitted it seems I may have to wait another 2 months for another review. Why are articles reviewed randomly rather than in order of submission? If this is the case the article Craig Jones (Royal Navy) will have taken 4 months to be submitted. thanks! Samcherry5 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us are volunteers here, you are being paid to edit and complaining that we are not reviewing your draft quickly enough. I review in no particular order what ever I come across that takes my interest, why should I give preference to a paid editor? Theroadislong (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong I wasn't complaining I was just asking about the process :) and Im not a paid editor :) Samcherry5 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Geolog10 (talk · contribs)

Geolog10 (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC) I have a couple of references I am using more than once in the potential entry for Makeda Cheatom. Each time I place a reference, it is given a new number. Could you go onto my entry and fix the first double entry so I see how to do it correctly? Geolog10Geolog10 (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geolog10. I did this for the "Berenice" source in User:Geolog10/sandbox. The technique is known as "named references", and is explained at Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. Let me know if you have any trouble applying the technique to the remaining references. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SavinaTheWhite (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mark L. Hinshaw, FAIA FAICP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am trying to complete an article about Mark L. Hinshaw.

I do not have a great deal of experience writing such articles, (actually, none), and I am clearly making mistakes as this article has been declined twice. Mark Hinshaw is a notable architect with a body of work which is highly regarded, cited, referenced and well known in the field of architecture and urban design.

My concern is that, through my mistakes, his work will not be accepted for the wiki. I have read a number of your articles on BLP's as well as many technical articles, but I am worried that I am missing something important.

Will resubmitting this article until I manage to correct the issue cause it to be deleted? I am working directly with Mr. Hinshaw's permission, but it is clear that my abilities to write this to Wiki requirements are off the mark. The article was suggested by a number of his colleagues, who asked that I attempt to write it as Mr. Hinshaw is considered to be one of the most well known urban designers in the United States.

1.) The moderators suggested this article is written as promotional. This is not my intent. I wish to convey the vast array of Mr. Hinshaws work, and considering he is an author with a prolific amount of writing on record, I am left a bit buried by it all. In addition, there are many hundreds of quotes in other publications (books, articles & magazines), as he has more citations on google scholar than most professors. While not famous in the traditional sense, whenever the subject of urban design is raised, his name is also raised, and thus has had a notable career.

2.) The moderators suggested additional outside sources, so I have added a number from publications, not written by Mr. Hinshaw, but which quote him, interview him or cite his expertise. I could include dozens more, but this seems excessive.

Those that I have added are reputable secondary sources such as the NYT, Daily Journal of Commerce, and articles written by public organizations such as magazines, cities and conservation groups.

If these are not the correct source material, I would sincerely appreciate some assistance or suggestions on what I should change.

Thank you.

SavinaTheWhite (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SavinaTheWhite. I'm not sure he's as notable, highly regarded, cited, and well known as you think he is, but he may be notable enough to justify an encyclopedia article. I could make some suggestions, but am reluctant to invest effort in the draft until you:

1. Recognize that you have a conflict of interest,
2. Are transparent about it by disclosing the general nature of it - that you are related to him, or are a colleague of his, or whatever,
3. Acknowledge that if the draft is accepted, you will not edit the article. The article may omit information that you think is important, include factual errors, and/or include material that is unfavorable. You may request changes on the article's talk page, but will have to live with it if the consensus of other editors is to not make the changes.

--Worldbruce (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tmgmt (talk · contribs)
  • User:Tmgmt/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tmgmt (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Hello, My name is Princess Graves and I have been reading your feedback from Wikipedia's articles of creation department about the content submitted in my request to be approved. I'm having trouble making another attempt I transferred my Wikipedia article request information over to (wikipedia) manual of style / music considering what was suggested from Hon, but I don't see my recent article and I'm ready to proof read and check the spelling. However, my business and my beginning rap career totally needs the Wikipedia article for future references. I have provided all appropriate documentation from my records, any further information is considered confidential and can't be disclosed. Does the changes help me get the approval? It'll improve my SEO and allow my label room to grow further. Thanks in advance.[reply]

@Tmgmt: - Wikipedia does NOT exist to aid advertising or SEO. Records that come from you can't help more than confirm certain details in an article. Articles need notability, which is from reliable secondary sources. Musicians have specific requirements - which can be seen here. As an encyclopedia, we don't cover "new or up and coming" individuals, instead we summarise what other sources have already covered in detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hubbard kings (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:PartySlate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was declined for reading too much like an advertisement. However, I believe I did my due diligence reading other company's wikipedia pages to understand tone and how to explicitly state what the company offers, and would like to request a re-review. If the tone still needs work, can you please point out any specific sections that read too much like an advertisement? That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Hubbard kings (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hubbard kings. The draft reads like a company brochure, which is a problem, but it was rejected because the company is not notable. Most businesses aren't, and that's a problem that no amount of editing can fix. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information.

It's unwise, by the way, to simply imitate existing Wikipedia articles about companies. The existence of an article doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guideline, doesn't mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet, and it is not a good excuse for creating similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you want to learn from examples, be sure to only use Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Tmgmt (talk · contribs)
  • User:Tmgmt/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tmgmt (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC) For the record. I'm aware Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not free ad space!!!!!!!!!!! I'm Princess Graves given all of the provided information, a newcomer to how this works not to mention I'm needing some solidarity overall. check out this link. I'm thinking of adding it into the article from which there was only 50 copies published and sold. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-gangsta-family-hooked-on-ebonics/1123256073?ean=9780692482322&st=PLA&sid=BNB_ADL+Core+Good+Books+-+Desktop+Low&sourceId=PLAGoNA&dpid=tdtve346c&2sid=Google_c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIo_KujLWF4wIVgVYNCh2xvQQhEAQYASABEgLzJvD_BwE[reply]

• Tmgmt (talk · contribs)
  • User:Tmgmt/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tmgmt (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC) are you there? theroadislong I'm Princess Graves and of course my Wikipedia article and literary story was prepared by a college freshman and "Journalism" major. If need I make it known princess Graves and I are both right here and I'm learning how this process works just the same. Princess has been great at assisting me in the aspect of giving me specific insight and I'm gladly giving my open minded analyzation and humble perspective of who she is and why she should be seen in the light as she continues building her entertainment label and music catalogs.[reply]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is no verifiable content in the draft and no evidence that you even exist. Please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SD1014 (talk · contribs)
  • Hitendra Wadhwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Hitendra Wadhwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Given the number of edits and revisions to this page based on editor feedback, I wanted to follow up to see if the post now meets the criteria for publishing. I've stringently followed the latest feedback from April 30. Thank you in advance! SD1014 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 173.52.219.146 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bett Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

173.52.219.146 (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My submission keeps being rejected and I am still not certain what i am doing wrong.

My name is Dale and my user name is mlemoore and i am trying to write an article on one of my favorite authors Bett Williams.

here are some of the sbumission notes I have gotta aka reasons my piece has been rejected. I redid my citations, took out the sources that one user said were not verifiable and I am still not getting approved....

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Comment: References still need to meet WP:CITE and inline citation criteria Mjs1991 (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Needs more external sources independent of the subject. Do not reference goodreads. Do not reference linkedin self-published pages as they are primary sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mlemoore. Williams is not notable. The most common way to demonstrate the notability of authors is through multiple, independent, full-length reviews in reliable sources. In practice, I've seen drafts with as many as five meaty reviews turned down. At Articles for deletion, it took a hard fight in a discussion with wide participation to keep even one with six reviews in The Times (London), The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Times, The Economist, and the Providence Journal.

The draft cites a single full-length review, in PopMatters. Capsule reviews like Kirkus don't establish notability, and the two sentences in Vogue don't move the needle. No amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. Possibly there will be more reviews after her third book is published. In a year or two you can revisit the topic to see if more and better sources are available. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]