Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 28 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 30 >
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.


January 29[edit]

00:47:56, 29 January 2019 review of submission by Tots & little ones matter![edit]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone might be able to check my draft for copyright concerns. Its Copyvios result is "Violation Unlikely". Is there anything concerning here or is it ready for publication? Thanks.

Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is currently undergoing a copyright investigation, the draft creator is participating in it. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:58:27, 29 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Author Kharisma[edit]


 Is it possible to use some of the information about a musician that is relevant to another published article?  For example, Joseph Bailey's father has a wikipedia article that is published and the two are closely related in a career sense.  Joseph started music because of his father's media influence.  There is also a wikipedia article on Virginia musicians.  Could Joseph Bailey's information be shared there since he contributes to music scene in Virginia?

Author Kharisma (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:05, 29 January 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie[edit]


I was told that if I think my editor made a wrong decision, or have other concerns about the review, I can ask here for help. So yes, I would like to resubmit the article, I've read all the comments and wiki explanations and rules of notability and article submission and this is what I came up with, and I edited the article to go exactly with wiki rules:

1) Uses only Verifiable- reliable third-party sources: Reputable online magazines used: reuters.com tenextweb.com trendhunter.com entrepremeur.com

Local online newspapers used: news.am armenpress.am

Government websites used: gov.am

2) Has a Neutral POV- neutral tone throughout, no opinions just facts, no judgmental language, no loaded words, flattery or words that imply lack of credibility, no promotion, only facts

3) No original research- not opinion piece

4)Article content subject is notable, other similar wiki pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(software)

Jack Helie (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Helie: - Hi there. So I'll endeavour to cover the various points:
Notability - the problem is that while there are some good names in your sources, they generally have problems. The Reuters sources are constructed by Zangi personnel and include "This content is produced independently of Reuters Editorial News" at the bottom. Trendhunter, armenpress and entrepreneur all only have short coverage of Zangi. While much of the news.am coverage is about Zangi, only a fairly small amount is both "not a quote" and "about Zangi". The Gov site is both a primary source and rather biased.
Promo - Other than its inherent existence, I personally wouldn't say the draft is particularly PROMO.
OR - Much of the draft depends on the Reuters articles which are in fact primary/non-independent sources - were they proper Reuters articles, then yes, that would be the case
More Notability - Wikipedia specifically rejects the use of existing articles being used to demonstrate other articles should be permitted - it's always possible they shouldn't be there. To see a better explanation of this and why we have it, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Although in specific reference to your examples, they all have significantly more in-depth sourcing - I wouldn't say this draft is equivalent, yet. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:23:37, 29 January 2019 review of submission by Lxy069[edit]


Lxy069 (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Hi there,

I created a wiki page Draft:Aglaia Kong , which was reviewed and rejected, the rejection reason is "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia".

After learned some knowledges, I revised the content of this wiki page for approving, and I found that, the changing content can be publish but can't let the page into review progress again.

So, could you kindly help me with the problem? Thanks in advance.

Hi Lxy069. The draft doesn't cite a single independent source; all of the information comes from Aglaia Kong. She is not notable, so don't bother resubmitting, because no draft on the topic will be accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks for reply.

I think the page Draft:Aglaia Kong cited are independence sources followed wiki rules. One of sources is a book has ISBN number from a reputable publisher, and the other sources' content are published in two international authoritative organizations' website page. So I really confused with the independent sources, could you pls help me figure out the problem? That's the first question.

The second question is, is there any possible to get the wiki page approval if I submit more valuable infos to prove she is notable in tech industry? Or the wiki page rejection is permanent？

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxy069 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. We don't need a panelist listing that says she works/worked somewhere (with or without headshot), we need substantial coverage of her: articles or chapters about her. You still haven't found anything of the sort. Every tech company has dozens of people like this, and not one in a thousand is notable enough to justify an encyclopedia article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Okay, got it，I'll submit more useful articles, thanks for every volunteer's reply.

And could you kindly help answer me, is there any possible to get the wiki page Draft:Aglaia Kong approval if I submit more valuable infos to prove she is notable in tech industry? Or the wiki page rejection is permanent？

Thanks in advance again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxy069 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:07, 29 January 2019 review of submission by Animegearlab[edit]


When going through the WP:NBOOK section that was referenced upon the article being declined, I see a section that notes the following:

This page in a nutshell: A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]"

On the article I've written, I cite 2 separate areas where the book has been reviewed by notable sources (Library Journal and Publisher's Weekly). Both of these sources have Wikipedia pages and are major media websites. The above snippet from the WP:NBOOK section states that to be considered a notable book it only needs 1 (or more) of the listed criteria. One of the options noted is to have the book appear in 2 or more published sources independent of the book itself and can include reviews.

I've cited both of the published reviews on the article itself but will include them here as well for reference: Library Journal: https://www.libraryjournal.com/?reviewDetail=the-chronicles-of-kale-a-dragons-awakening Publisher's Weekly: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-937004-29-3

Since this meets the requirements in that section, I kindly request another review of the article. Thank you very much for your time!

Animegearlab (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would just observe that both the cited 'reviews' are simply insider publications aimed at informing libraries and booksellers what's available to them. Effectively a stock list and summary. Hardly in-depth coverage or analysis which might then have met Criterion 1 of WP:BKCRIT. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! Can you please help me understand what type of review is needed to meet criteria so that I can continue searching sources? After reviewing many New York Times bestsellers, I've seen that a lot of their reviews are in a similar manner. A brief synopsis of the story, followed by minor portions of personal input and concluded with a summary of their final thoughts. This is what is seen on the two current pages I've cited. So, I'm not sure what exactly I'm to be looking for. Since Library Journal and Publisher's Weekly are two of the more credible sources available for reviews, I went through and saw that this is how they handle many of the books that have been reviewed. (Also, just to point out that the two reviews I've cited aren't only a summary of the book, but reviews. The one from Library Journal shares more positive input in the review, whereas the one from Publisher's Weekly is more critical of the writer's work.) Many of the cited reviews from other Wikipedia authors are very similar to those which is why I used them. I poked around Wikipedia trying to gain more insight as to what specifically to seek in terms of reviews, but couldn't find any solid clarification. Thank you once again for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 10:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Animegearlab: Library Journal and Publishers Weekly are known for capsule reviews - brief reviews of 250 words or less. To demonstrate notability, look for in-depth reviews by professional book critics in reputable outlets (think 1000+ words by Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times). The number of in-depth reviews expected is also high. I've had drafts with five meaty reviews turned down, but managed to convince editors not to delete an article citing 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. If you wish to learn from examples, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:21:52, 29 January 2019 review of draft by Warrenlead[edit]


The article is about a computer Bulletin Board that existed a long time ago before the internet. There are other Bulletin Board Wikipedia pages with very little or no references. E.g. Event Horizons BBS There are plenty of references that the BBS existed ie the node list and images of the the logon screen and menus. There are no newspaper articles or books on this bbs so very difficult to provide any further references unless you can offer some suggestions.

Warrenlead (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warrenlead - Wikipedia's policy is that for inclusion, they need to have significant, non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject. I can see that the reviewer commented on sourcing to facebook, and wikipedia; which are not reliable sources, and you have removed. However, it doesn't seem like the sources you have provided are reliable. There's an article here about the subject, which seems a little more reliable, but still might not cross water, as I can't comment on reliability of sources.

The argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work here. Other articles being badly sourced or non-notable and existing does not mean that your article gets a pass. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:25:37, 29 January 2019 review of submission by 2601:1C0:6F00:1610:444:A828:21F5:8E4D[edit]


2601:1C0:6F00:1610:444:A828:21F5:8E4D (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created a new entry for (Stanton Cohn). My gmail address is meeplistener@gmail.com. It was rejected by Dan arnt for "reason undefined." I picked a worthy subject, a scientist with 300 papers who was a pioneer in the study of osteoporosis. Is there a substantive reason that my article was rejected? thanks

Hello IP user! Do you also use Meeplistener, and can I confirm the draft article is at: Draft:Stanton Cohn? In fact, the review did leave a reason as I'll quote below:
Requires inline citations to support the numerous mentions in the article. All we have here is an unreferenced biography and an exceeding long list of publications.

This basically means that the text of the subject should be sourced by inline citations. Such as this.[1] See WP:INCITE for some more details. My advise for this subject is to remove the long list of publications (Wikipedia doesn't really have this on any page), and to put inline citations for things such as dates, and things such as "Cohn was a pioneer in the study of non-invasive measurement of calcium and other elements in the human body" - We would need a reliable source to state this as fact before we would include this on wikipedia.

Biographies (more so about living people, but still true in this case) need to be well sourced. I hope this helps. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Source here

10:13:33, 29 January 2019 review of draft by Sejalrajput25[edit]


Hello,

Firstly, would like to thank you so much for reviewing an article and sharing the missing elements. I accept the fact that the subject do not show significant coverage. But considering the industry and the market players, they are one of the most searched brands who is been serving since 1986 with their tremendous track record and have become a talk of the town with most trusted companies when it comes to successful real estate projects.

Considering our Hon. Prime Minister's aim to develop Smart City, and considering the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana scheme promoted by our Prime Minister, this company been catering to metro regions of the city and literally making this happen with the several schemes and have won people's trust on this brand.

Having said that, several industries in India especially the real estate industry, in general are very hard to find decent sources for because there's very few sources in the country that could be considered or acceptable. For instance, we have review several competitors as well who are contributing somewhat equally or slightly less than Sugee Group yet have got their page published on Wikipedia with hardly any media mentions under Reference links section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wadhwa_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Housing_Development_Company

As encyclopedia is about the relevant & credible information about the subject, we have tried to cover as much information as possible about the Group with all the required information as compared to very less or no information about the competitors published pages. Believe & trust, Wikipedia do not encourage paid listings as some of the incomplete articles as compared to Sugee Group are live and published successfully. Was wondering, how?

Coming to the point, as I agree the fact that the subject do not show significant coverage, yet here's one such proof that can be shown via Google Reviews wherein it proves credibility: https://www.google.com/search?q=sugee+group#lrd=0x3be7cec0ffb54bb7:0x36d6bbb9403c7f3e,1,,,. Also, they have got a pretty decent Google Search Volume as people are actually looking for. Being an occasional contributor of Wikipedia, would like to start working on several subjects that are in my list which people are actually looking for and not listed on Wikipedia yet. This being a first of many such subjects, would be really helpful if I could be able to figure out the mistakes which will be considered for future articles to make things work out successfully.

Would really appreciate inputs to make my first of many articles a successful one. As I'm feeling like a failure right now :(

Warm regards,


Sejalrajput25 (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:46:19, 29 January 2019 review of submission by NAOL.DEVELOPER[edit]


I have added more citations to prove that the company is notable and has significant coverage in media. Hence, request you to kindly re-review the page.

NAOL.DEVELOPER (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:49:48, 29 January 2019 review of submission by JMBARRY87

12:49:48, 29 January 2019 review of draft by JMBARRY87[edit]


Hi guys NavyGrape51 I just started wikipedia with the idea to contribute in adding music artists which I think deserve an article here and also because their name figures in already published wikipedia articles. I have sent a first draft but it seemed that it has been rejected for not significant coverage? I don't undersand what is missing as the links I provided are coming from different sources independant from the musician, except his webpage. You can find my draft on looking at JMBARRY87 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sylvermay Thank you for your help. JMBARRY87 (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JMBARRY87 - Welcome to Wikipedia. Your draft lacks reliable sources. For inclusion on wikipedia, articles on musicians have to meet the guidelines at WP:NMUSIC. The sources you have cited don't really cut it, as they are generally only discographies, or simple bio listings. I'm not sure of if the trance in france piece is WP:ROUTINE coverage, and doesn't fit; but that's the sort of thing you are looking for. Independent reliable sources that write prose about the subject. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:33, 29 January 2019 review of submission by JMBARRY87[edit]


Draft : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sylvermay

Hello Lee,

Thank you for your answer. I just found this interview of the musician by EDM Ranks which is an independant website as well, https://edmranks.com/blog/sylvermay-interview-exclusive/ do you think it matches? Also would this also be a match a release featured on DJ Mag? https://djmag.com/music/trance/im-alone-2011

Thank you ! :)

JMBARRY87 (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:00, 29 January 2019 review of submission by Karkare12[edit]


Karkare12 (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Karkare12: - English Wikipedia requires its articles to be in English - please provide a non-machine language translation. As a site note, we strongly discourage auto-biographies. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:10, 29 January 2019 review of draft by Eliza Pearson[edit]


Hello, I have attempted to submit this article for approval but each has been declined as the article is believed to be promotional. I have different references such as the Bank's website, news stories and case studies, yet it is still declined. Will Wikipedia not allow for this to be posted as the references are news stories?

Thanks. 

Eliza Pearson (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Pearson (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Eliza Pearson#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:49:13, 29 January 2019 review of draft by KelseeBee[edit]


Hi there! I am trying to create an informative page for Altitude Sports that follows Wikipedia standards and guidelines.

I understand the editor notes discussed the article to be too promotional in nature. I have since made changes in content, tone and wording.

References and secondary sources were also added.

Please advise if other changes should be made, or how I can get this article reviewed once again. 3 new drafts have been made since the last revision in September '18.

Thank you!!

KelseeBee (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:KelseeBee#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:07, 29 January 2019 review of submission by Kanmbiey[edit]

I got a message that my article for the page, "TG Omori" is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. He is the youngest groundbreaking Music video director in Nigeria and he has directed Music video for some of the biggest artistes in this region which i cited earlier and all his created visuals have been unploaded on Youtube. Can i know why it was not approved?

Also, Is youtube worthy enough to be a notable citation seeing as it is the widely accepted video streaming platform where music producers can upload their work in Nigeria.

Can i also know what else to look out for when republishing the article? Thank you.

Kanmbiey (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We all know about youtube. It is a user generated content site and generally not an acceptable source. An exception would be videos posted to an official news channel like BBC, but not music videos. You need WP:RS Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:26, 29 January 2019 review of draft by Pittsburghmichaels[edit]


Hello, I am revising a Kimber Kable draft that was first declined. I have new information that was published by the Absolute Sound. This is in a PDF File. Is there a way for me to cite a PDF article ? Pittsburghmichaels (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just use <ref > tags and provide a link to the PDF. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_January_29&oldid=881872844"