Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 December 1

= December 1 =

04:52:01, 1 December 2014 review of submission by Alwafysaeed
Alwafysaeed (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 18:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alwafysaeed, what is your question? Please be as specific as possible so we can help you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your submission at User:Alwafysaeed/sandbox just contained a single word, "alwafyalqahtani", without any context or explanation. Your article needs to at least explain who or what "alwafyalqahtani" is and why he/she/it is important. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

05:14:44, 1 December 2014 review of submission by Galorian
Why u say is a copyrights issue please I published this as an article also on my LinkedIn as: Sharon Gal Or Galorian (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A couple things:
 * If you personally are writing your own article, that probably means we don't need an article about you, if nobody in the world cares more about writing your article more than you do. See WP:Autobiography.
 * You cannot simply copy LinkedIn, since we have no proof you are Sharon, no proof that you aren't violating Sharon's copyright. And even if you are Sharon, LinkedIn isn't a Reliable Source so we don't want that anyway.
 * You really need to read WP:Notability (people) and WP:Autobiography to understand why we do not want this draft you've written. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

17:04:24, 1 December 2014 review of submission by Bpofhv
Bpofhv (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Subject: General Photonics Corporation I drafted an article in the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines. This is a company that has conducted research and published the results in peer reviewed scientific journals. The company's staff also has received a number of patents. I therefore focussed the article on the list of patents and publications along with links and references. First, the article was rejected with comments that suggested that intended to discuss "general photonics" as in "general purpose physics.' Then one of the on-line chat editors briefly stated that the problem was that my references were not formatted as sources, in a particular way. So, he set about to correct that but after editing three, his "tool crashed" and the job is now half done. I am unsure that I can edit the draft as he did, nor if that will make it acceptable. Help me by answering the latter question and then direct me to the specific required format to post a publication. PAGE''' ]]) 18:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue appears to be that while you have sources written by General Photonics staff, you need articles written about General Photonics by other people. There are two important considerations here: one is that you have independent sources, and the other is that you have to establish the "Notability" of this company by meeting the standards of WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Notability is not "inherited", so just having notable staff memebers does not make the organization notable. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

19:27:50, 1 December 2014 review of submission by Leungal
I was wondering if there was an estimated time my article would be reviewed? It's been pending for review for over a month and was just wondering when it would hopefully be reviewed.

Leungal (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 20:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the review process is very backlogged, and some reviews have been taking 4-6 weeks to get reviewed. Yours should be reviewed soon. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

22:58:02, 1 December 2014 review of draft by Sleighmaker
My submission wasn't accepted

Sleighmaker (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 23:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your article wasn't accepted because it was never submitted for review. You would need to click the "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" button in order to submit it. That said, if you did submit your article in its current state it would certainly be rejected because it doesn't cite any sources and doesn't establish that RhodyLights is notable (which needs to be done by providing citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article). --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK