Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 May 8

= May 8 =

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jona Xiao
Hello, I'm still trying to figure this out. I believe I did everything right on this profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jona_Xiao

But I keep getting not enough references, when I've seen other profiles with less. So I'm not sure what is wrong.

Thanks, 108.185.215.173 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/My Son is Gay
Hi, I am trying to create an article for upcoming Indian film 'My Son is Gay'. However, when I entered the subject name in the article wizard, I got the following error:

Please guide me. Thank you.

IndianGlamor (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello IndianGlamor. For the moment, try creating it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/My Son is Gay (Indian film). It should work. Having said that, it is highly inadvisable to create articles for "upcoming" films unless they have already received extensive coverage in reliable published sources which are completely independent of the film's producers, etc. Wait until the film has been released, and you should have plenty of independent coverage if the film is notable. Voceditenore (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Diabetes Mellitus Type 3
Hello,

I was wondering why my article Diabetes Mellitus Type 3 was declined. Diabetes Mellitus Type 3 has not been mentioned under the Diabetes Mellitus wiki page. Additionally, Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 and Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 have their individual wiki pages. Please advise.

Zjsyed (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Zjsyed. I'm not sure why the reviewer declined it for that reason. This is a separate topic from the generalised Diabetes mellitus article. Diabetes mellitus type 1 and Diabetes mellitus type 2 exist as separate articles, thus there is no reason to decline the article solely on the grounds that Diabetes mellitus already exists. (I've left a note to that effect on the draft.) However, I strongly suggest you ask for advice on your draft from the editors at WikiProject Medicine before submitting again. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Roberto Lione
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roberto Lione

Geachte mijnheer, mevrouw,

Ik ben al een tijd bezig om een Wiki te maken over Roberto Lione.

Mijn laatste bewerking is afgewezen door dhr. Joe Decker om onderstaande reden: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified.

De gegevens die ik heb vermeld zijn echter afkomstig van dhr Lione zelf. Aangezien de man al 73 jaar is, is het voor hem niet eenvoudig meer om zelf een Wiki aan te maken, vandaar dat ik het voor hem doe. Maar hoe moet ik nu aantonen dat de gegevens wel betrouwbaar zijn?

Graag uw advies en vriendelijke groet,

Fred Keizer Reziekderf (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Fred, please try to write in English if you plan to use this help desk. Note to other editors, this roughly translates to:




 * Voceditenore (talk)

User:Naz.Mak325/Owls Hall Environmental
Hi, I am a new user to wikipedia and one of my articles, see above, was declined when created. It's about an important local firm. Could you please 1. let me know where to find feedback! and 2. give tips on how to improve the article?

Thank you Naz.Mak325 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Naz.Mak325. You can find feedback, including why your article was declined, at the top of the submission. To improve your article, understand that Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. I think it's a rather harsh wording, but it's true. Wikipedia's standard of "importance" is notability, which means how much it has been talked about by other people. To show notability, add references to other sources of information (such as newspaper or magazine articles, or television or radio programs) that talk about this organization.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are also concerns about the logo you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. More information is on your Commons talk page.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Victoria Jane Bell (Ski Racer)
Hi I don't understand what is wrong with the draft that is causing it not to be submitted. Can you please advise Alpineracing (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's unclear why the submission request was not working on your end. I have submitted the entry for you. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 08:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:International Test Commission
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Test Commission

Hello,

I see that my proposed entry on the International Test Commission was rejected for "lack of verifiable sources". I would appreciate a little bit more insight into this: all the text can be verified based on the sources included in the reference list, and the reference list only contains scientific papers with full citation - they can be downloaded and verified at any point in time. I assume that I did something wrong here, but cannot see what. I would appreciate help on this topic: what do you consider more verifiable than I already have included?

Best,

Dragos Iliescu Dragos.iliescu (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Dragos. I have now left detailed comments on the draft itself concerning the referencing problem and the draft's inappropriate and quite blatantly promotional tone. Please read them. On the draft it states that Dragos Iliescu is a coordinator of the ITC survey. The fact that you cannot see the problems yourself demonstrates why editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. The draft needs to be extensively rewritten with complete cuts of material which is not suitable here, including but not limited to detailed information of interest only to its members or potential members. It needs to be a short, factual, neutrally worded (devoid of evaluative adjectives) encyclopedia article—not an alternative website for the ITC. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tinker Tooth
Greetings!

I've just been informed that my entry for the fictional character of Tinker Tooth was decline. However, there's no explanation to which the reason is nor what to do in order to get the entry accept it.

Any guidance or help in helping me with this issue would be greatly appreciated.

With Best Regards, David M. Dmg888 (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dmg888, the reason is given in the grey box right at the top of Draft:Tinker Tooth.  If you have questions about what any of that means, please come back here and ask them and we'll be happy to answer them.  Dismas |(talk) 11:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rescue Remedies Dog Rescue
Hello,

I would like to discuss the rejection of my article due to non-notability by Arthur goes shopping. I contacted him about the article on his talk page, however, he must be busy, since I have not yet heard back. It would be great to communicate with a reviewer about this further, since I do believe the organisation my article addresses is worthy of a Wiki article. I paste the message I sent to Arthur goes shopping below:

Hi Arthur,

You reviewed and rejected this article I submitted last August. Apologies for bringing this up so long after the article submission. The 3D world got in the way for awhile, however I am now working on the article again. If this is an inappropriate place in which to discuss this article, I am happy for you to move my discussion, or let me know where and with whom I should take up this issue.

I would like to submit to you a list of reasons why this article should be accepted for publication:
 * Rescue Remedies really is a legitimate, well-thought-of UK dog rescue charity. The way it lists its rescue dogs is utterly unique. Each dog has its own detailed blog – something that does not otherwise exist in the UK and possibly the rest of the world. This alone should justify its listing, since they have done something no other rescue charity has.
 * As you can see by the number of citations, even if some of these were initially unacceptable to you, the Rescue really does have a large internet presence – it just hasn’t been in existence as long as some of the ‘famous’ UK rescues.
 * There are at least two existing citations that are independent: Hertfordshire Life and Dog World.
 * The Charity Commission listing should also count as independent as only legitimate, registered charities can be listed on the site.
 * Twickenham Vet Surgery supports the Rescue and would not otherwise mention it on their site – the same is true of Paws in the Park.
 * Rescue Remedies works with two citable (and other as yet uncitable) organisations already listed on Wikipedia – Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and Dogs Blog – this adds to the entry’s legitimacy.
 * Other UK rescues listed on wiki do not exactly have a robust number of citations. Examples: People's Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA); Battersea Dogs and Cats Home; The Blue Cross; National Animal Welfare Trust (NAWT)

I really would like to see my article published, so any suggestions you may have in order to achieve this goal (beyond citing newspaper articles that do not yet exist) will be appreciated.

Many thanks for discussing this article with me. Wander Woman (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Wander Woman (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Secondly, pointing to other articles isn't a valid rationale. If you don't think those articles meet criteria, nominate them for deletion.  Your submission lists a bunch of websites where it's been mentioned but has no reliable sources.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Wander Woman. I strongly suggest you read Notability (organizations and companies). Those official guidelines will tell you quite clearly what any article on an organization requires here. You will also find FAQ/Organizations helpful. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Criticisms noted. Clearly I have some reading and editing to do. Do Hertfordshire Life and Dog World qualify as reliable secondary sources? The Charity Commission, I suppose, is a primary source, so does not qualify. I really do not wish to nominate any articles for deletion at this time, since I think it's a bit adversarial to pick on a dog charity, whether I think their references are robust or not. Definitely not my style. Thanks for your prompt answers. Wander Woman (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Radcliffe School
Hi. Thank you for reviewing my article in such a short time. I was wondering why it was rejected though. I would appreciate it if you could tell me why so that I can improve it. Thank you

Able001Able001 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Able001. The reviewer has left comments as to why it was declined on your draft. Please read them and if you have further questions, come back here. Also, I strongly suggest that you read WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines thoroughly and improve your draft accordingly before submitting it again. Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of User:Vineetshah15/sandbox
The article can be verified from the article published by MID Day or via http://archive.mid-day.com/news/2012/may/310512-mumbai-What-a-drive.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineetshah15 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Vineetshah15. Unfortunately, I have requested that this draft be speedily deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. It is a verbatim copy of http://archive.mid-day.com/news/2012/may/310512-mumbai-What-a-drive.htm. I have left more detail on on your talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Barnstars
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Draft Barnstars I'd like to know when this will be published and will you give me a barnstar? KBSully (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Rodayomar
my story may have a few typos and grammar issues i understand. there were no specifics to where i can proceed next. please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodayomar (talk • contribs) 20:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First, Wikipedia is not here for you to advertise. Writing an autobiography is a bad idea.  Secondly, your submission has only two references.  One is your website and the other is a book that cites Neville Island flooding in the '70s.  Therefore, you have no references and therefore no notability.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)