Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 November 27

= November 27 =

00:06:30, 27 November 2014 review of submission by Content4wiki
To whom it may concern, We put in a post on the 2nd of June and it has not been put up on our Wiki page. Could you please disclose as to why this has not been authorised? How can we get this on our page asap? Thank you in advance for your response, Bronte Bendeich Snelleman Tom Content4wiki (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Content4wiki (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Bronte, there seems to be a little confusion here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where editors write about encyclopedic topics. It is not a business directory where you arrange for information to be put on "your" page. Draft:Snelleman Tom was declined for the reasons given on that page. Please check there. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

03:18:56, 27 November 2014 review of submission by Piercer From Within
Dear editors,

I see the page created by me has been declined after 2 months of waiting, and even though the reasons have been given, it's hard for me to see the point. That's really a bit disappointing.

1) Unreliable sources (Youtube)

Why is Youtube unreliable? What source is reliable, then? Could you please give an example? I've provided eight of them. Is some article from the yellow press more reliable? I've provided many other references too, including the World Guinness Records page, which confirm the records by Muranski are real. I can add also this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEVYwV0aJjM (where he's solving the minesweeper board being recorder on camera), or his profile page on the official Minesweeper Community website: http://www.minesweeper.info/profile.html?player=1671, or this article: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/03/wait-people-play-competitive-minesweeper/. But to me, the link to the article at PCWorld.com seems to be sufficient proof.

2) Doesn't appear to pass the notability threshold

That's even more surprising for me. I used to think that Wikipedia serves exactly the purpose of making famous people who deserve it, not vice versa! The puzzle game of Minesweeper is in any Windows package which means billions of users, it's probably more popular than chess because almost every Windows user knows the simple rules, and some few hundred millions of users have tried to solve the Minesweeper board at least once in their lifes. Yet it requires really good skills and calculating abilities while played for fastest solving time. The world ranking (http://www.minesweeper.info/worldranking.html) includes around 1300 players, with harsh restrictions applied (http://www.minesweeper.info/ranking/rules.html). And here, we have the man who plays Minesweeper much better than anyone else on the Earth! The puprose of the proposed article is exactly to make Kamil Muranski more popular as he deserves for his really outstanding skills. So I've failed to see the logic of this rejection, I'm sorry. Will be waiting for the reply. Best regards, Piercer From Within (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Piercer From Within. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not merely require proof that someone has made a particular achievement, it requires the person to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are a few exceptions to this, but being listed in the Guinness World Records is not one of them. I am sorry to say, we cannot help with your stated purpose. Wikipedia does not exist to help people in getting the popularity they deserve; it is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site or profile directory. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to add, the PC World article is written by Murański, not about him, and is therefore of little to no use in proving his notability by Wikipedia's standards. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

07:04:56, 27 November 2014 review of submission by SoricaNiChearnaigh
My apologies! I am confused with the referencing/citing/links. Please check it now to see if it complies with guidelines. SoricaNiChearnaigh (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello SoricaNiChearnaigh, unfortunately I have had to decline this submission. Please see the reasons on the draft page itself, including the links included with more information. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

07:42:56, 27 November 2014 review of submission by CraigLHodges
I would like to ask if there are any specific elements in this wikipedia post that are holding up the review?

Many thanks to the reviewers.

CraigLHodges (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, that draft is correctly submitted for review. However, if any of the text is copied from the university's own website, that will be a problem... see COPYPASTE. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * as a copyright violation of https://www.linkedin.com/company/universitas-dr-soetomo Fiddle   Faddle  13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

12:30:32, 27 November 2014 review of submission by James.Vinicombe
James.Vinicombe (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

hello, hope you are well, I was just wondering if the update on my page has been accepted? Please advise if not.

Thank you.

James


 * Your submission has been declined, firstly by and secondly by myself. I have given you some pointers in links below the submission box which I would strongly advise you to read. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  12:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)