Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 March 23

= March 23 =

Request on 08:28:25, 23 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DestroyMyJeep
Hi there, I have updated my page with the assistance of a user on the live-help section, to bring it into line with your requirements. I have been waiting about 15 days for someone to come along and give it the final approval, but no one has come along. Can you please let me know if I need to do something to notify the reviewers that this is ready for final review? Please advise,

Ashton Wood. DestroyMyJeep

DestroyMyJeep (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you mean Draft:Destroy My Jeep it was deleted as unambiguous advertising on 11 March 2015 by, who will be able to discuss this with you. Fiddle   Faddle  13:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

10:54:52, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Magnet321
Magnet321 (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Dear Help Desk, Reviewing your ability to reject articles you do not like and then make redress system inpenetrable. To whit receive negATIVE FEEDBACK ON MARCH !ST. CORRECTED SO I THOUGHT BY MARCH 5TH AND RESUBMITTED. NOW i find it impossible to reconnect with CraigyDavi to get further data or a response to my resubmission. Please instruct me as to what I must now do, in plain text please I cannot cope with more Wikispeak. It is dehumanising. of your writers and your volunteer Unpaid editors. It also allows them to escape ownership of their decisions.Psychologically if not administratively Now simply where must I go to find further feedback on my resubmission. Incidentally your search engine can find no reference to CraigyDavi. Would the real Craig Davison Stand up please? Magnet321


 * The best way to get help is to be rude. What you must do now is be pleasant, link to the draft you would like help with and ask nicely. I think you will find that no-one is much interested until that happens. There are no paid staff here, so please change you attitude. Fiddle   Faddle  12:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

11:30:21, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Maybelline Ooi
Maybelline Ooi (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

I am have been trying to publish an article on Queen Silvia Nursing Award in Wikipedia but it had been rejected on 3 occasions due to the content, references and notability issues. I had since made the necessary edits, could I have some feedback on them so I can work towards creating a useful article for the audience.

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

Thank you so much.

Maybelline Ooi (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Maybel


 * If I could read Swedish I would be able to assess the draft's sources. I wonder, is there a Wikiproject regarding Sweden where you could ask for help? Fiddle   Faddle  11:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Timtrent - I'm sure if you ask at WP:WikiProject Sweden someone would be willing to Verify the sources. (There is a WikiProject for almost every country) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

11:49:31, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Axemangraphics
Hello I have recently received a second rejection for my submission to Wiki on St. Mary's Catholic Church, Williamstown page. Reasons given were that info had not been cited, however almost every single sentence has been cited! can someone please be a little more specific? Which phrase is preventing this from getting posted?

Axemangraphics (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Axemangraphics (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe, because Wikipedia is a gazetteer, this would qualify for inclusion. My opinion differs form that of the other reviewers. I'll take a brief look. Fiddle   Faddle  11:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The point about WP being a gazetteer is relevant only to named natural features and human settlements (hamlet, village, town, city, district and so on) not individual buildings. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Saw this after I accepted it. I'm reasonably content either way. Fiddle   Faddle  13:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

12:41:42, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Redtango88
Hi there,

My proposed page entry for business pitches has been rejected as it apparently read more like an essay than an encyclopedia. I've made some changes and was wondering if I could get it critiqued? I was wondering how my page differs from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_pitch, in terms of compliance with Wikipedia rules?

Thanks in advance for your time. Redtango88 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you resubmit Draft:Business pitch for review. I have a feeling that it is more like a dictionary definition than an article Fiddle   Faddle  13:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Redtango88 - I've made a few minor changes to improve the layout, I also added a "See also" link to a related concept; sales presentation, although that article needs quite a bit of work to get it up to standard. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

14:36:10, 23 March 2015 review of draft by Brehman90
PAGE''' ]]) 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Draft:Islamic_Relief_Academy does not yet exist. Would you like the draft at User:Brehman90/sandbox moved there? --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

15:21:25, 23 March 2015 review of submission by Slipvoid
I submitted my first Wikipedia article but received a message indicating the article was rejected because the submission was not adequately supported by reliable sources. This confuses me because I took the proper steps to include 9 very credible sources (scientific publications and online magazine articles). A user responded saying "Anything you can't source should be removed - even if "you know it's true". All of the information on the page is unbiased and true, I do not understand how every fact can be sourced. For example, how does one verify where they were born, worked, or studied as a major? Do I need to publish scans of work records, birth certificate, diplomas? Some of this information cannot be found online or in a book. Please advise. Thank you. Slipvoid (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * When I push a draft bio back for more work on referencing I flag it thus "For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS." You will see that there is wriggle room here, in the area to do with being susceptible to challenge.
 * I have not looked at your draft, but suggest you use 'my' rationale in the prior paragraph to inspect your referencing. If you believe that it meets that then it is good to be resubmitted. Do note that mine is but one opinion. Fiddle   Faddle  16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, birth certificates etc. No. Please do not supply these. There are very restricted circumstances in which they are valid, and usually only for historical figures. Fiddle   Faddle  16:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

19:24:56, 23 March 2015 review of submission by MITAeroAstro
Hi. I am new to the wonderful world of Wikipedia page creation, and, alas and alack, my first foray into page creation was denied...because the individual was not sufficiently notable. I would love some help since said insufficiently notable person is my boss, Jaime Peraire, Department Head of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Truly, Jaime is as (if not more) accomplished as many who have Wiki pages, so I'm a tad confused why he doesn't make the proverbial grade.

Thanks in advance.

Joyce

MITAeroAstro (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that the reviewer was incorrect when they stated that Jaime Peraire wasn't notable. Per WP:PROF, the fact that he holds a named professorship at a major institution does makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article.
 * However, your article still doesn't meet the minimum standard for inline citations required for a biography of a living person. Every statement of fact needs to be baked up with a citation to a reliable source using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Please also see the note I left on your talk page regarding your username. Thanks. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

22:48:18, 23 March 2015 review of draft by Arise again, Arisedrew!
I'm creating an article that was deleted over a year ago because it lacked sources for notability warranting its place as an article. I reread that article in the history; it was quite poorly done and focused on in-universe information. If I create this article appropriately, with sources indicating its notability in the real-word (like an item that has been reviewed), can that warrant it becoming an article once more (even though it was already deleted in the past)? --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * yes Fiddle   Faddle  08:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)