Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 October 24

= October 24 =

01:20:17, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Gordonap
I came here to ask why my article "first interracial kiss in film" was rejected when an equally subjective article "first interracial kiss in tv" exists on wikipedia. It seems to me that these are of equal importance and objectivity.

I assume that the editors will not accept my article or my request for reconsideration and that is fine. Judge Lacombe, a minor historical judge and an entry that I edited, is significant, but the first interracial kiss in film is not. Go figure. However, even if you do not determine that this subject is as significant or objective as much of the entries on wikipedia ... please do something about this Articles for Creation HelpDesk! It is, to someone with a PhD in history but limited understanding of computing, largely incomprehensible.

I cannot work out at all if I have correctly completed this request for information. The instructions are very confusing. My white boxes were not empty, so I skipped to 2. "Please follow the instructions in the box." Which box? There are lots of boxes here and I can't see any instructions, except for 3. "Save changes." So I will do that. [Follow up: I attempted to edit this entry to specify the draft, but cannot work out how to do that!]

I know that wikipedia is attempting to address the gender gap and gain more contributors from academia who may be used to publishing their work in traditional encyclopedias, but this page does not seem to encourage that engagement. Thanks for all the excellent work that you do.Gordonap (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Gordonap (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do not take the declination personally. It was merely that your submission is poorly sourced. Wikipedia requires a large range of reliable sources to an article. Also, after reading through the lead paragraph of your submission, it appears that your submission may be lacking a neutral point of view. Feel free to resubmit your submission for review after improving it. Happy editing!  JTP ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

07:01:15, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Vegahm
Vegahm (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, my article was declined because it needed "inline citations" Please clarify where you think this is needed.
 * Hello, Vegahm. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia.  You didn't specify the submission in question, but I assume you mean Draft:Anthony Hall-Martin.  In any of our articles, we expect the author to tell the readers exactly where the information came from.  In your submission, you haven't done this.  Instead, you've simply included a general list of references at the end of the submission, with no indication of which statements are being supported by which reference and where in the reference (i.e., page number) one might find that support.  An introduction to in-line referencing appears at WP:REFB, which is a guide on how to include footnote references.  I also see that you included links to a commercial bookseller inside the text of the submission.  If you need to identify a publication, it is better to do so using the cite book template in conjunction with a footnote.  I hope this was helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

15:55:00, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Moviescoop
Hello, Thanks for your time. I removed the more promotional part about what kind of movies MovieScoop Cinemas shows and the chain's support for local organizations and charities. I just kept to the basic facts about the cinema chain. Thanks again. I am a novice at this! Moviescoop (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Moviescoop. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  I presume that you are asking whether, in its current form, the submission meets the various guidelines for articles on Wikipedia.  I think it does not.  Although it is good to have removed the more promotional aspects, the submission is still conspicuously lacking any evidence that this chain of movie theaters has received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the chain.  The only reference that appears in your submission is a routine "press release" type of article that informs the readers that some of the movie rooms now have new types of chairs.  This falls far short of our notion of "in depth" or "significant" coverage of the subject.  Because there is a very large backlog of submissions, it likely will be a few weeks before your submission is reviewed again.  In the meantime, I encourage you to seek out references (and add them to the submission) that will demonstrate the appropriateness of having an article on this subject.  In doing this, you might find the guideline WP:Notability to be useful.  On a different matter, I noticed that your user name is identical to the name of the subject of your submission.  If you haven't done so already, you might want to read our guidelines at WP:Conflict of Interest.  I hope all of this was helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * To expand on what NewYorkActuary wrote, the notability criteria for companies explain that "attention solely from local media ... is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." This is one reason that very very few local businesses merit an encyclopedia article about them. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

19:32:56, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Tatateja
Tata Teja 19:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatateja (talk • contribs)
 * The draft in question is probably Draft:SundayKart. It was declined on the grounds that it reads like an advertisement.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)