Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 September 29

= September 29 =

00:56:24, 29 September 2016 review of submission by Solodev
Why is this being rejected? We are a legitimate US based software company that is selling unique software and have mentions across many various websites. We have had a page for a while and it was deleted last month due to not updating. We have added new references so why this happening? We are the first US based company to be listed on the Federal GSA contract and we are one of a few US companies Sold by Amazon. This page is very important to us. Please tell me what is wrong with it?
 * It appears the article was rejected for the following: "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time." In addition, you are writing an article about yourself, something that is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Please see WP:NPOV for information. If you have any other questions, please use to contact me here or add a message to my talk page.  JTP  ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure I am replying properly, but the issue is we have had this page for well over a year and someone decided to delete it. Most of our references are from independent 3rd party sources. They are not from our website and they are written by other people other than ourselves. We are getting involved now to get our page back up. We are looking for help and not just quotes from WP. This is not pay to play and we deserve to have a page. Being the only US company to be on the GSA contract for selling CMS software is very notable. We are listed by the authority on CMS systems here: https://www.cmscritic.com/wordpress-joomla-and-drupal-are-not-the-best-cms/ At the bottom of the page as an enterprise CMS. There are so many other CMS systems listed on WP with less relevant links. Please help.

Also, please note this page which references our company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Central_Florida_Board_of_Trustees. Seems like if other important pages reference our page we should have a page. Does this help? Solodev (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? Wikipedia has a rule of one account, one person.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

02:56:11, 29 September 2016 review of submission by Hotfeat2016
My article draft has been declined because "The references are not in the form of footnotes" But I am confused because I think that the references are in the form of footnotes. I'm not sure where I'm going wrong here. Hotfeat2016 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake. They are.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I think that your draft needs expansion in order to establish a case for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Request on 04:58:31, 29 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ifelsetech
I am new to Wikipedia, while creating the page I have include all the information I had. but article got rejected, so i am looking for the assistance. Please tell me how to get this back.

Ifelsetech (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Ifelsetech. You have simply submitted a CV for the subject and a list of his publications. There are no references to independent published sources which support both the truth of the assertions and the fact that this person meets the criteria for inclusion. Without them, the draft will never be accepted, especially if the subject is a living person. As per my comment on your other draft, before continuing with the draft please read carefully and thoroughly:
 * Your first article
 * and
 * Notability (people)
 * Notability (academics)
 * Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Request on 05:01:16, 29 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ifelsetech
I am new to Wikipedia, while creating the page I have include all the information I had. but article got rejected, so i am looking for the assistance. Please tell me how to get this back.

Ifelsetech (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Ifelsetech. Unfortunately, I have had to remove all of the text from this draft because you had copied it verbatim from the official website of the organization. This is a copyright violation and is strictly forbidden here. Please read my comments at Draft talk:ESRO for further guidance. If you attempt to rewrite the draft in your own words, you must demonstrate that it meets our criteria for inclusion for organizations. Basically, it must have multiple references to published sources which are entirely independent of the subject. Before attempting to work on this draft again please read carefully and thoroughly:
 * Your first article
 * Copying text from other sources
 * FAQ/Organizations
 * Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

08:08:08, 29 September 2016 review of submission by 46.253.186.62
I was told my article is missing reliable sources. I mention three external game databases which are very reliable and have a high reputation, so I don't know what other sources I should use? I doubt I'll find recent reviews about a computer game from 1985. 46.253.186.62 (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you should try looking for old reviews, large libraries have magazine collections going back decades. Video game or computing magazines from 1985 should be available somewhere. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned the article up and added additional sourcing. It could use some more work.  However, I have not resubmitted it yet as it was started by the anonymous editor and I haven't heard back from said contributor.-- Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk 01:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

16:49:00, 29 September 2016 review of submission by 65.96.163.254
The rejection read:

"This fails to explain why this company is notable. And the only reference provided is the organization's website. Please review WP:ORG for further guidance. As this organization was just created today, please do not resubmit it"

Addressing these concerns:
 * Notability: This is an organization formed by five of the largest companies in the world, almost always fierce competitors, to jointly advise their cutting-edge R&D in their core business. If you do a google search on this day-old organization (I don't think it's a company, as per the notability rejection) there are hundreds if not thousands of results already ([]).  I doubt one can find any major news outlet which has not covered this organization already.
 * "As this organization was just created today": I had the impression that Wikipedia covered current events and strove to be timely. Is that not the case?
 * "please do not resubmit it": does this suggest that there is no change which would make the article worthy? Just go away?

I came to Wikipedia to look up that article to learn whatever I could about this stunning new consortium and was quite surprised to find there was no article. It was clear that there will eventually be one, and instead of just waiting for someone else to do it, or putting a note somewhere asking for someone else to write an article, I thought I would help get that started and put down what little I knew, creating a place for others to add what they knew. If that's not the way Wikipedia works, I can certainly obey "please do not resubmit it" and leave it for someone else to do; I have confidence that at some point an article will be written on this, so it's the same eventual outcome either way.

65.96.163.254 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to be correct. If you want to resubmit, I will approve per WP:NEXIST. 18,000+ news stories published in <24 hours should more than suffice. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Correct yes, but not for the reasons you think. Wikipedia is not actually interested in "current events and strove to be timely", that's what WikiNews does - see WP:NOTNEWS. When submitting a draft for review at AFC it really helps to actually cite at least few of the many instances of news coverage. Citing only the subject's own website is what spammers do. Thanks for the new article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

19:35:28, 29 September 2016 review of submission by Spward028
I am wanting to revise this page to get it published. It was noted the sources were not reliable; however, I do not know what is required in order to make this more reliable than it already is. Data on these competitions are recorded through ROTC pages across various university news sites. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


 * Hi, the problem is actually more about the lack of Independent sources rather than the reliability of the sources you have used. The Notability standard is that people who have no interest or connection to the subject have written about it in significant detail so that a reasonable article could be wrotten using only such sources. The universities are the hosts of the ROTC system, thus the university news publications are not independent. Similarly, publications by any part of the Department of Defense are also not independent. You need to find mainstream news media or magazine/e-zine articles about the Ranger Challenge competition. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

20:30:03, 29 September 2016 review of submission by Cduggan4
I am trying to upload photos that I took, and am clicking the box that says they are my photos, but they are not be accepted. Is there another way to do this? Thank you!!!

Cduggan4 (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

22:08:02, 29 September 2016 review of submission by T man moses
Moses and kopano
 * This looks like a test edit, or, in any case, it does not read like an encyclopedic article draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)