Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 August 13

= August 13 =

04:46:52, 13 August 2017 review of submission by Kennedygregb
hello all, no problems but just wondering if i need to do anything else as this my draft libby birch has been waiting review for nearly 50 days many thanks , thanks Greg kennedy  kennedygregb (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC) kennedygregb (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for your patience. Only forty-five drafts have been waiting longer, so it shouldn't be too many more days before a volunteer reaches Draft:Libby Birch. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

many thanks Greg kennedy kennedygregb (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

05:27:03, 13 August 2017 review of submission by Shawn.hossan
Hello. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia.My article has been rejected several times. I cannot understand the reason for it. There is a message that says- "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), 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." I am unable to understand it. It would b really helpful if I get a solution as soon as possible.Thank you. Shawn.hossan (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . To show that the subject merits inclusion in an encyclopedia, the draft needs to cite independent reliable sources about him. The draft cites only organizations connected to him. They are worthless for demonstrating notability. Look for significant coverage in sources like The Daily Star, The Financial Express, or Ittefaq. The bulk of the draft should be based on such sources. Without arms-length coverage the draft will never be accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

10:48:08, 13 August 2017 review of submission by Skinduptruk
I have waited two months for two reviews. The editors seem junior and do not read, quote, or interpret wiki policy in proper detail. When I asked in the chat room the editor Huon openly displayed bias re Donald Trump (no idea why). When I questioned them, I was censored, which I posted about below. What will it take to get a fair review of my article??!!! https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6tef4x/wikipediacucked_bully_lie_censor_repeat_x/

Skinduptruk (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You have received two fair reviews of your article already. Primefac is pretty senior and I, while only active at AfC for a short time, have enough experience on Wikipedia to give reasonably sound advice on matters at AfC. As best I can tell, you wish to substitute some common language understanding of the word "notability" in place of the somewhat intricately refined notion of that concept as it applies on Wikipedia, a product of a consensus process. In my review, I gave you what I thought was a fairly simple instruction: provide something like three examples of press coverage that are not based on the Pudniks political campaign that support notability in the Wikipedia sense. We all agree that an unsuccessful campaign for political office is, all by itself, not qualifying, but if there were significantly unusual aspects of the campaign that fact might be given some weight.


 * I don't know what you experienced on IRC with Huon and one of the rules there is "no public logging". The reason I urged you to use this help desk for presenting your notability evidence is so that there would be a record that we could point to where some editors agreed that the notability criterion had been met. I recommend this procedure when notability is debatable because leaving it to the reviewer to discover and judge which references are relevant is hit-or-miss after the initial review.


 * Complaining on Reddit about Wikipedia bullying may get you sympathy and moral support, but it does not further your interests here.


 * Finally, we are waiting for you to declare whether you, as a Wikipedia editor, have any relationship with Kurt Pudniks, which might constitute a conflict of interest.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  19:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the prompt follow-up. Again you assert my claims re notability. You should quote where I said that? You cannot, because I have only ever claimed the "normal" definition that you in fact quoted "Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". You are now suddenly demanding 3x non-politics references. Please show me the wiki policy for that demand? Also, note that whilst autobiography is difficult to maintain neutrality it is not banned. You said yourself the article is basically ok in regard to NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinduptruk (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you and I are done. I find I am no longer able to be neutral. We'll see if there are other reviewers who are willing to help you.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  21:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope I don't need to re-submit & wait another 5+ weeks... :x Skinduptruk (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, you do need to wait in the queue. But you also have the option of withdrawing your draft from consideration here and moving it directly into Main space yourself.  If you believe that your draft would survive a deletion nomination, then feel free to take this option.  For what it's worth, I think User:jmcgnh is correct and that this will not survive a deletion nomination.  Indeed, I'll probably nominate it myself if I see it in Main space in anything close to its current form.  There's simply no getting around the fact that having a college degree and placing distant third in a run for Australia's House of Representatives is not the stuff from which Wikipedia articles are made.  But I expect that you disagree and, if so, feel free to take actions based on that belief.  By the way, if you haven't already done so, you might want to read WP:AUTOBIO.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read the "logic" links in full incl talk links to first editor's (primefac) page. Your comment is high in sass but low in wiki policy. You were so keen to criticise my draft you did not even address the policy points previously raised. At least you have demonstrated another case of unfair bias and an attempted yet very weak character attack on the subject*. The autobio policy says "strongly discouraged"... the most discouraging thing has been the personal attitude of the first four wiki editors I have had the displeasure of dealing with! What will it take for the fifth editor to read, quote, and interpret policy in proper detail?? 🤔🤔🤔 *Thanks for making my draft's AfC case stronger Skinduptruk (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

13:21:02, 13 August 2017 review of submission by Itswikimallik
Hi today I submitted my article for the second time and I don't know why my submission getting declined again with the message;

Message: "There is a message that says- "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), 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,"

The above mentioned message is attached with it, Can anyone help me to post it succesfylly? Why my article is getting declined even after attaching its References and Media articles? Is there anyone who can just review my draft and let me know why my article is getting declined? It would be great help, Thank You!

Itswikimallik (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mallik. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Our apologies for the delay in response.  I've taken a look at your submission and I don't see how the subject has demonstrated encyclopedic notability.  If you disagree with this assessment, you should take a look at WP:MUSICBIO to see which of the criteria listed there have been satisfied, and then point to the reliable sources that back up your claim.  I don't see how the subject has met any of those criteria but, if you have evidence to the contrary, please let us know.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

18:11:58, 13 August 2017 review of submission by Sayad 2
Sayad 2 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC) deal done

because I want to know something about the muslim girlsw college and I want to mAKE AN ADMISSION OF MY GIRL THERE AS I HAD LISTEN THAT COLLEGE IS ONE OF
 * Hello, Sayad. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia.  What exactly is your question?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)