Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 February 24

= February 24 =

03:58:55, 24 February 2017 review of submission by Jammin75
Hi, can someone else at Wiki please review this article beside SwisterTwister? Or at the very least, could someone advice me what to prune in order to get this article published? I've cited some sources that I believe makes subject in this article notable but it has been declined. I have seen other articles on Wiki with very flimsy sources that have been accepted and I'm finding it hard to understand why my articles are not being accepted, even at stub class. Thanks Jammin75 (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jammin. Our apologies for the delay in response.  I see that you have already been in discussion with one of the reviewers who declined your submission.  If we can be of any further help, please let us know.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

05:33:28, 24 February 2017 review of submission by Dragunsky1922
Hi all!

I have been learning steadily how many sources one needs to publish an article on Wikipedia. So far there are 13 credible sources which are independent from the article (some sources actually attack the article's subject).

I would like a user to review this article; I am starting to fail to see how this article is not authentic. Perhaps a Wikipedia user can help me work on this article?

Draft: Party of Communists USA

Thank you,

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Dragunsky. I'm responding here to your posting on my Talk page.  I do see that you've doubled the number of sources that appear in your draft.  But they haven't done anything to establish "notability" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word (for which, see WP:NORG).  About half of the sources do nothing more than give the organisation a passing mention and two of them don't even mention it at all (presumably, they're there to provide context).  An interview with a member, the subject of which is Stalin, doesn't establish notability, nor does a blog posting of an open letter from the organisation.  You have succeeded in demonstrating that the organisation exists, but you haven't demonstrated that it has received substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources.  And without that demonstration, it is unlikely that your draft will be accepted for publication.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There are more sources than the ones you listed. A College Newspaper, Political Journals, and international news agencies. None of these sources are associated with the article's subject. And more sources are being listed, also the Wikipedia article draft itself is going to be expanded.

How do these pages exist:

Party for Socialism and Liberation, American Party of Labor, Workers World Party

None of these pages have the same references as the Party of Communists USA draft, and the few references those pages do have are mostly linked to their own web pages.

Another Wikipedia user stated to me that the Party of Communists USA Wikipedia article should not be published because the article's subject is "too new for Wikipedia." Please verify that argument as well.

Thank you

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello once again, Dragunsky. Our apologies for the delay in response.  Despite the ever-increasing number of references in your draft, you have still not presented a single reliable, independent source that discusses the organisation in depth.  In a few moments, I'll be declining your submission for that reason.  As for your concern about the other articles you mentioned, Wikipedia now has more than 5 million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some of them do not meet our standards.  But this does not mean that we should relax those standards.  Instead, it simply means that we need to do a better job of identifying and addressing those problem articles.  And regarding the advice you received at the Teahouse (here), that advice came from some of our most-respected editors here on Wikipedia.  It was good advice that does not need to be "verified" by us.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

10:09:23, 24 February 2017 review of submission by 2A02:C7D:49B:4200:B0B1:5FDB:12D9:8EE7
Please help give me specific instructions telling me what I actually need to do in order to get my draft entry on Soumik Datta accepted and entered into Wikipedia. I have provided a lot of material and references. There are so many other artists who have produced and performed much less than Soumik Datta and of far less reknown. Yet they have a Wikipedia entry.

I have been so disheartened by rejections you will notice I have taken a year to get back to tackling this task!

Thank you, in advance

Tana Wollen

2A02:C7D:49B:4200:B0B1:5FDB:12D9:8EE7 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Tana. Because your draft was deleted for inactivity, it should be easy to get it restored.  To do so, go to WP:Requests for undeletion and follow the instructions there.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Request on 11:59:18, 24 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Mikerollem
Hi

I'm sorry, I was trying to submit an article which was rejected. I really need more specific guidance. I'm a total ignoramus in the Wikipedia Universe.

I would like someone to say the submission would be acceptable if various changes were made. I've spent a lot of time struggling to get it to this state. I don't want to spend a lot more time making it conform to your standards only to find that it's not something you want anyway.

If it was considered worthy of inclusion, I would be happy for a more seasoned and competent contributor to take it over and make the necessary changes, which would probably take them a minimum of time and effort.

Yours somewhat despondently

Mike Mellor

Mikerollem (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon left a note on the top of your draft as to why it was rejected. It should be helpful in conforming your draft to Wikipedia standards.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

18:22:19, 24 February 2017 review of submission by Calexit
I just took a look at main space and saw the wikipedia article Cloudbleed of one line and a single citation, yet main was rejected!!! Calexit (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Issue appears resolved. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

22:26:48, 24 February 2017 review of submission by Comtos
Inserted museum references as requested - how do I resubmit or notify editor? Thx Comtos (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Comtos (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , you just click the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink Decline box, but it appears you've successfully resubmitted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , Thanks - it wasn't declined - the editor requested refs to approve. I replied to their request on the draft page so am guessing no resubmission was needed. Does my reply on that page notify the editor?

23:21:23, 24 February 2017 review of submission by MikeJonesJones
Hi there, the draft has been getting declined due to the referencing. The person in question is a high profile, Grammy nominated songwriter/producer so I'm concerned I'm not referencing it correctly. Be great if you could lend some advice. Thank you

MikeJonesJones (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mike. Our apologies for the delay in response.  The quick answer to your question is -- yes, you most certainly are not referencing your sources correctly.  You might want to take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners, which will provide some background on how the information should be presented.  You might also take a look at the cite web template, which will guide you in presenting essential bibliographic detail in a standard format.  By the way, your reference to the subject's Grammy nomination is a dead link, so you probably want to fix this.  As for the rest of the submission, it all reads as if you are asserting the subject's notability merely on the basis of his working with other people.  Here on Wikipedia, we call this "inherited notability" and it isn't accepted as a good basis for establishing notability.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)