Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 January 12

= January 12 =

02:38:10, 12 January 2017 review of submission by AI8O
How do I piut hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles in a new submitted article? AI8O (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You use name here . SwisterTwister   talk  05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

09:06:26, 12 January 2017 review of submission by David hewick
I have received a comment on my draft article page (just under the 'review waiting' Yellow Box). Can I reply from the draft article page via the 'talk' button. It is not clear how you send a reply back to the person who made the comment. I have replied via the Teahouse, but this separates the answer from the original comment. David HDavid hewick (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC) David hewick (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi David hewick. Just as you have in your signature above, and I have in mine which you will see at the end of this post, the person who commented has a link to "talk" in his signature, which leads to his talk page. This is the most direct way to contact a specific user--when you do so, the person get a message that there is a post at their talk page, which you may have seen for yourself, when someone posted to yours. You could also post to the draft's talk page, but if you want the reviewer who posted to the draft to see it, then you should ping him there, by including a link to his username in your post, and make sure you sign your post (pinging will not work if you don't successfully sign your post in the same edit; you will see how pings work because I've pinged you to this post). I understand you're essentially asking abut responding back directly in the draft, but the reason I've gone through these methods is that we don't generally do that—have a back and forth between reviewer and reviewee directly in the draft, though I doubt anyone would object greatly if you did. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:57:47, 12 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Benmeling
Dear wikipedia help desk. I am currently working on an article on my father the artist Gerhard Meling. I have a lot of references but am uncertain how this works. I am not at all proficient within this user interface. Is there anyway the article can be edited by someone professional from your staff for a small fee? I would in this case be able to send/email references, together with some pictures we would like to insert at various places. In the mean time i will be educating myself on how this is done, still i would appreciate all the help and info i can get on how to get references and how to verify source materiel.

Thank you!

Ben Meling

Benmeling (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . I'm afraid you might have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. It is written and maintained entirely by volunteer editors. There are no staff and paid editing is heavily frowned upon by the community. On a related note, our conflict of interest policy strongly discourages editors from writing about people or topics they have a personal connection to, because this compromises our neutral point of view. I think the best thing for you to do in this circumstance is to request an article about your father. You can provide any references you have with the request for a volunteer to use when creating the article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The draft, written by the original poster, exists as Draft:Gerhard Meling, so that Requested Articles isn't necessary. If a neutral editor decides to improve the draft, they can improve the draft.  The original draft was declined.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The draft has no references, and has peacock language, but the language can be changed if a neutral editor decides that the person is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

21:06:24, 12 January 2017 review of submission by Tdmjulie
I am requesting guidance on how to revise the submission to meet the Wikipedia standards.

thank you.
 * Hello, Tdmjulie. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Frankly, I don't see how any revision of your submission is going to change the fact that this particular jewelry store probably does not meet Wikipedia's notion of "notability".  If you disagree, you will need to demonstrate that the store has been the subject of multiple instances of in-depth coverage from sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject.  And, they may not be limited to purely local sources or to sources that are of interest only to a limited audience.  There is more detail on these requirements at WP:COMPANY.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

21:20:50, 12 January 2017 review of submission by Powderday
Dear all,

After posting a new draft for the website "the people's cube", the first reviewer of the draft SwisterTwister (although I of course appreciate his or her time in reviewing), did not really respond on questions about the validity and notability of these new sources. And now the new draft was tagged for "speedy deletion" by a rather avid opponent of the first version of the page dedicated to this topic (Exemplo347).

I wonder if an unbiased reviewer could be requested to check on the notability and neutrality of the listed sources in my draft. If not, can someone help me in understanding what exactly is wrong with these sources? Once more, I appreciate the Wiki work of Exemplo an SwisterTwister, but maybe they missed something in their first review or that their decision is not based on political bias (and I hope, as a long time Wiki reader and very recent contributor this is not the case).

Kind regards and many thanks in advance,

Powderday (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What you've failed to mention here is that this draft is a recreation of an article deleted as the result of an Articles for Deletion discussion - WP:G4 applies. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts in reviewing. Apart from the fact that the WP:G4 does not apply to this draft, I think you will see the history and "media" sections have been thoroughly cleaned out to delete all double information and to smoothen the grammar. A significant number of new sources (notable, neutral, third party) have been provided as compared to the original draft. On the whole, I think this new topic page is more encyclopedic and relevant than the previous. Greetings Powderday (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

22:43:09, 12 January 2017 review of submission by MinecraftKitty
Why did you not submit my article? Please tell me ASAP MinecraftKitty (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi MinecraftKitty. The reason it was declined is stated at your talk page. We already have an article on Eleanor Roosevelt, and a rather good one, at the title (aptly enough) Eleanor Roosevelt. We don't create articles at title forms like: "All about SUBJECT" and when we do want alternate names for the same topic to work as search terms, we don't duplicate the existing topic at the alternate title, but rather create redirects – but we would not do so for the title you used. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fuggetaboutit: Thank you for replying. I should try harder on articles!!!! Wikipedia rocks MinecraftKitty (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)