Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 September 19

= September 19 =

Request on 04:08:54, 19 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Susanne mi
HI Wikipedia Team, I'm new in the community and would like to contribute a bit. I'm alumni of Glasgow University and Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU) and thought that a good starting point would be to help update their pages a bit. I noted that specifically for Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU) the German wikipedia pages are (probably naturally) more advanced. I also wanted to create a page of Professor Edeltraud Hanappi-Egger who is the Prinicpal of WU. She has a Wikipedia Page in German, and I thought I can simply translate the one in German to English. Nevertheless, my request was declined, due to "notability" issues.

I was wondering how a person can have a wikipedia page in German, but is not good enough for the English page? Also, as a Principal of one of the biggest and top-ranked Business School in Europe, I believe that the person is notable enough. Unfortunately, almost all sources of evidence are in German, which could be the problem here?

Would be great if you could help how to fix this issue.

Thank you!

Susanne mi (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . The draft has been accepted because the subject meets WP:PROF criterion 6. German-language sources are fine, although English ones are preferred if available.
 * In this case you chose your topic wisely, it's notable in both language versions of Wikipedia. For future reference, bear in mind that each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Also the existence of an article doesn't necessarily mean it should exist, it could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

05:53:45, 19 September 2017 review of submission by Selvakumarcs
Selvakumarcs (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi team Could you please let me know why my articale was rejected?


 * Hi . Draft:Maniyanoor cites no sources. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. The usual way to attribute information to reliable, published sources is with inline citations. Help:Referencing for beginners explains how to do this. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

13:13:54, 19 September 2017 review of submission by Bu11man7
Regarding Decline of Epi proColon - Methylated Septin 9 Test (Bullman7:SandBox)

This submission was Declined by Whispering on 9/19 for being an Advertisement. NOTE: the user Whispering has a tendency to 'automatically' decline most new submissions.

The posting of the following 4 similar and parallel one-of-a-kind diagnostic tests establish precedence that these scientific backed Wikipedia postings should be acceptable: Allomap - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlloMap_molecular_expression_testing Cologuard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitarget_stool_DNA_screening_test Oncotype Dx - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncotype_DX Oncotype Dx Colon Cancer Assay - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncotype_DX_Colon_Cancer_Assay

The Epi proColon Wikipedia submission was parallel to the format and information included it the aforementioned postings. The Epi proColon submission is backed by well referenced and cited - including information from the FDA, USPSTF, and several peer-reviewed articles.

Please overturn the Decline and Accept this submission.

Should changes need to be made, please indicate the specific sections and/or statements. Using the aforementioned examples, Epi proColon should be accepted 'as is'.

Thank you for the consideration and review.

Bu11man7
 * ✅ by . --Worldbruce (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Article deleted as copyright infringement from the companies press release, plus G11, plus TOU violation, plus misrepresentation of US government positions. Please ping WT:MED for medical articles. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

19:47:59, 19 September 2017 review of submission by Political Fill
On July 27th I'm told my page is ok and I need to make some edits - which I did. I write back asking why the page hasn't published, and now I'm told by a different reviewer that my page isn't meeting the mark. Please let me know what is going on. I've been going back and fourth ont he creation of this page for nearly two months and would like to see it published.

Political Fill (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I can see how you might feel that lunatics have taken over the asylum. What you have encountered is to some extent the nature of Wikipedia, where everyone is a volunteer and no one is in charge. Editors sometimes disagree. When that happens we try to reach consensus. The best way to do this is to attempt to address the issues that the second reviewer raised.


 * Can you add coverage from beyond Long Island, such as this article in The New York Times?


 * Can you make the draft less like an elect-Curran direct mail piece? The draft makes it appear that no one has ever publicly disagreed with her or criticized her positions, which is remarkable in politics. Avoid a campaign-handout style. Instead of just saying she advocated for police to be equipped with cameras, explain what she did or didn't achieve and what tradeoffs she made, such as "but was unable to overcome opposition from those with privacy concerns" or "succeeded in getting 20% of the force equipped with cameras at the cost of reducing the number of officers on the street by three" or whatever is the case.


 * You have made no contributions to Wikipedia other than creating this draft. Being a single-purpose account eager to get a political bio published before an election raises concerns that you may have a conflict of interest, and an undisclosed one at that. If you do, you may find it impossible to edit objectively enough to produce an acceptable article on the topic. That may not be a bad thing for you. Most new editors underestimate the Law of unintended consequences.


 * As a final note, citing seven sources to prove four endorsements is WP:CITEKILL. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

20:42:52, 19 September 2017 review of submission by Cozy1626
Hi, Thanks for reviewing the article. I was informed that it was declined after 3 weeks since I submitted. I'd like to revise it based on your advice. Would you please let me know what exactly were considered as promotional materials, or what sources are unreliable among the references?

Also, according to the notice in the pink box, if I intend to fix it, I should remove the notice. Would posting this message here remove the notice? Or what do I have to do to continue to work on it? Thanks.

Cozy1626 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Cozy. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  To answer your first question, you (as creator of the Draft) may not remove the notice.  I see that you have already taken the first step in saving the draft from immediate deletion -- you have posted a message on the draft's Talk page which will be read by the administrator who will make the decision on whether to delete or not.  As for continuing to work on it -- yes, you are free to do so.  If you feel that further work will improve the chances of saving the draft from immediate deletion, feel free to do that work.  But I recognize that you are not quite sure what changes ought to be made.  And so, let me suggest an additional course of action.  If you go back to the draft and click on the "View history" tab, you'll find out which person actually placed the notice (it should be a name at or near the top of the list of edits).  Then, click that person's "talk" link and ask them the same question that you've asked us here.  Because they're the one who placed the notice, they are the one in the best position to tell you exactly what gave them concern.  Finally, and before getting a response, go back to the draft's Talk page and add a new paragraph to your statement, letting the administrator know that you have sought feedback from the person who placed the deletion notice and that you are awaiting a response.  I don't know whether that will save the draft, but it will let the administrator know that you are actively taking steps to address the problem.  I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

20:47:41, 19 September 2017 review of submission by 2603:3024:1528:2B00:E1C0:4083:85E2:2550
Hello, Can someone please let me know why the edits were declined? This is very similar to other already approved pages for people in the same industry - bodybuilding (Phil Heath, Jay Cutler) and trainers (Gunnar Peterson). I am happy to make edits, but I don't see any issue with how it is presented currently. Thank you. (nick erbe for Hany Rambod)


 * Hello Nick Erbe. Your edits to Draft:Hany Rambod make it appear as if you are being paid. Paid promotion is an especially egregious type of conflict of interest (COI).


 * If you are receiving or expect to receive money for your edits, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post the disclosure at Draft talk:Hany Rambod. The template connected contributor (paid) can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:.


 * If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being paid, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)