Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 July 26

= July 26 =

04:13:01, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Tabuhart
Hello team, previously I would finish my new draft articles and move them to the main article namespace and waited for them to be reviewed. I have the "Move" permission. But recently (about 3 days ago) I'm not allowed to move any drafts to the main article namespace. My articles was instead moved back to Draft Draft:Manuela Pacutho and one user noted that I didn't have a right to move drafts to aticle namespace without giving me a solution. I contacted another user who moved it to main namespace but it was again mobed back to drafts. My articles are in draft and have taken too long without being reviewed. These are Draft:Manuela Pacutho and Draft:Brian Mulondo What do you advise? Thank you! Tabuhart (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Tabuhart (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . You write, "My articles are in draft and have taken too long without being reviewed." There is a substantial backlog, so reviews are taking a while, but there is no deadline, so why not work on something else while you wait?


 * The feedback available through Articles for creation can be very useful, but it is an optional process. Users such as yourself who are extended confirmed (which implicitly means you're also autoconfirmed) normally may move pages from draft space to article space. The worst thing that can happen is that the page may be deleted.


 * I'm sure and  moved Manuela Pacutho back to Draft:Manuela Pacutho in accordance with WP:DRAFTIFY, but I don't see anything on your user page, talk page, or on Editing restrictions that would explain the former's edit summary, "... article must be submitted for review through the AFC process; you do not have the right to simply move it into articlespace yourself without review". If you need clarification about the draftification, I advise you to contact them directly. Usually a little discussion can clear up everyone's concerns. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Every user technically has "move" permission — that's not a privilege that people earn, it's a thing that every user automatically always has unless they've abused it enough to have it taken away. That still doesn't mean you have a right to arbitrarily move a draft from draftspace to mainspace while it already has a "waiting for review" template on it — that's simply improper process regardless of who does it, and the amount of time it's taking for a review to actually happen is not a valid reason to short-circuit the process. Yes, the AFC queue is backlogged, but that's in part because a lot of people submit a lot of unacceptable junk to it, which is precisely why page creators don't have the right to detour around the AFC process — if every creator of a draft page was free to move the page themselves without having to have it reviewed by AFC reviewers first to ensure that it actually complied with our standards, then the entire purpose of having draftspace at all would be completely disembowelled. The only solution that's available to you is patience — it may take longer than you would like it to, but the page will eventually get dealt with one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you and ! I will wait.Tabuhart (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

07:09:34, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Nitin kumar ncm
Nitin kumar ncm (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

08:11:48, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Wayfarer1234567
I got some more notability references, and I would like to know if I can use them to reference to any part of my draft. Many thanks!

https://endorfinacultural.com/jasmin-la-empresa-mas-importante-de-webcams-xxx-sera-patrocinadora-de-expo-sexo-y-erotismo-2015/

http://www.asacp.org/index.php?content=news&item=1193

https://www.xbiz.com/news/232485/jasmin-makes-hollywood-film-festival-debut

https://www.xbiz.com/news/221277/jasmin-to-showcase-interactive-cam-platform-at-sex-expo-ny

https://www.esto.com.mx/81680-jasmin-en-la-expo-sexo-y-erotismo/

Wayfarer1234567 (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . The links above, like all of the references in the draft, are press releases or the company's executives talking about the company. They do nothing to establish notability. Based on the sources you're coming up with, the topic does not appear to be suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for marketing, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

08:53:46, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Srishtigosain
Hi! The page created by me Shikha_Sharma_(doctor) has been nominated for deletion. Kindly help me in saving the page from getting deleted. I am not able to understand the policy violated and what sources I need to add in order to make it reliable. Srishtigosain (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - As the article has been published, it's not really in our domain. I'd ask at WP:Village Pump. However, the article was nominated for deletion for failing WP:BASIC. However, this is an Articles for deletion discussion, so it may be up to editors to see if the subject is notable or not.  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ! The result says keep so what should be my next line of action.


 * Hi . The deletion discussion has not reached a consensus yet on what to do with the article. Much advice has been written about what to do in your situation. You may find these helpful:
 * Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
 * Why was the page I created deleted?
 * How to save an article proposed for deletion
 * So your article has been nominated for deletion
 * --Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

10:36:26, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Nadav23
Nadav23 (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I it's been almost 6 weeks and my article wasn't approved yet. Please help.

Thanks, Nadav


 * Hi . I see that today the draft has been declined, you've made some changes, and you've resubmitted it. So you can expect another review in about six weeks. You can use that time to continue to improve the draft. One tip, Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source and should not be cited as a source. There are many other ways you can improve the encyclopedia (and gain experience that will be helpful in crafting an acceptable draft) while you wait. See Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

12:13:27, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Iamhritikverma
I wanted this page to be published, ive seen this lawyer in trial courts and he is amazingly clever, he is well known locally and i really really think he deserves a page on wikipedia. i took his interview personally to know him better and it was really hard for a new editor to make people believe that they are not wasting their time talking and sharing there experience, he has a experience of 24-25 yrs which way more than some other lawyer pages on wikipedia, ive been a reader at wikipedia for so long but i am a new editor and i make sure the information i provided is 100% useful for many. please review my draft and take a decision favorable to all. Your True reader, Hritik Verma @iamhritikverma Iamhritikverma (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

16:48:30, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Tomdarling
The concern seems to be that this series is not noteworthy enough to earn a listing, based on the lack of citations. It is originally a German and Luxemborg production, and many of the articles are in German, French, Czech, which I cannot read. So, the sources are our there, just not accessible to me in a meaningful way. From what I CAN read of those sources, they confirm what is in my article, but as I am not fluent I don't feel I can source them. I did go and source what I could, including Hulu episodes for the summary--because I had written them after watching each episode.

In defense of it being important, there is a page on German Wikipedia, so someone thinks it important. Now that it is on Hulu, and elsewhere in English, is needs an English page. As a Wikipedia user, I find such pages essential when there are few other sources. Hulu is a major streaming service and this deserves a page.

Tomdarling (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . 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. Neither existence on the German Wikipedia nor usefulness helps your argument with experienced Wikipedians. Indeed, "when there are few other sources" hurts your argument, because Wikipedia should only have articles on topics that have gained significant attention by the world at large.


 * If you can identify significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary, non-English sources, you may add them to a "Further reading" section to help demonstrate programming notability, even if you are not fluent enough in the relevant languages to be comfortable building content based on them. Otherwise, it may be better to leave the topic either to be written about by someone who is fluent, or until more English sources become available. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

17:14:12, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Madisonaustin
I'm requesting help on the sources for this page. Both times this page was declined was due to insignificant/biased sources and subjective writing. I want to be sure I am on the right track for my sources so I am able to turn this draft into a page.

Madisonaustin (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the draft is based on non-independent sources: the foundation's website, the website of a program it manages, and a press release from the foundation. That's upside down. Most of a draft should come from indpendent sources. Wikipedia cares little about what an organization says about itself. That's what its own website is for, and where its marketing efforts should be directed. Wikipedia is not for marketing, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

19:36:36, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Rayner111
The article Theoretical Behaviorism was rejected as being taken from B. F. Skinner's 1950 article "Are theories of learning necessary". It is not although it does cite that article. It is a completely new piece that is in fact critical of Skinner. JS Rayner111 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . I think the reviewer's point is not that the whole draft is copied from Skinner, but that the draft quotes extensively from him without always making it crystal clear where the material comes from. WP:MINREF requires an inline citation for all direct quotations. An example where the draft does it correctly is the block quote in the "Response rate" section. Do that for every quotation.


 * Also, external links, ones that take the reader away from Wikipedia to, for example, a pdf, are not allowed in the text of the article. Turn them into inline citations. One final thing to note is that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Failure to follow the MOS won't prevent acceptance of the draft, but will have to be fixed eventually. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

20:58:57, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Knightrises10
Hi! One of the users/administrators asked me to slightly improved the draft by adding some newspaper or magazine references. As far as I know, there are few but all in Urdu. Also, i wanted to inform you that some articles related to same topics, like Maham Amir, also have no reference from newspaper,etc and have less references. So can't mine by accepted too? It hasn't been rejected either though. Thanks Knightrises10 (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * for the reasons explained on the draft. You may cite references in language other than English, although all other things being equal, English sources, if available, are preferred. It is essential, however, that cited sources be reliable. Remove anything you've written for which you can't find a reliable source. To demonstrate notability, sources must also be independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage of Tabeer.
 * If you find other articles as poorly written as Maham Amir, try to improve them. If they can't be improved they likely will be deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

21:28:27, 26 July 2018 review of submission by Bihlj
Hi, I greatly appreciate some advice on how to get this page published. I would like some clarification. From the comments left by the last decline it seems as though the references are good and the reason our submission was declined was based off of our language? If this is correct I am assuming that the page just needs to be reworded but the references can stay the same. Is this true? If it is the language that needs to be changed one idea was to approach it as a brief article on healthcare workplace hazards. Would this work? Thank you for any information you can provide. Bihlj (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, start by killing the "Vision" and "Mission" sections - nobody outside the organization cares. Concentrate on improving and expanding information about the history of the organization, based on what independent and reliable sources have published. That would be a big improvement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)