Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 June 1

= June 1 =

01:18:38, 1 June 2018 review of submission by 198.11.235.239
Can You Fix The reference I made is still broken can you fix it now. 198.11.235.239 (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Worldbruce (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

12:09:35, 1 June 2018 review of submission by Rob1601
Rob1601 (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The references here aren't showing that this app is notable. Simply proving it exists on google play or the app store is not enough, you need to show reliable independent sources talk about the subject.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Request on 12:22:13, 1 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by A.djan
The reason left was: My article submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. But all of the information given in it in my opinion is neutral and does not rely on materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. Sourcing is right and got from publishing journals and magazines. Please, assist.

A.djan (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi I have acepted it, thanks for contributing a new article to Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

13:31:13, 1 June 2018 review of submission by Davidneyens
Hello, this is my first article submsision to Wikipedia. Can you kindly advise how 3 published reference to the subject of the article, in reputable and reliable publications including Forbes and the UK's Motor Sport magazine are not to be considered reliable?

Please help me to understand this, i.e. what is wrong wiht th ereferences cited. I feel I have followed the guidelines.

YOur assistance is appreciated. There are plenty of other articles that do not appear to be held to the standard of my article.

Best regards,

David Neyens Davidneyens (talk) Davidneyens (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Of the four sources cited, the first doesn't mention Renwick. The second makes only passing mention of him, it is not significant coverage. The third is an advertisement by him, so not independent. The fourth quotes him several times but contains very little content about him, three or four sentences at best. To establish that he is notable, the draft would need several independent reliable sources that go into greater depth about him.


 * If his notability can be established, the next problem is that all content must be verifiable. Ninety percent of the draft didn't come from the four cited sources, which leaves the reader wondering where it did come from, or whether it's just made up. A good exercise for new editors is to cite the source(s) for each statement at the end of the sentence, using inline citations. The citations need not all remain in the finished product (if an entire paragraph is based on one source, for example, a single citation at the end of the paragraph is sufficient), but the exercise helps identify unsourced information. If no source can be cited, remove the content.


 * Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do no meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is not a persuasive argument for creating more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * - A quick additional comment. Wikipedia requires that editors with a connection to the subject they're writing about, declare that connection if it's a Conflict of interest. This,, suggests that the conflict policy may apply here. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

13:46:57, 1 June 2018 review of submission by Davidpenner
Hello, my name is David Penner, and I've been working on trying to get a page up for my company, MobyMax.

I've made a couple submissions now, and I'm still being told that the article reads like an advertisement. I'm hoping you can help me identify what exactly makes it advertisement-like, so that I can correct it. I could definitely remove the links to press releases and such if that would help.

Any help would be much appreciated! Thank you, David Davidpenner (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - as a reviewer who declined the submission, to me the whole thing reads like an advert for a company that doesn’t meet our Notability guidelines for corporations. New editors often think that the absence of overtly promotional language/content means it isn’t an ad. Actually, the language is secondary, what is central is presence on Wikipedia, for the kudos and the hits. That’s why, in my judgement, it’s not a suitable draft and it won’t be made more suitable by amendments to the text. KJP1 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Article for creation
Hello the draft which i presented here is not created by me but i improved that draft and now its supported by all reliable sources, one source is from Dawn News, the other from Daily Times and Mangobaaz. I am here to request further improvement and guideness and if possible accept that draft too. Best regards

16:39:16, 1 June 2018 review of submission by 198.120.252.216
I am not sure what further information would be needed to make this a notable submission. I followed the format and approach of several other women in science/astronomy articles, some of which had far fewer accomplishments or references (See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_K._Noble and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Wiseman). I'd be happy to revise, but I have no idea what will help.

198.120.252.216 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

16:55:45, 1 June 2018 review of submission by Joseph Vijay Guitarist
Please help me to find the way to write notability Joseph Vijay Guitarist (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Greetings to you. I refer to you article here - User:Joseph Vijay Guitarist/sandbox. Please note that
 * For visit WP:MUSICBIO to familiar musician notability guidelines. Subject meets the guidelines will be merit a stand alone page in Wikipedia. For the current stage, the subject fails to meet the guidelines.
 * Content added need to be support by independent, reliable source such as source from major newspaper or publications. You article have no source at all.
 * Conflict of interest (COI)- You have COT with the subject of the article as you are writing about yourself.  Wikipedia strongly discourage COI article and disclosures are needed - pls see WP:COI.
 * Please read WP:Your first article to learn more about write article in Wikipedia.
 * Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Request on 21:58:00, 1 June 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by LaundryPizza03
The page this draft supposedly duplicates is a redirect. Its target does not currently mention the subject of this draft. There is no reason why the redirect cannot be deleted to make way for a move.

– Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 21:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been accepted by a reviewer that knows better than me. Yes the title was a redirect to a presumably closely related topic. You can always wrote over a redirect with your own work. You don't need AfC. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)