Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2018 November 28

= November 28 =

03:53:32, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Mubeen Nizam naik
Mubeen Nizam naik (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

please if you can guide me considering the reference, as the reference is already provided from Wikipedia sources and which has sub-reference considering the therapy.

thanks & Regards


 * Hi, Greetings. I believe you were referring to Draft:MubinoTherapy. Pls note (1) Wikipedia can NOT be the source, so pls remove it from the draft. (2) pls read referencing for beginners for inline citation (source/referring)  info and instruction.  (3) Pls read WP:LINK for inter Wikipedia linking (4) pls read WP:Your First Article to familiar yourself on how to write an article in Wikipedia. Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Request on 04:58:18, 28 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ravikantsurlakar
Why my article was declined?

Ravikantsurlakar (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft was rejected because the topic does not clear the bar of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

05:39:42, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat

 * Accepted. Nice page needs copyediting but good topic. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir! I am a newly born Wikipedian who needs a lot of hard work to make good contributions. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Please give your opinionsFarooqahmadbhat (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

08:33:15, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Sigute from InkAgency
The submission of my added information on Modus Energy was declined due to the references not showing significant coverage regarding the subject. However, the references indeed do have relevant information about the topic. The articles that were added to the reference list are from the most influential media, providing reliable and explicit information about the company. I was wondering, if the submission was declined because the references were mostly in Lithuanian and not in English? I was told in a live chat that it is allowed to have the majority of references in a different language.

Sigute from InkAgency (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Sigute from InkAgency --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

08:45:01, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Thangam123
Thangam123 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

09:55:56, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Cruiser1
This article was rejected with the simple message "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", without any further explanation. However, I do not believe that assessment is correct. This event was covered in various local, national, and | international reliable secondary sources, so should meet WP:GNG. It also resulted in continued coverage and has had long term effects beyond the event itself, so WP:NOTNEWS shouldn't apply.

This page follows WP:SINGLEEVENT which says that "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." This page isn't targeting the individual person (who wouldn't otherwise be notable) but rather the event, which is clearly significant. Compare this page to the various other pages in Category:Bullying_and_suicide which are also titled "Suicide of X" instead of just "X", and use {infobox event} instead of {infobox person}. Compare also to another filmed suicide page, Suicide of Kevin Whitrick, which has been deemed notable enough to easily survive deletion proposal. Not that unfortunate events like this should be considered a contest of course, but Katelyn Davis' case should be considered at least as notable as all these other pages, in that it had much more national and international coverage, her death was actually recorded on video and was seen by literally millions of people (often unwittingly) during its weeks on Facebook, and in the case's later ramifications on modifying policy on Facebook and other social media platforms.

K.e.coffman did the most recent review, and said on his talk page that I could ask for a second opinion here. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

10:57:33, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Julia Kleinham
Julia Kleinham (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi wikipedia,

I need help getting my article approved. I have to meet a deadline to have it published. I will attach a link here to the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trade_of_Bananas_in_India

Thank you, Julia

11:46:41, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Neha Maria Thomas
Hi, Can you help me how to improve the article submission Draft:Xclusive Yachts? I have no paid interest in the subject - i believe it being rdeclined due to this reason? Can you advise the way forward? Thank you

Neha Thomas (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Editor has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.--Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

12:32:33, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Jignesh Gupta
Please give your opinions Jignesh Gupta (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * n.b. Editor has requested the deletion of her draft and it has been G7 speedy deleted. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Request on 15:35:04, 28 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Charitableyouth
15:35:04, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Charitableyouth

I am new to Wikipedia. And I have been trying to create article for inclusion in Wikipaedia. I need the assistance of an experience person to help out. This is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kabiru_Adeniyi_Kulukulu#References Charitableyouth (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

15:37:47, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Kpetrovay
Kpetrovay (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Submission [Draft:Béla_Harkányi] rejected by a schoolboy for "reading like an advertisement".

Perhaps you should also tell, an advertisement for what? A guy who died 80+ years ago??


 * I've accepted the well written page and asked User:Vincent60030 to explain his thinking. I hope he just clicked the wrong button by accident. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

16:14:41, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Savearainbow
I submitted this and got a lot of help from the first editor. The second editor brought up points that didn't exist, as noted below. Also, he accused me of conflict of interest because I was in contact with the band! It's necessary for me to contact the group so I can ask questions and get the right information!

Here is a transcript of my communication on the "talk" page:

Thanks for the review. I'm confused - the rejection said: This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

There WAS a range of independent, reliable, published sources. For example, they were on the front cover of Blues In Britain and had an accompanying article, had numerous reviews over the years in magazines and newspapers from all over the world, and toured all over the UK and Europe. I provided references. There are plenty of other reviews, but unfortunately many are not web accessible without a subscription. I don't understand how you can say what you did about it being "materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" - I didn't write those articles! Rather than being "an advertisement", which would have used superlatives to describe the band, I just stuck to their history and accomplishments. No, they aren't U2 or Led Zeppelin. But they are a recognized Modern Blues band that has gotten steady, significant airplay on blues stations all over the world and have a reasonably large following. If they don't meet the required level of success, despite the luminaries who have recorded the albums, that's one thing. But to say I didn't provide a neutral point of view, or didn't provide independent, reliable, published sources - I must be missing something in what's required. I would appreciate help in getting this to pass muster. Thanks again for your time and voluntary work. Savearainbow (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: please see User_talk:Savearainbow#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So as a fan who knows the band, I can't submit the article? Thanks for the quick response. Savearainbow (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: It's still unclear whether you have a connection to the band or not (WP:COI), since you did not directly answer my question. In any case, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not directly connected to the band other than being a fan. Nowhere in your comments or responses did I see an actual question. Honestly, I feel like we're having two different conversations. You gave critiques that did not apply to my article. You're saying I didn't answer a non-existing question. I already submitted this article (a different editor reviewed it and gave very helpful suggestions) and this concept of COI never came up. I understand you're a volunteer editor and are doing the best you can, but this is quite frustrating.

So at this point I'm reaching out to you. I don't know what K.e.coffman is talking about anymore. Maybe he/she doesn't have experience with musical group submissions? Or maybe I'm doing something wrong but not getting the guidance I'm requesting? The difference between the first editor and K.e.coffman is so marked that, had coffman been the first editor, I would have given up!

Thanks for your help.

Savearainbow (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Accepted I've accepted the page on the basis of radio play and touring. I don't find it promotional. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

17:56:04, 28 November 2018 review of submission by GrayBirdGrayBackground
Hello,

I would like to request a re-review on my submission. My article on the active satellite DAVE (CP-7) was rejected twice despite having several external sources and the actual satellite referenced being in orbit. By comparison, several spacecraft with what I believe to be equal or lesser quality sources have been published on Wikipedia (rightfully so): An example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELFIN (a satellite that launched with DAVE and had its article published prior to launch).

I think that the subject matter is notable since the spacecraft is active in orbit and not just a conceptual design. In addition, the reviewer who twice rejected the article has been banned from Wikipedia and did not seem to have a background in spacecraft.

For these reasons, I am requesting a re-review of the article.

Thank you. GrayBirdGrayBackground (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ Accepted. Reverted Frayae's rejection per WP:BANREVERT and it's good enough for me.  Programming Geek talk to me 18:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

18:52:06, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat
Please give your opinions... If anything is needed to improve, please let me know. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

18:57:08, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Danisetyanto
Danisetyanto (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

19:13:33, 28 November 2018 review of draft by JamesJ1992
We have gotten our article denied twice so I have restructured the article using new references. What else do we need to do in order to make the page strong enough to publish? JamesJ1992 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * - hello, unfortunately Gavin Clarkson fails the political notability requirements - these are some of the strictest in wikipedia. The subject has not won either of the main elections he has participated in, and does not appear to satisfy notability in a different method. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

19:25:29, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Chadthebeasthardy
Chadthebeasthardy (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it.


 * No, you didn't. It's still an autobiography that does not have any reliable sources or any claim of notability.  Programming Geek talk to me 21:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * CSD'd thanks for bringing this to our attention. This is spam for your membership site. Speedy deletion sought. Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

21:04:05, 28 November 2018 review of draft by 72.15.52.170
I am unclear as to why none of the sources are considered "significant coverage", since one of the articles in Playback Magazine (essentially the Canadian Variety Magazine) specifically makes mention of Highball.TV as the subject of the article, the launch of which is the reason for the article itself. Is it that the national industry coverage that Playback covers is Canadian? Or is the Playback article not long/detailed enough? This is the average length of a breaking news story for this magazine.

72.15.52.170 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi 72.15.52.170. The decline notice lists five properties that sources must have, of which "significant coverage" is only one. A trouble with Playback (and Northernstars.ca) is a lack of another of the five properties, independence. Both are regurgitations of a press release by Highball, so not independent of it. The government of Canada source lacks significant coverage. The two reviews and the radio interview don't mention Highball. And the Highball website of course is not independent of Highball. It may be unrealistic of you to expect that a service launched last month would have garnered the independent, in-depth coverage over time that is required to demonstrate suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Set the topic aside for a few years and reexamine it then. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

22:59:33, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Amatorium
I've edited this article several times now. The text has references, it is not a copy of another one and yet it is still not approved. There is a page on this article on the original Bulgarian Wiki, which is similar and is official and yet this is constantly rejected. I don't understand if 4 different references from various sources confirming the information of the article are not enough, I don't know what is.

Amatorium (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Accepted Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)