Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 April 2

= April 2 =

08:52:53, 2 April 2019 review of submission by 93.43.35.73
Dear @K.e.coffman

Before writing this page, I took the following page as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintiq.

Can you please let me know what can be done (added, removed, modified) in order to have this page respecting the rules of Wikipedia.

Thank you

93.43.35.73 (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the note on the draft, read the linksd policies. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

09:06:56, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Roxana Leonte
Hello. Saw that my request was rejected and I would really love to know why. When i did my research i did notice that nicknames are a part of Wikipedia’s archive. The same Gabriel Iglesias as this nickname and it can be found here. All I really want is for people to be able to know where the airplane got its name from as many people claim nowadays thta they called him like this. I am not breaking any rules of this page all i want is to inform people of the origins of the nickname Fluffy for the airplane A380. If i can change something about it, please let me know. Roxana Leonte (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly a joke - which is vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

11:16:17, 2 April 2019 review of submission by D574h
This article was declined for a comment stating that not enough sourcing was provided. The article links several sources from South Bend, Indiana's Municipal Code, in addition to a link to the official .gov website for the flag of South Bend, Indiana with identical information. This article and the official website were created in tandem, which is why information sourced is from the Municipal Code, not just "local papers".D574h (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC) D574h (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

12:30:02, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Igor Kachevskyi
Kindly review the article. I added more information and some references. Thanks Igor Kachevskyi (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

12:37:27, 2 April 2019 review of submission by MarionPB
{{Lafc|username=MarionPB|ts=12:37:27, 2 April 2019|page=

MarionPB (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

I am a professional author, technical writer, and feature writer. So far I have no clear direction about an entry I have created on Peter G Demers. The subject has made notable contributions to the field of sports medicine and professional hockey. My approach and sourcing have been criticized and yet my submission meets and exceeds the approach and caliber of other pages on Wikipedia. Moreover, an image I have full copyrights to continues to be deleted.

I am appealing these changes, and requesting that the page on Peter G Demers be published, along with the image. I am glad to continue editing as needed but there has been zero clarity on what is expected. In addition, this page is modeled after existing Wikipedia pages and meets or exceeds that model.

Thank you,

MarionPB (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * {{Ping|MarionPB}} I can refer you to WP:NHL, the ice hockey WikiProject, for sourcing and formatting advice, but I disagree with your claim that it "meets or exceeds" the page model; the section about his time with the Kings in particular seems quite WP:PUFFy.  JTP {{sup|(talk • contribs)}} 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I described the subject's experience as one would expect in a Wikipedia article. The person who is the subject of this article has contributed to hockey and to sports medicine in a notable way. I would like this page to successfully be published, and am willing to take the necessary steps to do so. The requirements seem to change however and the editors are condescending. I am a professional.

I also would like to know how to un-delete the photo I submitted. I have all copyright permission to the image and the pictured certificate contents. Yet the image continues to be deleted.

Do you have any women editors and writers? So far I haven't seen evidence of any.

Thanks. MarionPB (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi {{U|MarionPB}}. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are constantly changing, but the phenomenon you're experiencing is something different, what it's like to write for thousands of editors. Each reviewer may focus on something different.
 * What leaps out at me is the draft's heavy reliance on frozenroyalty.net as a source. It's self-published, a blog written and published by Gann Matsuda. Wikipedia policy says, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." You could replace frozenroyalty.net with a reliable source, remove all the content sourced from it, or wait until Pete Demers is dead. Without frozenroyalty.net, the draft has only two sources of any depth, Mass Live and Fox Sports. The latter is a primary source interview. To the extent that it's Demers talking about Demers, it may lack sufficient independence to help establish notability.
 * I recommend setting aside for now the question of the photo. The presence or absence of a photo will have no effect on whether the draft is accepted for publication.
 * Editors who choose to self-identify as female can be found in Category:Female Wikipedians, but given the anonymous nature of editing, many editors choose not to disclose personal information. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

15:42:27, 2 April 2019 review of draft by ACPMPRF
Should we add more detail to our article, e.g., History, Mission, Goals, Research Grants Awarded, Images, etc.? Do we have enough external/reliable links? Any other advice to improve our article is appreciated!

ACPMPRF (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

16:35:04, 2 April 2019 review of submission by Mpame
I have revised my article to remove any element(s) of business advertising Mpame (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * rejected draft resubmitted under new name: Draft:THE EU REPRESENTATIVE (Art 27. GDPR). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)