Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 August 15

= August 15 =

08:05:23, 15 August 2019 review of submission by 161.5.6.230
My draft was declined because it does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Could someone please tell me exactly what text I need to change in order to have this page accepted asap? Thanks. 161.5.6.230 (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article partly reads like something you would find on a company's profile -- what they do, what they provide, their objectives and goals, all their products, collaborations, etc. That's not encyclopedic, that's just what the company themselves would say. What we write about is primarily "consequences" of all those things -- how did their products and services affect the world, what awards or controversies they had, what was the company's history and growth, how people reacted to their presence and products, what other significant impact the company has had, etc. Basically, the whole "Goals" section is (likely) inappropriate because it's based on their own sources. "External Links" should have only one link -- their official websites. Sources should be independent. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

10:51:14, 15 August 2019 review of submission by 49.198.7.235
I submitted a draft for Hervé Ghesquière. He was extensively reported in international media and supported by reporters without borders. The reason for rejection was that the references were not related to the subject. The references deal exclusively with the subject, entirely focus on the subject of the article and are non-trivial. Although primarily a french subject, it was also reported in English. It is also mentioned in current events, already on wikipedia. Portal:Current events/2011 June 30, "Two freed French journalists, Herve Ghesquiere and Stephane Taponier, return to France after being held captive in Afghanistan by the Taliban for 18 months. (AFP via France 24)" he is also mentioned in the reporters without borders article. The same article exists on the French Wikipedia, which i recognized in a comment tag at the top of the draft to indicate that i took resources from that page. As such the reason for rejection was not valid and requires review. 49.198.7.235 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC) 49.198.7.235 (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The articles are not about the person, they are news about the event of them and another journalist. That's the fundamental difference. Notability, broadly speaking, requires sources that are about the subject themselves, not about some other event even where the subject may be central. In other words, there is nothing to write in the article except about this event, and that's exactly what the article is right now, which fails WP:NOTNEWS. I agree with the reviewer's assessment that it doesn't reach the notability criteria. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

12:12:24, 15 August 2019 review of submission by Pin3appl385
Pin3appl385 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Why has this been rejected i have not finished writing the article


 * - you had submitted to AfC review, which is only for drafts intended to become articles. While of course you can edit it while it's in the queue, it should only go in when you think it's of a minimum quality to become an article. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok great but now it wont let me do anything with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pin3appl385 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the topic (not just the current draft) is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem, so volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. If you have no conflict of interest with regard to the subject, then Articles for creation is an optional process for you, you may write directly at Burly Bear. The reviewer's expert opinion is that if you do, the article will be deleted, and I concur. Picking a topic worth writing an encyclopedia article about is not easy. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

14:09:28, 15 August 2019 review of draft by Thatguy1987
Hello! I just wanted to make sure I addressed the proper requested changes prior to re-review for this article. Thank you so much! Thatguy1987 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

18:38:47, 15 August 2019 review of draft by MegaphoneGTG
I would like to know how to prove that the newspaper articles cited in my draft provide significant coverage of the topic. I understand that the online links mostly mention the group "in passing", but I disagree that all the citations should be dismissed. Is there a way I can show, prove, or upload the reliab]e newspaper articles that give solid facts on this band?

MegaphoneGTG (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

19:12:27, 15 August 2019 review of submission by AnnaBittner
Hi. Previously my coworker submitted a article on OANDA that was rejected at AfC for not including “difficulties the company may have faced,” for including unsourced puffery, and for lacking evidence of notability. I thought that he addressed this feedback in his re-submission with neutral content, evidence of notability, and proper citations. However, his resubmission at Draft:OANDA was rejected for reasons I don’t fully understand: The template told me to come here to ask for advice. My understanding was that it was ok for me to submit a page to AfC if it was neutrally written and included multiple press articles from journalists where Oanda is the subject of an in-depth article.
 * Because it “Breaks Terms of Use” but he disclosed his conflict of interest on his user page. Is there some other aspect to the Terms of Use he needs to comply with?
 * Because “The submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.” Are company pages not allowed?

AnnaBittner (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess they suspect violations of WP:PAID. Since that is a Terms of use requirement (Section 4), violations of that cannot be accepted. 2001:16B8:50F9:1600:EC2D:6E8D:EED4:E45F (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

19:23:23, 15 August 2019 review of submission by Tuwarg
Hi, With the draft, I've added my comment on discussion page. It seems to me reviewer have not looked at it. I've added there some information why I consider subject notable and how sources meet requirements. If that's not enough, still it would be nice to receive more detailed information why the topic is not considered notable. Could you provide more feedback or rereview the submission? Thanks.

Tuwarg (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

21:19:26, 15 August 2019 review of submission by Alojzy.leszcz
Hello. As this is my first article, I'd prefer to make sure I understand exactly why the first draft was rejected. If my understanding is correct, the article is missing additional references to independent sources, right ? Is there anything else that needs to be changed ? Regards

Alojzy.leszcz (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

23:28:09, 15 August 2019 review of draft by Bedhasa
Bedhasa (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

23:28:09, 15 August 2019 review of submission by Bedhasa


 * - I've reviewed this, please have a look at both of the issues I highlighted. Waktolla is definitely notable, but there are other requirements an article (particularly a biography) must meet. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)