Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 August 27

= August 27 =

00:54:04, 27 August 2019 review of draft by DriverSafety
Hello, I just submitted my first article and cannot solve two small editing problems.

First, there is extra text at the end of the page that appears when I publish the changes but is not apparent when I try to edit the same page. Since I cannot see it on the editing application, I cannot delete it.

Second, one of my citations has missing information but I do not know how to reopen that citation to add the information.

Thanks

DriverSafety (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC) DriverSafety (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

06:12:22, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Malikravinder
Hi There,

Please help us know the reason for rejection of this page and accordingly we can make the changes. Please help us to make this page live. Can we add more content or reference links.

Please help into this. Malikravinder (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Other reviewers already left all the explanations; the company is not notable. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting a company. We write encyclopedic articles based on independent in-depth sources. The article only uses directory entries and sources connected to the subject. —  HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

10:48:11, 27 August 2019 review of submission by E-Stylus
The draft's references appear to meet notability guidelines for WP:GNG and/or WP:ARTIST. Industry Magazine, Westchester Magazine, Brownstoner Magazine, and Domino Magazine show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". While these references are interview based, the content includes commentary from the publications. Also, The LuxPad and HGTV show that "the person is regarded as an important figure" and that "the person's work won significant critical attention". Per site policy, my paid contribution disclosure is noted on the draft's talk page, however the content was written with the aim of meeting WP:NPOV. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources, I agree with reviewer conclusion that the person does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO/WP:NCREATIVE at this time. In short, the best summary is that is fails WP:SUSTAINED -- all attention was on a single interior design work carried out by the person. And almost all material is supported by their own comments, thus all sources fail at being independent. The commentary portions are very brief and mostly about the work and not the person. Appearing in "Top X" lists is definitely not an indication of "significant critical attention". — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Industry Magazine, Westchester Magazine, Brownstoner Magazine, and Domino Magazine each cover different interior design works completed by the subject. WP:GNG does not appear to exclude interview based references with commentary from a publication on a subject's work, but rather references "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." The LuxPad "Top X" reference was to show that "the person is regarded as an important figure" under WP:ARTIST. According to the publication, the subject and her company were ranked among the top 20 interior designers in the state of New York based on client reviews from Houzz. The HGTV reference was to show "the person's work won significant critical attention" under WP:ARTIST. The subject's designs were selected by HGTV judges as a winner of a national competition. E-Stylus (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any update regarding the above correspondence? Based on site policy, the content of the draft did not appear to warrant a rejection. Thanks. E-Stylus (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3 reviewers have expresses the same conclusion, so I'm not sure what additional update I can provide. I don't agree with your source interpretation. Sources have to be in-depth and about the subject and not about a single event. May be someone else will comment on this, but I don't really have anything to add. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

11:25:27, 27 August 2019 review of submission by JourneywithAJ
JourneywithAJ (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The article lacks any quality sources and I believe the reviewer was correct in declining it for the reason that the subject is not notable. Wikipedia is not the place to have personal profiles, because we write encyclopedic articles based on reliable independent in-depth sources. —  HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

11:31:33, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Josephwikiuser2021
Josephwikiuser2021 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

12:13:25, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Vikash16
Vikash16 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

12:28:04, 27 August 2019 review of draft by Veronika Miltrová
Veronika Miltrová (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

13:12:03, 27 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) 13:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

13:50:04, 27 August 2019 review of draft by 2604:2000:1540:20F3:DDAE:E9BC:FA84:3128
I don't understand why my article was declined.

2604:2000:1540:20F3:DDAE:E9BC:FA84:3128 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

13:51:16, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Andrei339
Hi David! Can you kindly elaborate on what has to be done in order for our corporate page to be published on Wikipedia?

Andrei Cucleschin (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not publish "corporate pages" or equivalent articles that are basically company profiles of promotional nature. Wikipedia articles have to be written in encyclopedic manner using quality sourcing, of which there are none in the article. I imagine you would have already used such sources if they existed, so there's nothing to be done because the company is not notable in Wikipedia's terms. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping as the editor was mentioned directly. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

14:46:29, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Augusty Bhasy
Augusty Bhasy (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

14:46:52, 27 August 2019 review of draft by Tothemoonsands
This wiki page was declined due to being a non-notable organization. I have added additional references to help prove that this is in fact a notable organization. I would like additional clarification as to why this was deemed non-notable, when in fact, it is a notable organization.

Tothemoonsands (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Notable" means notability according to Wikipedia's guideline, not any other interpretation. This means quality sources, as explained in the decline reason. All sources fail at least one of the criteria, mainly being in-depth and independent. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:14:54, 27 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Eeberbach
I tried to send a draft page for review and potential posting at English Wikipedia. However, a few times I got a rejection notice that my file posted and saved at sandbox has been posted on Wikimedia Commons (which is for different purposes), or my submission was empty. I tried to post page on Evolutionary automata in pdf. What am I doing wrong?

Eeberbach (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! You should not try to upload .PDFs. Wikipedia articles are written as text when you edit (any) page. So "making a page" means that you will write the content, specifically when you click "Edit" when visiting User:Eeberbach/sandbox. See Help:Editing. If you wrote the PDF yourself, you can start by copying the text there (however do not copy anything you didn't write or don't want to license under Wikipedia's terms). You can resubmit the page/draft later when you have finished writing it. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

16:18:35, 27 August 2019 review of submission by RenRen070193
I starting create a revised version of Philippine name template just to make it simpler, shorter and more relevant than the present version. That's is why I ask it for re-review.RenRen070193 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

16:23:32, 27 August 2019 review of draft by Promise.im00
A reviewer declined my draft on Mrittikay Mohakal and says This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. But in my draft I have given many references. I have given links of even the government websites of Bangladesh. I want to know specifically why that was declined. Promise.im00 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I was not one of the editors who reviewed your draft, but looking at the draft I agree with their assessment and subsequent declines. The main issue is your draft does not cite an adequate number of reliable sources; note that sites like Wordpress and YouTube are not considered to be reliable. Also, please ensure that you cite sources properly—WP:REFHELP might be worth a look. If you can find and cite more in-depth, independent (non WP:PRIMARY) coverage in reliable sources, your draft may be accepted. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

20:39:46, 27 August 2019 review of draft by Joelclyne
I realise that there are not a lot of what you would consider reputable sources, however as its about a magician, most of that is available is not over the counter stuff. By that I don't mean its illegal, more so that its only going to be available through specialist outlets. Now I was very careful not to just link to all the products that have been released, which prove that he is a specialist in his field as I did not want the article to come across as just an advert which it is not. Having looked at other mentalist wiki pages, Luke Jermay, Bob Cassidy, Paul Brook for example. I can find others if you want. I can not see how my article which has more information about the artist has been declined while the others mentioned have less content, links and references. Any help in this would be great, or if you could tell me why they were approved and mine not that would also help considerably.

Joelclyne (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * - we could consider niche expert publications, but there isn't enough to source him that actually is reliable, as the reviewer said. One suggestion, see if you can find if any of his publications have received 2 reliable reviews. Then he'd be notable via Author notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought NAUTHOR exception to NOTINHERITED was only for significant works, so 2 reviews wouldn't even come close to it? — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The "significant" bit applies to the scale of work - it's not clear if the published works are more like pamphlets or short works, in which case they wouldn't meet that, or full books, in which case they would. The latter half covers reviewing/analysis depth required, in this case " multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Nosebagbear (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

23:44:21, 27 August 2019 review of submission by Eddy Leman
My submission for Pat Casey's biography was rejected on 3 July 2019 by Dan arndt. The reason for rejection being the content does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. I have since included citations for the article and thus requesting a re-review. Thank you.Eddy Leman (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Eddy Leman (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft is back in the pool to be reviewed. The first two paragraphs of the body and most of the third paragraph still cite no sources. Source them, delete them, or expect the draft to be declined again. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will do so.Eddy Leman (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)