Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 24

= January 24 =

03:16:40, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Jelliott4
I'm baffled as to why this article has been rejected for WP:GNG. Firstly, how can an American technological achievement be of suitable notability for German-language Wikipedia, but a direct translation of the existing German article is somehow inadequately notable for inclusion in the English-language version of Wikipedia? Furthermore, it's not at all clear how this article could possibly be construed as failing to meet the criteria laid out at WP:GNG. There are four bullets there (if we ignore the one that merely defines "presumed"): 1) Significant coverage--the article has four sources, three published books and one newspaper article--even by the most stringent definition of "significant coverage," I'd contend that the latter two clearly count. 2) Reliable--again, three published books (one published by SAE, no less) and one newspaper article. 3) Secondary sources--while two sources are encyclopedic in nature (tertiary source) and the newspaper article relies almost exclusively on firsthand quotations (arguably primary source), the aforementioned SAE-published book is clearly a secondary source. 4) Independent--it's almost axiomatic that books written by historians in 1973, 1996, and 2005 are independent of a one-off technological achievement that occurred 1878. What am I missing here? Thanks! Jelliott4 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Jelliott4 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Don't stress over the decline. First try to give the reviewer what they want. To that end I've added, to a further reading section, a baker's dozen of contemporary newspaper articles. You can get them through historical newspaper databases such as NewspaperArchive. If you don't have access through a library, WP:RX can get the article for you. You don't have to use all of them, but try to use a few to expand on what came from the books.


 * I also reorganized the original references. I don't know this particular reviewer's process, but the way the references were arranged there's a danger that a reviewer wouldn't even see the bibliography section. Many reviewers look first at the references section, and look no further if they don't like what they see. The former references section made it look as though all the content came from one author - Kimes. You can further improve the draft's chances by using inline citations to show what material came from Georgano and what from Donald. The guidelines say you don't have to do this, but since you cite Kimes inline, you clearly know how, and it may be more pragmatic to cite all of them inline than to stand on principle and argue that you shouldn't have to. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow; thanks, ! And no, I don't have access to to all the newspaper articles you cited, nor to the original sources (which are just a copy of those cited on the original German-language Wikipedia article).  But one of your newspaper articles was available online, so I added that as an inline citation where it made sense to do so.  I guess I'll resubmit and see what happens.
 * Thanks again! Jelliott4 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

03:26:13, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Pennylwang
Dear Mr./Ms.,

Regarding my rejected edit, I understand it did not have any references, and now additional references have been added. However, after clicking the Publish changes, it is still rejected,could you kindly let me know if there's more I need to do? Appreciate your help. Penny Pennylwang (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - Hi there. Two things of note:


 * You haven't actually resubmitted your draft/sandbox - "publish changes" means that you saved you edits (which is vital!). However you need to redo the process you used to put it back into the Articles for Creation queue for another review.


 * AfC tags (decline and rejected) stay there, so future reviewers can see what caused past versions to be declined, and so what they should focus their reviewing on. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Whispering - You should not have rejected the draft. You should have declined the draft.  The Reject option is only for submissions that are not appropriate for improvement and resubmission.  The submission was not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.  That option should be specified for pages that are misuses of Wikipedia, advertising (the most common violation of the purpose of Wikipedia), attack pages, or vandalism.  It was merely not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, but was a good-faith attempt at a submission.  I have not evaluated whether it should be accepted; some film festivals are notable, and some film festivals are not notable.  By rejecting the submission, you made it temporarily impossible to create a new draft with the same title.  So do not reject a submission unless you think that there can't be another submission with the same title.  (Preventing another submission is fine for garage bands, non-notable local companies, and non-notable people.)  I have taken care of the name problem by moving the rejected draft out of the way.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Pennylwang - I apologize on behalf of AFC for the mistaken rejection of your draft, which should have been declined. Your new draft is now waiting for evaluation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft is at Draft:Golden Tree International Documentary Film Festival. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, one of the core tenets here at Wikipedia no original research isn't a reason to reject a draft? I reject anything that doesn't have sources. I can't tell if it's not original research or not if it doesn't have sources.  Whispering ( t ) 13:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Whispering - First, some things are not original research. People are never original research, and companies are never original research.  They are not notable without sources, but you can tell, even without sources, that they are not original research.  Events are not original research.  They are not notable without sources, but you can tell, even without sources, that an event is not original research.  A film festival is not original research.  It is true that we do not accept original research, but some things are not original research, and original research is not the only reason to decline or reject things.
 * Second, if you can't tell whether an idea is original research because it doesn't have sources, it is almost always better to decline it as apparently original research than to reject it. If the author provides sources, it might not be original research.  (It might still be original research if the sources are his own publications.)
 * Third, save rejection for when you can be reasonably sure that a resubmission will be a waste of time. I see a lot of submissions that are crud, and where a resubmission will be a waste of time.  This wasn't a case where resubmission was a waste of time, even though it was declined again.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, apparently I've been doing it wrong then. I'll do better.  Whispering ( t ) 20:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

08:48:08, 24 January 2019 review of draft by Otterlyhwi
Hi! I would like to ask for your help to review this article I have made. First of all, I'm sorry if my wording or grammar is a bit off. There is (2) things that I need more guidance, in which it's about my draft article titled Lee Dae-hwi.

1) How do I prove that the subject of the article is relevant enough in the songwriting area? Lee Dae-hwi has made his name in the Korean Medias that he has been active in making, composing, producing songs. He already made 8 songs (1 unreleased in music sites, but has been played on broadcast). As he already active as songwriter, it is noted that he still has not released his songs with himself as the singer. I have added the online news links for the references, but it seems that the last review I got is that it's still did not show significant coverage and not enough to prove his relevancy in such area.

2) How do I prove that Lee Dae-hwi's released songs has been released legally / How do i credit them properly? As I got the review that my article has not meet the Notability of musician, I need your guidance in which part(s) that I should fix. I need to know if I have to add more details for the songs' copyrights. Lastly, Thank you so much for your patience in reading my questions. I would very much appreciate it if you could help me. --Otterlyhwi (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Otterlyhwi (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

14:52:05, 24 January 2019 review of submission by 2409:4070:2093:54A7:C038:4361:BEA7:EF0B
Well he is a youth activist working towards various organisations, his profile may be used by other people to understand him better

2409:4070:2093:54A7:C038:4361:BEA7:EF0B (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

15:05:16, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Positivity2
We have added more notable information

Ralf Friedrichs ( Born in Germany October 31,1961) He is an Author of various books https://g.co/kgs/FNNVsV and https://g.co/kgs/bSdVvU and has exclusively written articles for TheFix online magazines https://www.thefix.com/living-sober/look-through-windshield-life-not-rear-view-mirror-life, https://www.thefix.com/living-sober/you-owe-it-yourself-be-great, https://www.thefix.com/living-sober/even-after-addiction-while-recovery-believe-yourself and the Sobernation magazine, https://sobernation.com/dont-ever-give-up-my-advice-that-will-inspire-you-forever/ inspiring millions around the world.He has podcasts Ralf Friedrichs Show on Iheartradio, https://www.iheart.com/podcast/966-ralf-friedrichss-show-30264070/?cmp=android_share and on Google Music, https://play.google.com/music/m/Iincn4f5jejfoeuysowxroi4spq?t=Ralf_Friedrichs_s_Show. His show Take Your Life Back Today Show has had over 2400 episodes on Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCufPHmusCuRRtfm7cvmdBFw.

Positivity2 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - as far as I can tell, all this is primary content - links to things he has written. Notability has to be established by secondary sources - for author notability and Web notability the usual form is secondary works about his work. This is often in the form of reviews. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

16:02:57, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Rosiedylan59
Rosiedylan59 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

As suggested, I have edited the article so that it only includes secondary sources citing the information provided. I've also made a few grammatical edits that help the article to read more like an encyclopedic entry. Please consider these changes and let me know if there is anything else I can omit or include to improve this piece! I look forward to your comments.

16:48:40, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Jeyabalajitm
I have updated the references of the source from various government websites, other public forums and books from different authors. Please re-review.

Jeyabalajitm (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

17:07:30, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Aslivker
I have added additional Notability by industry experts, leading business analysts and established community in API Management space. Also, I used very similar article as an example of a valid and published Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong_Inc.

Thank you for your assistance. I will appreciate any feedback to make this article accepted. Andrew Slivker Aslivker (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

18:34:42, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Anarulkhaled786
Anarulkhaled786 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - there functionally isn't any content in this. Its only source also would appear not be suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

18:46:15, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Tennisevaluation
Tennisevaluation (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Hello, I am makig a new article on Wikipedia and the question is if it will be automatically done for lets say wikipedia slovakia or other countries or I have to do this separately from each country I iwsh to have it in? Also my father was a famous athlete but then there was no intertnet he was representing his coutry and is hundrets of magazines an news a[ers and nothing on internet.. this way i see wkipedia as absolutelly ....you know....


 * - articles don't automatically translate across, as machine translating is too poor. Additionally different wikis do things in different ways (including what they decide to include), so something acceptable here might not be elsewhere.


 * If you created an en-wiki article, someone looking to create one in another language might find this one and translate it. That however is fairly rare. Others deliberately seek out articles to translate, but given our 5.7 million articles is presumably also quite rare.


 * The quickest route (all supposing you create a suitable article here first, of course) is to take a look at our translation advice page, though this is fairly contingent in speaking Slovakian, of course. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

19:43:35, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Potatowrite
I have updated this page to remove corporate language and rely on reliable sources.

Potatowrite (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

22:41:45, 24 January 2019 review of draft by Sikh Milly
Hello I please need some help regarding some page coding. I am creating an artist profile for UK Grime MC 'Subten' but the list of his Singles keep appearing at the bottom of the page under the References and I cannot seem to get the table in the right place. Guidance would be appreciated thank you. it's currently under Draft:Subten.

Sikh Milly (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Theroadislong (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

23:06:07, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Nickbaines1
Hi there, I was wondering if you could tell me what the submission on Judy Hall was missing to be included. The intial two times it was declined I was given reasons and suggestions of what to add. The third time the post was rejected. I would like to know what additional material is needed. DO you need me to reference all 45 published books? More personal bio details such as age, DOB, place of birth? Pictures?

I have a lot of extensive career information the subject's credentials in the Mind Body and Spirit market, though much of this is tied to published works, Amazon links (which I know is not allowed) and details that I cannot link to independent third party articles.

Advice on how to proceed, and on what is needed to legitimise this article to be accepted would be greatly received as this rejection didn't highlight anything for me to work on.

Best Nick

Nickbaines1 (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)