Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 28

= January 28 =

03:04:45, 28 January 2019 review of draft by E2J3
E2J3 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I am a newer editor and trying to add my first article. The first editor who reviewed the article said it wasn't notable enough or couldn't tell if it was notable due to lack of citations, so I added several additional citations to articles in magazines and additional news coverage. The second editor said they wouldn't approve it because it looked like citations had just been thrown at it giving it the appearance of Refbombing the page. I'd like to improve the citations if I've not been clear with them. I definitely wasn't trying to bomb the page to give the appearance of notability. Help would be appreciated.

06:19:25, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Nirupammathur
Because I've revised my article and added more details to it. Please insist if any kind of change is required to the subject. It would be helpful for me as well. Nirupammathur (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

07:32:20, 28 January 2019 review of draft by Cmclean74
Hi, I have submitted a draft of a page which has been declined with the reason being that my sources are all self-created. I don't really understand this comment as my inline reference are places like the New York Times, Washington Post, CBC, Toronto Star, National newspaper and Google Cultural Institute. If there are individual issues I can understand that and can work to fix them, but it seems surprising that sources such as those are not sufficient (and they are certainly not created by me!) Cmclean74 (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Cmclean74 (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

08:20:42, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Salemsalehsa
 * I declined your draft because it reads like an advertisment for the foundation, articles need to be written in a neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

08:20:42, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Salemsalehsa
This page is a translation for an already exist approved page in Arabic in this link: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9_(%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B9), and its already includes many useful and helpful information for a lot of people.

Qiddiya Area/Project where I belong to; deserve to have a page in wikipedia to share information about it same as any other place.

Salemsalehsa (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

09:03:57, 28 January 2019 review of draft by Whizzy run
Whizzy run (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am leaving some comments at the top of your draft shortly. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

09:38:30, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Naveengrande
Naveengrande (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As the decline says he is not notable enough for an article, you have supplied no sources whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

13:51:57, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Shailaza
The news of my book has been published in English Daily DNA dated 16 January 2019. http://epaper2.dnaindia.com/index.php?pagedate=2019-1-16&edcode=131201&subcode=131201&mod=1&pgnum=2 in the after hours edition. My articles have been published in the English section of Rashtradoot Newspaper http://epaper.rashtradoot.com/1999539/RASHTRADOOT-JAIPUR/28january2019#page/6/2 (page 6/11): Interview with Jeffery Archer http://epaper.rashtradoot.com/1997464/RASHTRADOOT-JAIPUR/26january2019#page/6/2 (page 6/11): Interview with Abhishek Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhishek_Singh_(artist) http://epaper.rashtradoot.com/1994438/RASHTRADOOT-JAIPUR/24january2019#page/6 : Article on food of Jaipur Literature Festival http://epaper.rashtradoot.com/1988224/RASHTRADOOT-JAIPUR/20january2019#page/6 : Article on the preparation at the Jaipur Literature Festival

This is one of the oldest newspapers in Rajasthan. Shailaza (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a place for free advertising about your book. The fact that you've had articles published in newspapers doesn't help show notability of you or the book. The criteria for which books should have articles about them in Wikipedia are found here: WP:NBOOK and for biographies it is WP:NBIO. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

15:36:19, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Lmsmaster
The article was rejected for 'not being notable enough'. There are a number of other LMS which have the same importance and equivalent sourcing which remain in the system, most notably DoceboLMS, which is very similar to LearnUpon. I note that the other closest equivalent to LearnUpon and Docebo, Litmos, has also been removed in the last few months. This does not seem consistent.

Lmsmaster (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because there's an article about one of your competitor's products, it doesn't automatically follow that there should be one about yours. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article is considered on its merits. The DoceboLMS article was created eight years ago. The criteria for inclusion have changed since then. The deletion of the Litmos article illustrates that Wikipedia is constantly evolving and articles that don't belong are often deleted, once someone spots that they don't meet the criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

15:50:08, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Acmad1930
The page was rejected with undefined as the reason and I'm just looking for a clearer answer. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acmad1930 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello you would have to email the decliner to ask the specifics; I find it odd they didn't explain it more clearly, and also marked it as an unsuitable topic (not just an unsuitable draft).
 * Personally, I think this topic would be hard-pressed to meet WP:Notability unless this specific district is famous in the history of mosquito control rather than just being one of perhaps hundreds doing similar work.
 * Is Alameda's group significant beyond many hundreds of others? Going by the draft it seems pretty routine, and also it is written more as an "About Us!" page with verbiage like "ACMAD strives to provide an exemplary model of good government through fiscal transparency and accountability."
 * My personal opinion: you would be better off writing a broader article about the Mosquito Abatement Act in California, rather than focus on one small group, out of many small groups. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

16:03:45, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Nickbaines1
I'm requesting a re-review as I have amended and added to this article following feedback from editors. I have referenced a large catalogue of published works including ISBN's and linked to independent articles that reference the subject's works. I'm also seeking further feedback as necessary.

Many thanks for your time and help

Best Nick

Nickbaines1 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * - to get it re-reviewed you'll need to re-submit it. Once you've done that it will be reviewed like it was before. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

18:06:23, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Cb912
Hello! I'm requesting a re-review because I feel that the subject meets the requirements for WP:COMPOSER, specifically point # 2, for work on "All The Kids Are Doing It", and #1 for writing the music and lyrics to the albums "Love Me Love Me Not", and "Young Kind of Love". In addition, subject is frequently covered in Playbill Magazine and BroadwayWorld, two of the most prominent news outlets for the musical theatre industry, which I feel would qualify for point #1 under 'Other'.

Regarding reliable sources, the subject is frequently covered in Playbill & BroadwayWorld, as well as notable LGBT news outlets, The Advocate & Out Magazine. The coverage is not passing mentions, but rather articles directly related to work that Mr. Contreras has developed or is working on. Any other thoughts or advice is appreciated! Thank you for your help!

Cb912 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

20:35:48, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Engr Abdirtahman
Engr Abdirtahman (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

22:21:00, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Andrericks
Andrericks (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This was rejected on the basis of both completely lacking sources and that absence of text content - an infobox is good, but they enhance articles, not replace them. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)