Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 July 19

= July 19 =

02:01:15, 19 July 2019 review of submission by Kimhancey
I added several references which describe his status as a Roshi in the White Plum Asanga, his writings, and the dance performances which use his work.

Kimhancey (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I don't see anything in what you've added that would make the draft acceptable. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, ones with different inclusion criteria, for writing about Silberberg. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

07:28:27, 19 July 2019 review of submission by NicoleSangster
I have tried to create a wikipedia page that is not biased or advertising Simworx, however it is still being rejected. Do I need to remove some of the detailing even though they have sources? I need guidance on how to get our page accepted.

NicoleSangster (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . The draft doesn't demonstrate notability because it cites the wrong kinds of sources. It relies heavily on trade publications (Blooloop, Attractions Management (and other titles from The Leisure Media Company), NewsParcs, Park World, Leisure Management, Euro Amusement Professional, Insider Media, InterGame, InterPark (UK), and Live Design). Because of their limited audience and often too-cozy relationship with companies in the industry they cover, trade publications don't help establish notability.


 * Most of the other sources are companies which are partners with, or customers of, Simworx (Air Zoo, City of Dreams Manila, Groupo Parques Reunidos, iP2 Entertainment, RoboCoaster, Sun World Ba Na Hills). They are not arms-length. They have a vested interest in promoting what they got from you. These sources also suffer from a lack of depth about Simworx. Several don't mention it at all, and others mention it only in passing. Theme Park Construction Board is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source. Wisata Bandung is a trivial mention.


 * Scholarly sources (books and academic journals) are usually best. Notability can also be demonstrated by high-quality journalistic sources with a broad audience, such as The Guardian, The Financial Times, the BBC, and the like. The reviewer has rejected the draft because no sources appear to exist that would establish the notability of the topic. Consequently, no amount of editing will get your page accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

08:59:09, 19 July 2019 review of submission by Rockwizfan
after getting some advice, i have corrected the issues raised. and have added additional information and references, i'm now after a review to see if my revisions have suitably improved the page enough to be created.Rockwizfan (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter are not reliable sources they need to be removed or replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

09:09:24, 19 July 2019 review of submission by Dalugama
More reference links added to the article as requested. Please review again and provide your feedback. Dalugama (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . The draft has been returned to the pool to be reviewed. You may continue improving it while you wait (the current backlog is about 4 months). There are general suggestions in Help:Your first article and Article development. Specifically, it's a bad idea to place more than about 3 inline citations after a single simple sentence. Either squeeze more content out of some of the sources, or eliminate the weaker sources (the non-independent ones, the ones from sources that don't have a solid reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the very brief ones). Also, one external link to the organization's home page is fine, but try to convert the other external links into references by expanding the article and citing them. There shouldn't be a large number of external links. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

09:44:38, 19 July 2019 review of submission by 2402:8100:39C6:BA66:5863:A02A:B8D8:4D66
2402:8100:39C6:BA66:5863:A02A:B8D8:4D66 (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 11:26:01, 19 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jonnykaldor
My post was rejected with the response "Undefined" - it would be helpful if someone could tell me why it was rejected so that I can fix it. I have placed references in the document inline. I don't know what else I am supposed to do...

Jonnykaldor (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your draft has zero reliable sources. Linked in and iTunes are not suitable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

11:31:59, 19 July 2019 review of submission by HHelvis
Hello. So my review got stopped because of this reason - "Basically a press release" and no more explanation. How can I know that someone will think of it as PR when it's not like that? Other exchanges have the same type of Wikipedia text, but mine is a "press release" How can I improve it so by that user opinion it does not look as a press release? What should I do? HHelvis (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please wait until you can find multiple in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

How can I now re-submit for approval, I added more resources. I don't have an option to re-submit it. I see a STOP sign.


 * The reason for the STOP sign is that rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that. There is no option to re-submit because volunteers do not intend to review it again.
 * What should you do? You are welcome to write about something else; we have nearly 6 million topics to choose from. In light of Wikipedia's general sanctions on blockchain and cryptocurrency pages, if you want to write about that sphere you may wish to explore alternative outlets. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Then tell me what is the difference between Binace exchange Wikipedia and ours - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binance It the same type, then it's should be blocked also!
 * - it's worth reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on that, but I'd also note that Binance includes sources tech crunch, fortune, cnn and cnbc (the latter two are due to a major theft, but notability can be generated from bad coverage too) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 11:52:00, 19 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Kkozarev
Hello, I have resubmitted my article on 'Marathon Plovdiv' over three months ago, and have not heard at all since. Please review the article and let me know so I can make changes if I have to. Thanks!

Kkozarev (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

16:19:37, 19 July 2019 review of draft by KristenDuever
KristenDuever (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you please tell me why my article on the London (Canada) Chamber of Commerce was rejected, but this on about the Guelph Chamber of Commerce is ok? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelph_Chamber_of_Commerce Both use primary sources...

Or is it because the Guelph one is longer?

Kristen Duever


 * - yours is not suitable as it stands because there aren't any non-primary sources. However you were right to point out the Guelph one - it's currently been nominated for deletion as unsuitable for much the same reason. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

20:30:24, 19 July 2019 review of draft by I edit things that come to mind
I came across this article and noticed that it was never submitted for creation despite other articles having a link to it and appearing on the search bar. My guess is the creator made a mistake in not making it into a draft first, so I decided to move the page into a draft and submit for creation. However, a warning appeared on the page saying "The page Type 07 Vertical Launch Anti-submarine rocket redirects to Draft:Type 07 Vertical Launch Anti-submarine rocket. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located to the correct title". I can ensure it is not a copy, but I'm wondering if there is something I need to do to fix this. Thank you in advance. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC) I edit things that come to mind (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles are not required to go through AfC, so that was a bad reason to move it to draft space. Return it to main space unless you have a better reason than that for having moved it. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I never realized that, my apologies. Thank you for informing me. I edit things that come to mind (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)