Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 July 31

= July 31 =

08:31:17, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Anki 84
I have now added relevant references for making this article published on wikipedia. Please review it and allow it to get published. Anki 84 (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . None of the three sources you added does the slightest thing to demonstrate notability. The reason for the STOP sign on the draft 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 the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

08:31:17, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Anki 84
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Washington_Tennis_Academy This Academy has less information but it is still there on Wikipedia. I am not able to understand why Atletas Tennis Academy cannot be on Wikipedia? Anki 84 (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

09:07:31, 31 July 2019 review of submission by VmwareVrni
Eliminated product use cases. Keeping just the product name and one-liner purpose.

VmwareVrni (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

09:25:44, 31 July 2019 review of draft by Ashashko
Hello! I've translated article about The LitRes company. Can you please help me to understand what I did wrong? Beacuse it's just the translation of the Russian article, nothing more.

Ashashko (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - there's 3 issues with this.


 * Firstly, you need to fix the copyright, as you've declare it's a translation of another wikipedia version. Please make a blank edit and in the summary add a URL link to the view history of the article you've duplicated this from.


 * While this comes from another Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it meets our rules. Wikipedias can set different rules, and en-wiki has strict notability rules for companies, so better sourcing is needed.


 * While it's not extreme promotionalism, it reads more like what they'd say on their website, listing all the good things they do/offer. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, ! 1. Can you please explain to me what the "blank edit" is? Can you please provide me more details how I can do it? 2. But what if sources are in Russian not in English? 3. Can you please explain what the article should be about?


 * For a  to work, you must sign your post in the same edit in which you type the ping. See Help:TALK.
 * 1. Translation explains the attribution requirements (in section "How to translate"). Since you didn't do that on the first edit, the insufficient attribution needs to be repaired using the procedure described at Copying within Wikipedia, with an edit summary that is a blend of the examples given on the two pages. By a "blank edit", Nosebagbear means what is formally called a dummy edit - one that makes a small formatting change, such as an extra space at the end of a sentence, just enough that the editing software recognizes a difference and allows you to save an edit summary.
 * 2. You may cite Russian sources using the same cite template you use for English ones. For example:
 * 3. An article about a company should focus mainly on the company's history. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Request on 09:51:49, 31 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Stylus123
I have provided 2 sources in my article. How many reliable sources do we need to pass the notability criteria? Also, the two links which I provided did not qualify the wiki notability norms? secondly, can I do further edits and add more reliable sources in the same article and re-submit?

Stylus123 (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - so your first source doesn't tell us more than the address and a 2 line summary of what the company does. Sources used to show notability have to provide significant coverage. The 2nd source isn't reliable or independent as it's basically a press release.


 * We suggest 3 high quality sources, as that makes it clear - currently this doesn't have any.


 * The draft also shouldn't have external links in the main body of the text. It doesn't need links to the biographies of the key individuals or the the commerce chamber. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

11:48:56, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Dfsp94
Dfsp94 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to write this article the most neutral as possible, so I removed parts that might be bias. What advice can I further get?

13:18:45, 31 July 2019 review of submission by ElectiveCare
Hi I am new to Wikipedia and this is the first article I have tried to post. I would like your help with two things please. 1. When I first arrived on the site I tried to notify that I am an interested party: I work for the NHS and this article is about a project I have been working on (though I won't be working for them soon). However it told me there was no page with the title Elective Care which I chose as my name for this and after that I didn't seem to get the option again. Please can you help me? If I post the article when I am no longer working on the project, do I still need to notify an interest as by then I will not have financial interest in it? 2. I don't understand what I can do to meet the criteria. There are references to EyesWise on the Royal College of Ophthalmologists' website: https://rcophth.ac.uk/2019/04/eyeswise-leading-transformation-in-ophthalmology/ and NHS England's website: https://www.england.nhs.uk/elective-care-transformation/best-practice-solutions/eyeswise/ but I don't know if these count. Please can you advise? We are expecting it also to be on the RNIB and Macular Society websites soon. Would this be sufficient? If not, what further references and sorts of references do I need? Thank you very much for your help. Emma ElectiveCare (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

ElectiveCare (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

14:09:52, 31 July 2019 review of submission by MattJohnson5
The draft submission was declined with reason given that it, "...not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject...". There are, however, a number of third party, reliable, published sources such as The Hamilton Spectator, The Spec, National Post, and The Toronto Star. The articles are fairly in-depth and some detail the opposition faced. Could I get some additional input on what is required for acceptance? Would it be 'more' articles or something else? Thanks. MattJohnson5 (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I may have inadvertently clicked the wrong decline reason on this one, it should have been declined as reading like an advert probably. Theroadislong (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

14:33:22, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Nikosathens31
Nikosathens31 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

15:00:38, 31 July 2019 review of draft by Mrhaandi
I recently wrote an article (under User:Mrhaandi/sandbox) and was unsure whether I needed to submit the draft for review, which I did. As it turns out, I was an autoconfirmed user and did not need to do this. Now I already created (and improved upon) the article Intersection_type_discipline properly and am not sure how to retract the draft submission in User:Mrhaandi/sandbox. Mrhaandi (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sandbox deleted by Orangemike. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

IARA Awards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IARA_Awards

please help the article got declined first time created article improve it please and publish it really heart broken crying inside heart :(:(:(:( --Andoster (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:IARA Awards was deleted at the user's request. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

16:45:45, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Lukyamuzi Joseph
Lukyamuzi Joseph (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

MARY BABIRYE KABANDA

I have tried often to edit a draft article for publishing with the above name or subject but unfortunately am not making headway. I am trying to profile my Masaka area leaders including MPs and Local Govt leaders. I intend to move on to places of interest in Masaka and so on. My fear is that if I abandon an article and move on to another before its published, it might never be.

To the best of my knowldge I submited verifiably independent news sources about the subject at hand. For instance Parliament's website abd other news papers with online postings. I will much appreciate any help rendered.

Thanks. Awaiting your help, thanks.
 * Your draft Draft:Mary Babirye Kabanda is not in the queue for review as you have not re-submitted it.You have yet to add three reliable sources as requested back in April.  www.parliament.go.ug  is not an independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

18:13:15, 31 July 2019 review of submission by DavekickrOZ
DavekickrOZ (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Replied below. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

18:15:17, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Vikingwonder
I would like to know exactly what the issue is with my posting of Draft:Shoplifter / Hrafnhildur Arnardóttir. I know whoever reviewed it stated that it wasn't written like an encyclopedia and it seems to be not completely neutral. How would I go about fixing this, and resubmitting so then it gets approved?

Vikingwonder (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - I would say some of the tweeks made since the decline have improved the tone sufficiently to meet the minimum requirements on those grounds. It could be a couple of days until I get a chance to review it, but I'd be happy to give it another view (if no-one gets there first). Please feel free to poke me if I don't get round to it by Sunday (just visit my talk page). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

19:12:42, 31 July 2019 review of submission by 106.206.61.23
106.206.61.23 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

20:30:24, 31 July 2019 review of submission by Rolfy47
The comment "no evidence this list is of particular note" is curious. This would be a child page of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_100_Countdowns" which already has several child pages of the same sort from 2001 through to 2016. I notice there are no child pages since then, so is this a new policy about this parent page? If so, I find this disappointing as this is a much more usable resource that the original site that doesn't allow for sorting or export is a usable format. Please reconsider this submission in light of the parent page and the usefulness of a one stop shop for all of these countdowns. Thanks Rolfy47 (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Although it is natural to learn by example, it is safer to work from the official guidelines, in this case notability. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it may mean only that no one has gotten around yet to fixing it or deleting it. Existence is not a good reason to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.


 * To show that Draft:Classic 100 Composer is a suitable topic for inclusion in the encyclopedia, the draft needs a few reliable, secondary sources, independent of ABC, that discuss this year's countdown. I've added one article from a major newspaper for you, so you just need a couple more. In past years there has been some coverage in Limelight, so you could try there. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

23:04:49, 31 July 2019 review of submission by 205.173.217.10
The page updated has been updated with match information for the first two rounds - the initial submission was made by another user before the draw had been announced. Both this and the 2019-2020 FA Vase page should be added - both competitions have been updated in Wikipedia year-after-year. I submitted an Afc Help ticket for the FA Vase page a few days and have gotten no comment. These competitions begin in August and September, so there is a timely need for approval.

205.173.217.10 (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft:2019–20 FA Trophy has the same problem as Draft:2019–20 FA Vase, it cites no independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the competition. If the topic is suitable for Wikipedia, it should be easy for you to add three such sources.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Saying "there is a timely need for approval" smacks of recentism. There is a considerable backlog of drafts awaiting review. Volunteers are currently reviewing ones submitted 20 weeks ago. If you have no conflict of interest with the topic, are not blocked or banned from editing, and don't wish to wait 20 weeks, you are free to create an account, make 10 edits over a four day period, and move the draft to article space yourself. As long as you've first added the sources necessary to demonstrate notability, it should survive there. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Worldbruce, I appreciate the response and suggestions. Thank you for taking the time to assist.