Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 June 3

= June 3 =

01:40:32, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Theoloniusfearguskelly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Theolonius_Kelly

wha do i have o fix?

Theoloniusfearguskelly (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Band Camp, Spotify and YouTube are not accepted references. What is needed is referencing to content written by other people about Theolonius Kelly. This may be a case of WP: TOO SOON. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

01:58:13, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Franklin187
Hi everyone, I submitted an updated article for Benjamin Schnau for review but still haven't heard back. I improved it as I was asked to. It would be great if you could pls review it and get back to me. Thanks in advance.

Franklin187 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for 3 weeks. The current backlog is 14-15 weeks, so get a tub of popcorn and settle in. The draft cites spectacularly poor sources (including flixlist.com, tornadomovies.co, horrorfuel.com, filmaffinity.com, manilaupmagazine.com. jjschreibt.de, and golfregional.de). While you wait, replace those with reputable sources such as books, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekley, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, etc. If you can't improve the sourcing, the draft is unlikely to be accepted. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

05:05:22, 3 June 2019 review of submission by James Denesuk
I'm wondering on how I can move the infobox I added to the top. It's pretty useless at the bottom. James Denesuk (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Theroadislong (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

05:19:58, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Nirvanth
Nirvanth (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sharvaani1706 (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Please let me know how to make it relevant or notable enough to get it included on Wiki. Thanks a bunch :)


 * Hi . See A primer for newcomers, particularly the "Pick something notable" subsection. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:25:06, 3 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Rafaeljvieira
Concerning the note that the topic is not notable enough:

The educational learning content provided by Kenhub is licensed by professors in several universities and used by their students  ). This suggests that it meets the criteria of quality content within this industry.

Kenhub may be deemed “non notable” based on comparison to e-learning giants which rule over the North American market and spill their influence worldwide. However, European e-learning platforms are rising in popularity, and I think their influential rank should therefore be judged within their own distinct category. As an example, Bettermarks GmbH, which was listed as one of the Europe's 20 fastest growing and most innovative e-learning companies by RealWire in 2014, today (03/06/2019) has 100,000 active users monthly , while Kenhub has just as many.

Looking more closely at this report, we can note that none of the listed companies are medical content based. Again, when we compare this to the previously stated numbers, it’s clear how significant a role on the medical education market Kenhub GmbH has.

Two weeks ago to this day, Kenhub had ~1,040,000 registered users worldwide. Today, the number is ~1.061.000. So, not only one million people use it, but the number of users is also growing.

Based on the above arguments, I would kindly ask you to reconsider your decision and allow me to edit the article draft in order to write it from a neutral point of view. Rafael Vieira (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Rafael Vieira (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . I have considered your arguments and the draft, and concur with the reviewer that the subject does not meet the notability criteria for companies (is not suitable for inclusion). In time it may become notable, but if it does, you, because of your conflict of interest, will not be the right person to write about it. See WP:BFAQ for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

16:26:29, 3 June 2019 review of submission by Zoë Böhme
Zoë Böhme (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

19:21:12, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Klichnerska
Hello fellow contributors. As I'm trying to publish the article on crowdshipping. The page has been revised several times and was edited by others. Please, help me to make the page suitable for publishing. There is a Russian version of this page: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3 and I'm trying to connect both. Please, edit this page as you see fit, so it gets published. Thank you.

Klichnerska (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

20:51:26, 3 June 2019 review of draft by 68.103.78.155
I Created The 2019-20 Minnesota Timberwolves season article but it's now in draft space how long will this take to put it into draft space. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC) 68.103.78.155 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Why didn't you Answer me. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Greetings. You need to add at least 2 more independent, reliable sources which the sources talk page the subject specifically "2019-20 Minnesota Timberwolve" and not only "Minnesota Timberwolve". Sources from major newspaper would be good. We have almost 4K draft articles waiting to be reviewed and yours is in the pool and the backlog is about 6 weeks. Pls be patient. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

22:56:40, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Qwertyvg
How do I delete this draft

Qwertyvg (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As the sole substantive contributor, you may place  at the top of the draft to have it speedily deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

23:10:37, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Cyberfan195
Because i need help for my creation of this! please? Cyberfan195 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

23:49:35, 3 June 2019 review of draft by Cyberfan195
I just want somebody else to handle this business. Cyberfan195 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

23:55:02, 3 June 2019 review of submission by Dabura3011
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

This draft has been re-edited to remove 'fluffy' information and all research has proper references from reputable newspapers, magazines and other publications (including Forbes, Australian Financial Review, Winetitles, The Advertiser newspaper, The Business Times and InDaily).

While it has been flagged for notability, I believe the subject is notable enough as: 1. He is the owner of an NBL team and, 2. Is the CEO of an ASX-listed major Australian company which manages over $6.9 billion worth of shopping centres.

I believe that 38 references over 15+ years indicates verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources and it is not temporary notability. It is written from a neutral point of view, with both negative and positive events covered, and multiple secondary sources. I removed previous overtly positive comments from other reputable CEOs about his work, despite having reliable sources for the comments (a Forbes article: )

I request for this to be re-reviewed and would love feedback if it is rejected again on how to prove notability.

Dabura3011 (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC) {{reflist-talk}}


 * {{on hold}} pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Dabura3011. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * {{ping|Dabura3011}} Thank you for your disclosure. When you took over editing the draft, you addressed the notability problem. What remains are concerns that the draft is unambiguous promotion which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. By rejecting it, reviewers are conveying that the effort that would be required to fix it dwarfs the effort of blowing it up and starting over.
 * I cannot recommend that you or BPPR start over, because your background in PR and the fact that one of his companies is paying you to produce the article mean that six months down the road your second draft would almost inevitably end up in the same situation as the current one, unusable by Wikipedia. Instead, request that an independent volunteer write the article:
 * Go to Requested articles and find the best category under which to list your request.
 * Describe the very basics of how Kelley is notable, no more than a couple of lines. Be up-front about your conflict of interest by mentioning it in the request.
 * Choose the best 3-6 independent reliable sources that contain substantial information about Kelley, and provide links to them in the request.
 * Optionally, on Australian Wikipedians' notice board, post a link to your request, and make sure to mention your conflict of interest so that people reading your post understand where the request is coming from.
 * Wikipedians are always looking for things to write about, so someone may start an article based on your sources. It often takes a year or two, and won't be the same as the text you produced, but what you produced isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)