Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 June 4

= June 4 =

00:08:14, 4 June 2019 review of submission by 98.177.218.1
98.177.218.1 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please explain what needs to be done on the Diamond Diva Princess page for publication. There is sufficient amount of notability and many references have been cited, including many independent of the subject. Others with less notability and references have been approved pages on Wikipedia. Please help with suggestions on how to improve the page for publication.98.177.218.1 (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The topic is not notable, so no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

00:49:01, 4 June 2019 review of submission by DanStallman
I think I requested this previously, but don't see it here so I am assuming I did not "Publish changes" correctly. Sorry if I did, please disregard the second request.

If not, please re-review the content under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_W._Stallman

I have removed all of the wrong content. Thank you, DanStallman (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We need multiple in-depth independent coverage of him in reliable sources I'm not seeing any such sources in your draft. Theroadislong (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

04:38:19, 4 June 2019 review of draft by Stephane Malhomme
- Hello, thanks for reviewing my first (and probably last) contribution. In good faith, I do not understand what "this reads like an essay not an encyclopaedia article" means. Not being funny, I just have 0 idea what that means in this context. An essay? EIoT is growing very quickly but still a pretty new field. I have cited the most established sources I could. - I presented what I thought was a balanced view of key benefits, but also key limitations of EIoT how is that not "neutral"? Honestly here again, I have no idea what I am supposed to understand by this. - Very disappointed, I spent large amounts of time preparing this the best I could. What else to say, not sure. You have related articles like this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsea_Internet_of_Things that seem a lot less neutral to me. No? - I spent TONS of time going through all the training. Maybe Wiki is just not for me. Please reply, if not, frankly, feel free to delete my account. Thanks.

Stephane Malhomme (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not be disheartened. I hope you stick around and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. This could be the makings of a good article. You've clearly put a lot of effort into your draft. I think that may actually have worked against you. If you write a lengthy article and then try to retrofit the type of citations that Wikipedia requires that will lead to frustration. It is better if, for each statement you write, you add a citation at the same time that clearly shows where you sourced the information from. Otherwise readers have no way of knowing whether the material is factual. You might have just written it from your own knowledge, which we consider original research. Are you willing to work on it further, under my guidance? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

talk @Curb Safe Charmer Thank you very much for your reply and sorry for my little tantrum there, I had spent a lot of time on this and was pretty disappointed. Sorry though. Thank you for your feedback it is very helpful. I have had a look around and may have found a few more sources I could include. If not, I figure, I might just need to leave it at that I am really not sure there are that many authoritative media / research I can quote on the topic. The editor got back to me with a great, detailed message, that was very cool, I told him/her that I'd try again, and went back to Google Scholar to find other, solider sources. That one I just found now seems interesting https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2014EA000044 Thank you very much (really) for your offer to work together. The community has been great. Leave it a bit more with me, I'll try and enhance, and resubmit. That feedback did inform me in more detail as to best practices. Might take you up on the offer if it gets turned down, or just park it until there are enough authoritative links online I guess. Thank you! Stephane Malhomme (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One approach to consider is what we describe as WP:TNT. This means cutting the article back to its bare bones - little more than a couple of paragraphs that define the term, supported by solid references that show that the term is in use by authoritive sources. You can then submit that for review and it will almost certainly be accepted into Wikipedia. You can then incrementally build on the article, likely with contributions from others who are interested in the subject who will click through to it from related articles. Your lengthy draft will remain in the article's history where you can cut and paste parts of it as and when you can find sources. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

10:45:22, 4 June 2019 review of submission by Gill Searle
I have been trying to make a page for F&R Products who are well-known for their water chillers all over the world. F&R Products have a history since 1947 and are one of the oldest bespoke water chiller manufacturers in the United Kingdom. Should I be referencing other Wikipedia pages i.e., Water Chiller or Chillers or Cooling Tower? What should I improve on the page please?

Gill Searle (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Most businesses are not appropriate subjects for an encyclopedia article. See WP:BFAQ for more information.


 * The draft cites two trade publications and a blog, none of which do anything to establish that the company is notable (suitable for inclusion). Contrast this with the sources for Oliver Typewriter Company, for example. Notice that it cites books, academic journals, magazines, and newspapers. Without such independent, reliable, secondary sources, no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

12:13:41, 4 June 2019 review of submission by Nadiamoore
Hi there. I'm struggling to address this point left by the previous editor: "Requires more independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject, and that show the organisation has been notable over a significant period of time not only Nov 2017." I have searched for more references that show our longevity, but cannot find any. Articles relate more to the work we've done as an organisation. Can you suggest where I can insert more references on the current piece of writing I've tried to submit? Thank you. Nadiamoore (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I don't understand your question, but will try to steer you in the right direction. You write that you can't find any more sources. If you need help searching, ask a research librarian. One can often obtain access through a library to archives of academic journals, magazines, and newspapers that one can't search using Google. If, after extending where you search, you still can't find more sources, then the organization isn't a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article (most organizations aren't). I hope that helps. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

14:08:59, 4 June 2019 review of draft by Mianvar1
I noticed that a draft page I did, "Draft:Dona Nelson (artist)", is up for submission review, but the page is already up as "Dona Nelson". When I originally created it, I didn't realize that a draft already existed for the subject. When I realized, I worked into that draft and hen moved it to article status. "Draft:Dona Nelson (artist)" should be deleted. Thank you for your attention and sorry for the confusion.Mianvar1 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Mianvar1 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

14:25:06, 4 June 2019 review of draft by Rory Fellowes
My article about Peregrine Edward Launcelot Fellowes is currently available in something called Everybodywiki Bios & Wiki. I am still finding secondary sources to support the article but wonder where it is now and how I can continue to edit it. Can you help? I've been told it is not sufficiently encyclopedic, but since there are any number of articles about little known actors that do not offer a lot in the way of source references and such (other than the films they made or the songs they sang) I'm not sure where I am going wrong. Also, the two references I do have so far are in red, which do not link to the Wikipedia pages they reference. Should I add ?

Rory Fellowes (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * His was clearly a life well lived. However that in itself isn't enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The draft would need to be amended with references that (a) demonstrate that multiple reliable, independent publications have written in depth about him, and (b) to indicate where the statements made about him in the draft were sourced from. Your personal knowledge of him is insufficient - other readers need to be able to establish that what is written about him here is true. Adding those references inline would be best, using ref tags. Regarding your comment that there are lots of other articles that are poorly sourced, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to understand why that reasoning holds little weight here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

14:27:57, 4 June 2019 review of submission by Bismark S. Sosu
This re-review has been requested because the issue of my earlier article not being 'notable for inclusion' has been addressed sufficiently, by the inclusion of more notable news links and other credible sources. The profile build on Richard Gorab has been very well worked upon as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bismark_S._Sosu/sandbox/Richard_Gorab with reference to independently verifiable news outlets and educational platforms

Bismark S. Sosu (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Bismark S. Sosu (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the draft. The references provided do not indicate how Gorab meets the WP:NBIO criteria. The sources you've cited are either associated with Gorab, based on news releases from companies he works for, or are Gorab talking about himself or giving his opinions. This draft is not suitable for Wikipedia. I suggest you give up on it, and that Mr Gorab should use LinkedIn to promote himself instead. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

15:19:18, 4 June 2019 review of submission by Bismark S. Sosu
After the last review, changes have been made to the tone of the article to make it as objective as possible. Bismark S. Sosu (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to you above. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

17:50:09, 4 June 2019 review of draft by Fayiz123
Fayiz123 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * - you only have 1 section, titled "References", but you don't actually have any references. Additionally, because it's about a living person, any sources you add will need to be inline refs (the little blue numbers by specific facts in other articles). You can find our how to do them in referencing for beginners, or a wider tutorial at the wikipedia adventure tutorial. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

18:16:46, 4 June 2019 review of draft by Ee2mba
Ee2mba (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please give me advice on what citation I can use.I get the information from the Wikipedia article of that car and I know all the Acura models.
 * Good day. Each of the car listed in the article has a page in Wikipedia, that makes it so much easier to find sources. All you have to do is to go to the individual model article and find the source and provide inline citation next to it. It would be better if you would put them in a table format. For referencing (inline citation) see WP:REFB and if the sources are from internet, then use the "horizontal" Template:Cite Web template. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:43:13, 4 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Gingersnap1996
Hi! It said my article was declined because it was not sufficiently notable for inclusion but did not say why. I don't understand why or how to fix it. What are the next steps to get it approved?

Gingersnap1996 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Gingersnap1996 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Rejection of the draft is meant to be final, to convey that the subject is not notable (not suitable for inclusion), so no amount of editing will make the topic acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Worldbruce, I mean, is there a way to know why it is not suitable for inclusion? That's that part that is really confusing me, since it doesn't make sense that it was rejected for not being notable enough...

21:33:16, 4 June 2019 review of draft by CompadredeOgum
CompadredeOgum (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Currently a blank page Nosebagbear (talk)
 * Looks like he means this Jannik Schwaß (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * precisely! i am not sure why it is not approved! --CompadredeOgum (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * - hi there. I was hoping to confirm what in particular you were asking us to take a look at, and what (if any) help we might be able to offer you. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

23:11:44, 4 June 2019 review of submission by Esolischi
Esolischi (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

23:24:54, 4 June 2019 review of draft by BruceAllanClark
BruceAllanClark (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not submit and "Article for Creation" whatever that is. I aked to have two recent publications of mine to be added to the Bibiography of the article about me, Bruce Allan Clark, in Wikipedia. Why can you not address my actual request? Bruce Clark
 * Actually you did submit an article for creation, you also asked on the talk page of the article for a book to be added, I have done this for you, please remember we are all volunteers here and promoting yourself is not encouraged or welcome. Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)