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

= March 19 =

02:07:54, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Narine1202
Hi, The draft for creation a page about DA Technology has been rejected for the second time with a comment that it is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. After it was rejected for the first time I included a number of independent sources that show that the company in South Korea is quite notable. I have been following similar pages that have half of the citations compared to this page and still have been published. Could you please provide more details on what is the article missing and I hope the problem is not that most of the sources are in Korean., It is honestly giving hard time to me so please help me out if you have any suggestions on how I can improve it. Also, I would like to get a second opinion about whether the article is notable enough for Wikipedia.

Thank you and hope to receive any feedback soon. Narine1202 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

05:28:06, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Norman Quizon
I need to see if i can able to see the topic of Norman Quizon in wikipedia public Norman Quizon (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

05:28:06, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Norman Quizon


 * Hi . Norman Quizon is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Also, unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, or similar sites, Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

07:18:58, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Marchjuly
First off, I am not the editor who submitted this draft for review; I'm only posting here to seek opinions about what to do about it. The creator has been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK, so that account is never going to be unblocked. It also seems unlikely that master is going to be unblocked to resume editting any time soon. I've discussed the draft at User talk:Oshwah with the admin who blocked the accounts, and he doesn't think the draft qualifies for speedy deletion; so, unless someone else steps in an continues to work on it, it's going to likely end up being deleted in six months or so per WP:G13.The question then is whether it's worth waiting until that time or should it be brought to WP:MfD instead. One possible negative which might result from leaving the draft in place and waiting until G13 is applicable is that it might encourage more socking and WP:EVADE behavior by the master; one possible positive is that someone might stumble on it and decide it's worth working on. FWIW, I don't think the draft techincially qualifies for CSD per WP:G5 since it was created about 30 minutes before the master was blocked, but perhaps there's a precedent for G5 which has been previously established in a similar case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would do nothing, and let G13 take care of it in six months. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at this . -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

08:33:37, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Cesole
This page was declined as it did not have acceptable sources in order to prive notability. I changed that and added the right wources as references as well and I resubmitted it. Is there anything else that should change in order to have it approved? How long will it take again to have it re-reviewed? Cesole (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . As the big yellow box on the draft says, there are 2600+ drafts awaiting review. At the current rate, you can expect the draft to be reviewed within two months or so. You may continue improving it while you wait, or see Community portal for ways you can help reduce the many backlogs here. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

08:59:41, 19 March 2019 review of draft by Schoolstrust
I wanting wanting to publish this article but it has been 2 months pending review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_British_School_of_Vilnius

Schoolstrust (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - this was reviewed before I saw this, but I re-reviewed it given it to make sure, especially given the full waiting span endured. However the original reviewer is correct. Primary schools need significant sourcing to be included, and your sources aren't independent (they're heavily linked to the school). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

13:13:18, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Zeno Gantner
(resubmission of this request, as my first request for a second opinion from March 12 was ignored)

Hello, I do not understand this decision. The last time the article was declined for quality reasons, which are now fixed.

The article describes an ongoing event series that has been running since 2010. Thousands of people attended the events. They have/had media partnerships with major German sports streaming (ran) and the most widely distributed tabloid (Bild), they get reported in general German-language newspapers -- about 10 media mentions are already linked in the article -- there are a lot more, of course. So at least I think there is sufficient media coverage. What exactly is missing for notability?

PS: Some "less notable" MMA organizations that have Wikipedia articles (just the letter "A"): Art of War Undisputed Arena Fighting Championship, Association of Boxing Commissions, Australian Fighting Championship, Albanian Mixed Martial Arts Federation, Alliance MMA.

zeno (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

14:20:21, 19 March 2019 review of draft by Rachellpearl
Hello - I am not understanding how to make the Mark McInturff page work. I'm not sure why there is a notice at the top that says the writer is close to the source - I disclosed that I work for him - is this not enough, so there needs to be a notice at the top of the page? I'm so confused! I've had a ton of help on here and for someone who thought they were computer savvy - wow. I am always sorta lost in here.

All the sources I've listed and the webpages used to site everything is what I have. I used the subscript note to cite sources and I'm just so confused as to why a comparable architect is on Wiki and Mark McInturff isn't. He really is the leading Architect in the DC region, I can't figure out what I'm missing.

I see he was loaded up to Everybody Wiki - who did that? Just curious. We are grateful!

Anyway, I just need more hand-holding than I realized! Can someone put in plain English exactly why Mark McInturff seems to not be acceptable?

Rachellpearl (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll look at the draft. Everybodywiki uses robots to copy our drafts. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * - hi there. There's a few bits to this question, and I'm going to tackle the easy ones first then come back to the reason it was declined.


 * First up is Everybody Wiki - this is one of many sites that duplicates content on Wikipedia. Unlike many, it also duplicates drafts - I'm not sure who originally created it, but their automated spiders look after the process of duplicating the material. They seem quite good on the referencing process, so the content links back appropriately.


 * Second is the comparable architect issue - we have a dedicated essay called Other Stuff Exists. In short, one page's existence does not mean another should (or should not) exist, we may just have not have considered it properly.


 * Third is the notice - it usually means an editor thinks the draft/article is at least somewhat non-neutral (many articles are this state), and they want to note a possible reason is a connected writer. This is particularly key for drafts where reviewers come new to a page and the original creator is usually the only editor.


 * Finally - why it was declined! So your draft is about Mark, who is still alive. Currently your draft has a bunch of references - which for some topics might be enough. However, living people have extra protections on Wikipedia. Biographies of living persons requires any questionable fact (positive, negative, neutral or otherwise) to be specifically sourced. I can see you have specifically cited certain points - you need to do this for anything someone might say "prove it" to. Critically, you need to use the best sources possible as those will be the ones people check - reliable secondary sources.


 * Please let me know on my talk page if you have any questions - you've already done most of the hard work (I hope!).


 * EDIT CONFLICT: (This comment was written before LegacyPac, but posted after his comment above - he may comment otherwise to mine). Nosebagbear (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

15:23:10, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Katdemott
In the headline of this article, please insert the middle initial "A.", as in Paul A. Sieving. This person is widely known to use his middle initial. His name is very rarely seen in print without the middle initial. Thank you! Katdemott (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC) ✅ Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

16:27:35, 19 March 2019 review of draft by Vsreid28
I'd like to add the company's basic information below the logo inside the box such as founder, founded year, headquarters etc. But can't seem to get the formatting right.

VSREID28 16:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Does not matter. Zero chance this page will be approved. What's the going rate to create pages like this? Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 19:33:46, 19 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 68.103.78.155
I Created the 2019-20 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball season navbox and it is not responding can you help me please. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

19:44:34, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Grahamogt
Thank you for reviewing, can you help me understand why this organization isn't considered notable? I used references from the FAA and aviation class text books. The founder of the organization co-created the system LOSA that is mentioned on this Wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_error#Line_operations_safety_audit_(LOSA)) and the organization is responsible for gathering the data for those LOSAs.

Grahamogt (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

22:04:54, 19 March 2019 review of draft by 2405:204:9521:E1:0:0:192F:30AC
2405:204:9521:E1:0:0:192F:30AC (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

What is problem in my article link, its Wikipedia draft :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gugni_Gill_-_Actress
 * Answered on draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

22:06:57, 19 March 2019 review of draft by WinnyHuangatEcontact
Hi I just submitted a new article for review. It's titled The Complete Lyrics to The Messiah by Georg Friedrich Handel. I am trying to put The Bible in as reference but I am having trouble with that because I think I accidentally deleted the program language that allows me to do that. Can you help me with this? Also it really would be nice if the page is up by Easter...April 21st of this year. So help! Thanks!

WinnyHuangatEcontact (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . What you've been working on does not appear to be an encyclopedia article. The full text of the oratorio is already available to readers at one of our sister projects, see Messiah on Wikisource. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)