Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 November 16

= November 16 =

06:10:09, 16 November 2019 review of draft by 117.228.101.79
I have references and citations but i don't know how to do it, i cllicked on links provided by wikipedia but it is too technical, editing is not my thing plus i want my article in an wikipedia manner not like an essay( the reason why it was declined), so i request you to research on my article, i have provided two links or you can google search it, there are sources, the subject "Baba Nagnath Yogeshwar" is worthy of wikipedia page but i am just too illiterate to edit and present it like wikipedia page, so please make the neccessary changes yourself and give consent to the draft, thank you.

117.228.101.79 (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You have exactly one source. You need far more sources. Another editor is unlikely to take up this draft I'm afraid, unless you can find one. You may wish to add this to Requested articles instead. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

08:54:57, 16 November 2019 review of submission by Irie lwah
I am asking for a re-view because it is my first time creating a page here on Wikipedia and would like to be guided on how exactly is a Wikipedia page supposed to look like. Irie lwah (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Unfortunately, the subject does not appear to be notable. Notability requires good sourcing, usually a fair number of reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. This just seems to be an average person, like you or I, and thus no particular reason for them to have an article. Furthermore, the article is written in a promotional tone, is not neutral, and not written like an encyclopedia. You may wish to edit other areas of Wikipedia to get a feel for our policies and practices before making more drafts. WikiProject Music would be a good place to start. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

09:54:53, 16 November 2019 review of submission by VeryRarelyStable
Well, I can concur with the inquirer a couple of days ago asking why one draft was taking days when others they'd submitted had only taken hours. My page Tomahawk Beach took less than an hour to approve and Allans Beach about thirty seconds. Draft:Smaills Beach is at six weeks and counting. Are reviewers watching the back end of the queue instead of the front?

That's not what I'm inquiring about, however. I've been watching how fast my draft has been crawling forward up the queue as older articles get dealt with. It's spent about two weeks now on the tenth page of submissions. At this rate I calculate it will be approaching six months old by the time it reaches the front. It may be over six months. It may, for that matter, be over six months without substantive edits from me, because I've about reached the point where I need other eyes on it before I have any changes to make. If I'm not much mistaken that would make it automatically a candidate for speedy deletion. Should I do dummy edits every couple of weeks or so to forestall this fate?

VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Howdy hello! Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, as most reviewers choose to review a random draft. Brand new submissions, and very old submissions are slightly biased however, due to the way the review interface works. However, I see that TheRoadisLong has already reviewed the draft in question. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just after I posted the above, yes... —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:08:17, 16 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Sonu4200
Sonu4200 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, neither can Instagram or Facebook so you are left with zero sources with which to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

18:26:21, 16 November 2019 review of submission by 103.139.9.69
103.139.9.69 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't have enough sources. You need reliable and independent sources with significant coverage that show the subject is notable. Such sources must also be cited inline. But as far as I can see, the subject likely just isn't notable at this time. You may be better served by finding an existing article on a subject that interests you, and editing that. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

18:29:01, 16 November 2019 review of draft by Barbabeau
Trying to get this page up, but it seems with every submission there is an increasing amount of credits demanded, with zero specifics. When I'm told to put in more "secondary" sources, and I do, I'm told I still need more--like, how many more? I have 30 sources from newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Now I'm told I need a national or international award of some kind? How many? From where? If I had known a national or international award was required, it could have saved me a lot of time. Is this across the board, or just for singer/songwriters? Little help? No idea what a "tea house" is.

Barbabeau (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Howdy hello! The Teahouse is a great forum for asking questions, and where we send a lot of content questions. This board however works for most AfC questions anyway. In terms of sources, the issue you might be facing is signifigant coverage. If a piece just name drops her, but says little else, its not a good source. A musician doesn't have to have an award, but having one is usually a quick route to notability. For this artist, you must show that they meet at least one prong of WP:MUSICBIO. I highly recommend you read that link, and see if she meets any of the criteria. You can help us speed the process along by posting here you top three to five references, i.e. the references that you think are the best, they are independent, reliable, secondary, and give the subject significant coverage. If responding, please add to your reply so that I see it. Smooth sailing,  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

19:24:53, 16 November 2019 review of submission by Bpurkaple
We substantially reworked the article and added more specific references. Bpurkaple (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Who is we? Accounts are individual use. There is no "we" behind an account. Only one person is allowed to use an account. Additionally, if you have been paid by a subject, or received any form of compensation relating to the edits you have made, you must disclose that per WP:PAID. While the article has been cleaned up somewhat, I do not see how it is notable for inclusion. It seems to be a neologism, and one that is not widely used. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ,Sorry. I mostly write articles for scientific journals and use the formal "we." It is a habit from training that I carried over into this different format. I am the sole user of this handle and this is my work. I do not get paid for my work on this topic. It is voluntary and not part of my day job.

While the topic is unique in primary care medicine, it is not a neologism to the field. It is a philosophy in the medical field that is prevalent so much so that at the North American Primary Care Research group had an entire half-day of the conference spent in discussion of this topic alone with an additional three other speakers discussing this topic in different presentations throughout the rest of the conference. It is in the same vein as person-centered care, which also has its own wikipedia page.Bpurkaple (talk)
 * If it is that important, then more sources are needed to show that. Also, things that may be very important to those in a specific field, might not be to the general public, who read Wikipedia. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

20:37:42, 16 November 2019 review of submission by OTFTYT
also rolling sky is a valid topic bc its a game i found and hasnt been writen about before so OTFTYT (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I take it this regards Draft:Rolling Sky. Having looked at another version of it in your sandbox history, and the current draft version, your issues are multifold. Primarily: sourcing. Every article needs sources to make it verifiable. You have no sources currently. You need at least 3 that review the game to make it notable, and preferably more. We don't write about anything, as that would make Wikipedia enormous and unwieldy. We have to choose what we write about, and thus we have to ensure that articles are notable. We do that by ensuring the subject has been written about in the media. You will need to show that to get the article approved. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Yeah we are working on another one. Appoligies :.

20:43:05, 16 November 2019 review of submission by Bluest111
If I may know, why was my article not suitable for publishing? Bluest111 (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , It seems to be an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged. We only write about notable folks, those who have been covered in the media. For instance, I don't even have a page despite being a long time Wikipedian. Someone like Beyonce does on the other hand, as she has been covered by the media. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

21:20:54, 16 November 2019 review of submission by BFP1
I have a very untidy External links reference * Paintings by William Oliver Williams at Art UK. On 30 October OxonAlex tidied a similar reference up by removing 2 spaces (it was something about getting everything on the same line). Could it be indicated precisely what was done to my original reference? The 2 versions look the same to me BFP1 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC) BFP1 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ you were missing a bracket like this "]" after Williams. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Theroadislong|Theroadislong. Much appreciated BFP1 (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)