Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 October 28

= October 28 =

02:46:36, 28 October 2019 review of submission by Dezoysas
I need to move my page to the actual tittle. It says tittle is black listed. I cannot understand. Please explain.

Dezoysas (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I assume you mean User:Dezoysas/sandbox. What is the exact title you would like to move it to? Some pages are "blacklisted" because they are frequently associated with spam. For instance, only admins can create pages with the f-word in the title, to prevent abuse. However, well meaning pages are often caught up in these black lists. Just tell me the title and I'll help you figure it out :) Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , After looking at your submission, I've realized that much of it is directly copied from the source. That represents a violation of our copyright policy. Please do not copy from sources. See WP:COPYVIO for more information. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

04:48:14, 28 October 2019 review of draft by BecDjapovic
I need help understanding where my submission process is up to. Thank you for your quick reply.

BecDjapovic (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , It appears you currently have different versions of the same draft. Neither of them are currently submitted, which means they aren't in the review queue. If the issues raised in the last review have been fixed, you may resubmit one of them for re-review. Please be patient, as the review queue is currently very long and it could take more than 8 weeks to get reviewed. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Request on 05:21:43, 28 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Streetmilitia
Thanks so much for the review feedback on my first ever Wiki page creation, I would like to learn more specific on the overall assessment why it was rated as not notable sufficiently. Is it a topic that I should just give up or is there anything that is still missing in the context that I could continue to fill out the blank to make improvement and eventually it will be accepted for publication?

Streetmilitia (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). The only glimmer of promise is that the company is publicly traded. Per WP:LISTED, that is not a guarantee of notability, but such companies often are notable. The draft cites sources that are not arms length (GSMA, About Us, Lenovo, Qualcomm, Baidu), are indiscriminate (Bloomberg), are trivial mentions (Lenovo, Qualcomm), or are primary source interviews with little or no independent analysis (Xinhua, stock.jrj.com.cn). None of them help show notability, so you would need to start over from scratch.


 * Writing a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks that someone who hasn't edited Wikipedia much can attempt. I advise you to gain substantial experience editing exiting articles before trying to create a new one, especially one about a company that is still in existence. See Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

05:23:30, 28 October 2019 review of submission by Dezoysas
Dezoysas (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your early reply. I understand your concern. You can observe that, I am the author, publisher and the copyright holder of the related source. That is why I got information from the source. But, I added reference. Is that still copyright violation? If you think still it is copyright violation, then let me make a significant change. I need to change the title to "Structured Formal Reverse Proofs with NO Statement Labeling". Still I am editing the article.


 * Hi . If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy, you can license that text so that publishing it here does not violate copyright. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.


 * Also note that material written for publications other than an encyclopedia can rarely be reused here, because it was written for a different purpose. So even if you can legally copy something, you may not be able to use it in Wikipedia.


 * The draft has been moved to Draft:Structured formal reverse proofs with no statement labeling, in accordance with MOS:TITLES. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

07:39:23, 28 October 2019 review of submission by AlexOBT
Hi, this page was declined, so I'm checking whether it will be possible to get it approved by adding more references or info. The reason given was not enough independent references. I included about 4, which were all reviews - do we simply need more of these types of reference? Or are these not considered credible enough, and I should bolster them with other types of source that mention the group? Is there a more general issue with not being notable enough? I took my cue from this page to see what level of fame a troupe should have to get a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_improvisational_theatre_companies#Improvisational_theatre_companies_in_the_United_Kingdom and I'd modestly suggest Hivemind Improv are more notable than at least 1/3 of the troupes that do have a page! Is there any kind of evidence/citation I can use to demonstrate this? Thanks!

AlexOBT (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

08:24:21, 28 October 2019 review of submission by 106.66.43.52
Dear Team Pls Edit Rahul Megh Arya Wiki Page. These Page Reject due to citation and News Source but this page have Already News Source on Google. You Can Check in News or Google. 106.66.43.52 (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Both these "news" article appear to be promotional press releases, which are not suitable for Wikipedia. There are not other sources provided. Do not remove AfC templates. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

14:07:13, 28 October 2019 review of draft by JamesGordon69
I am not sure what else to cite. Because this is an episode of Looney Tunes, there aren't many professional sources I can site for this. I still believe it should be an article because basically every single episode of Looney Tunes is culturally relavent in its own right and every other Looney Tunes episode has a page of its own.

James Gordon (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . According to Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1950–59), Wikipedia has no articles about at least four Looney Tunes cartoons from 1953 alone. Perhaps not all are notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a stand alone article). If Kiss Me Cat is truly culturally relevant, then I would expect plenty of sources to exist, and would think the draft could say much more about it and its cultural relevance than a plot summary and a sentence about production. WikiProject Animation or WikiProject Film might be able to suggest where you could look for non-primary reliable sources, I suggest you reach out to them. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

15:00:24, 28 October 2019 review of draft by Paologabriotti
Hello, I need help as my draft about a cultural organisation has been denied for publication. The reason stated is that I express the company view point and I don’t provide reliable sources. I understand the comment of the reviewer, although I don’t agree with it, but I don’t have more specific informations to try to solve the problem. The organisation (which is not a company) operates in the cultural field and is internationally recognised, it works since twenty years with Italian and International renowned artists and it already has wikipedia pages of art festivals they organized. I have opted for a synthetic text, with only descriptive basic informations about the organisation and its activities, providing links to the already existing wikipedia articles, academic publications related to the their artistic field of research and a couple of articles coming from renowned international art magazines (directly readable online). About the company view point I don’t know if it may be because I tried to be synthetic, but I thought it was better to keep it short, descriptive and to allow potential further interventions. Do you think I should expand the text? Do you have any suggestions possibly more specific on what to edit? Before editing for a new review I would like to hear an extra opinion. Thank you very much for the attention!

Paologabriotti (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The tone is overly promotional. For instance, I would rewrite the lead to be much more neutral such as Xing is a cultural organization based in Bologna, Italy, founded in 2000. The organization focuses on experimental artistic practices, which it presents in cultural initiatives, festivals and public events. Regardless, better sources are needed to prove that the company is actually notable. Please read WP:NCORP to see what is required. The tldr version is: you need coverage in multiple reliable media sources independent of the subject. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Request on 17:17:07, 28 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Atharva anil khetle
I want to publish my page I am new on Wikipedia please help me to publish my page

Atharva anil khetle (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The page is currently blank, so there is nothing to publish. What are you looking to write about? Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

21:14:50, 28 October 2019 review of submission by Wikiabc123wiki
Wikiabc123wiki (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The page is about a company. For us to include it, it has be covered by multiple reliable independent sources per WP:NCORP. If you can find those sources, you may try to get the article approved again. But if such sources do not exist, the subject is not notable. The problem with the existing references is that they are not independent. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

21:46:05, 28 October 2019 review of submission by Bigboy19189
Bigboy19189 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC) post it
 * , You seemed to have two drafts in your sandbox, one entitled hockey, the other on stranger things. However you did not include any useful content. Furthermore, those pages already exist. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

22:25:20, 28 October 2019 review of submission by Ars Combinatoria
I am seeking another opinion regarding the subject's notability as a musician. Please see the talk page Draft talk:Debbie Brooks for why I believe the subject is notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Other advice about improving the article is appreciated as well.

Ars Combinatoria (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

23:49:15, 28 October 2019 review of draft by Inca28a
Inca28a (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Please, could you help me, with a less complicated vocabulary how can I improve this article?

Thank you so much!

Inca28a (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Currently you have only a table of songs. You also need to include regular written words alongside the table. Briefly discuss Fraser, and his discography. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)