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

= October 3 =

02:06:37, 3 October 2019 review of submission by Shoethorn7685
Are there any comments on this article? Any changes that I need to make? I submitted it in May, and am not sure of the process. Thank you. Shoethorn7685 (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . The draft was created in May. It has been in the pool to be reviewed since your edit of 16 July. The backlog stands at four and half months, so you can anticipate a review by the end of the year. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

06:25:35, 3 October 2019 review of draft by Lifelonglearning1
Lifelonglearning1 (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

06:57:58, 3 October 2019 review of submission by Nataliembent
How do I include the info box with a picture and basic info on the right-hand side on Daya Reddy's page?Nataliembent (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Nataliembent (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . I've added one for you. See Template:Infobox scientist/doc for how to use it. Be careful not to add anything to it (or to the article) without citing a reliable published source. His exact date of birth, for example, is not in the cited sources, only his age as of certain dates of publication. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @WorldBruce, much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliembent (talk • contribs) 09:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

08:08:24, 3 October 2019 review of draft by E-Stylus
On June 8, 2019, this draft was submitted from my account for a second review. During the pending review period, my edits to the draft were removed by on October 2, 2019. On October 3, 2019, the draft was declined with a request for speedy deletion by. As the current draft does not reflect the content created and submitted by my account, what is the proper procedure to facilitate a review of the prior version without pushing the draft back to the new submission category? My paid contribution disclosure is noted on the draft's talk page. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted back to your version. Lavita09 is probably a trouble maker - perhaps a sock of another editor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . E-Stylus (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

08:55:21, 3 October 2019 review of draft by Mubashshir8
The article has been stuck in AFC pending submission for over 10 weeks. It was moved there citing conflict of interest. I don't work for him, or represent him, but have been a beneficiary of his welfare schemes once in the past. He had helped someone in my family to afford costly medical treatment. That's all the connection I have with him. It would be great if someone could guide me in modifying the article, given you feel he should be present on Wikipedia, which I believe he must. He has been covered by national media of two countries, both India and Dubai and his work has been acknowledged globally.

Mubashshir8 (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

14:49:12, 3 October 2019 review of submission by Alemipiruz
I would like to know the status of the review of the article and why the pictures were removed?

Alemipiruz (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

14:50:28, 3 October 2019 review of submission by Alemipiruz
What is the status of the review of my article?

Alemipiruz (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for five weeks. The backlog stands at four and a half months, so you can expect a review by the end of the year or thereabouts. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

18:13:26, 3 October 2019 review of draft by Tguytonwiki
Hello, I am honestly confused and frustrated by the recent rejection of my submission. Specifically, I feel that I am getting contradictory feedback. On my initial submission, the first reviewer noted that my subject, Dean Schillinger, "is notable per h-index". My references include several articles where my subject is featured very prominently in notable publications such as the NY Times (see reference #17), The San Francisco Chronicle (#12) as well as other reputable sites where he was recognized such as the James Irvine Foundation. Yet, the most recent reviewer says "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" There are a few other feature articles that I could add to the article - I'd mainly held back a bit because of previous comments stating that the tone should be less self-promotional. I would greatly appreciate some additional input on this. If I add one or two more references from independent, notable publications, should that be sufficient? Thanks

Tguytonwiki (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Creating a new article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can attempt. Each reviewer may have different strengths and may focus on different things. It's an iterative process, but if you try to follow everyone's advice, the draft will keep improving. I've left a detailed comment on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:28:14, 3 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Fizzylytics
Hey

I am trying to submit the page for the actress Pippa Hughes. She is a famous Bollywood actor. Can you please help me with the problem as we got rejection for two times. They said that we have problems with references. Can you suggest anything ?

Fizzylytics (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Please clarify what you mean by "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the reply! I wrote it in general. I am trying to submit above mentioned page. But it is displaying the problem with references. Any help would be appreciated.

19:07:55, 3 October 2019 review of submission by Mathuriga1
Mathuriga1 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I got my article published. Thank you very much for that! I have been notified with a message with inappropriate external links. I went through my article again, and couldn't find anything inappropriate about the links. I have attached the links for the publications, so people who are interested in reading, those can access it easily. Every website is a valid one. How can I get the message removed?Mathuriga1 (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like it has been resolved, but what that meant was that links to external sites should not be in the body of an article. If absolutely necessary to have in the article, then an "external links" section should be used (located at the bottom of the article in question). You can read more about that here. If you have any questions, please let us know. -- The SandDoctor Talk 15:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

19:28:09, 3 October 2019 review of submission by Bigdatafans
Asking for specific advice about which parts of the article are not notable so I can revise or delete them. Bigdatafans (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Rejection (in contrast to decline with the possibility of resubmission after improvement) is meant to convey that the draft's topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). So the specific part of the draft that should be deleted is the subject, Levyx. Most businesses are not notable. You may find WP:BFAQ informative. You're welcome to write about something else, but if you're only interested in writing about Levyx, consider alternative outlets with different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

21:28:54, 3 October 2019 review of draft by Angeles Pacheco
Hi, I am writing my first article and before I publish it, I would like someone to help me double check it. I would like to correct or fix any possible mistake so wikipedia will approve it and publish it. Looking forward to hearing form you. Thank you so much Angeles

Angeles Pacheco (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog is 4-5 months, so you can expect to receive feedback by January or February 2020. Perhaps there are some good sources in there, but from a quick glance, the draft appears to cite a very large number of very poor sources (trivial mentions, unreliable sources, press releases, etc.) If they haven't been removed by the time it is reviewed, the draft likely will be declined. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

21:46:36, 3 October 2019 review of submission by Potpart
I would like to know if www.naiop.org, Nevada Business Magazine, Las Vegas Business Press and the Casino Style Magazine can be considered reliable and independent sources, I've added references from these to the draft.

Potpart (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * www.naiop.org and Casino Style Magazine are trade publications. There is a presumption against the use of coverage in such sources to establish notability because of a lack of independence.
 * Nevada Business Magazine has an editor (who didn't bat an eye at "everybody pulled their thumbs out of the damn") but no writing staff. Their website features an email address for companies wanting to submit press releases. The writer is a freelancer with a degree in political science. You could ask for an opinion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I think the community is unlikely to regard it as either reliable or independent.
 * Las Vegas Business Press content is copyright the Las Vegas Review-Journal, so it is reliable. Some reviewers may quibble with how heavily it leans on Ed Vance as a source, but I believe there is enough independent analysis by the reporter for it to count toward notability.
 * Most businesses are not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Attention solely from Vegas-based media is not an indication of notability for a Vegas-based business; at least one broader source - regional, statewide, national, or international - is necessary per WP:AUD. You may find WP:BFAQ informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)