Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 October 7

= October 7 =

07:13:21, 7 October 2019 review of draft by Patroong
Patroong (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

08:01:33, 7 October 2019 review of draft by 46.240.142.86
Dear editor, I noticed that my Wikipedia submission was not accepted due to the lack of relevant references. Before publishing the page about Jessica Sepel, I read Wikipedia guidelines and in addition to that checked pages similar to this one to compare my content and references to some existing pages (to be more specific, I discovered these pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ella_Woodward, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayla_Itsines). I was wondering how the references listed on these two pages differ from the ones on Jessica Sepel page and if you could tell me in more detail or give me an example of what I should be looking for. Thanks!

46.240.142.86 (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is constantly a work in progress with many substandard articles. If you feel that they do not live up to the notability guidelines, then feel free to nominate them for deletion. shoy (reactions) 17:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

09:44:19, 7 October 2019 review of submission by Yogi raj2
This is an inspirational personality in the world of mobile smartphones in India. Details about him are being sought by people throughout India. The correct details can only be shown via Wikipedia and that is what might have led to the COI issues. Requesting a reconsideration for review based on new sources added. Yogi raj2 (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . The cited sources, heavy on trivial mentions and press releases, fail to demonstrate that he is notable. Rejection is meant to convey that not only is the current draft unacceptable, but that no better sources exist, so the topic is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. No amount of editing can fix that problem, so volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

09:58:30, 7 October 2019 review of draft by Sltechy
Hi,

My article was reviewed and rejected by Dan arndt stating that the article "It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous rather than factual, or is an obvious hoax. As Wikipedia strives to contain only factual entries, we can not accept your submission at this time."

The article is purely factual and has been created due to the controversy that surrounded the ownership of the product PickMe, which is the market leader in Digital Mobility in Sri Lanka.

This article is not a hoax as stated in the reason for rejection and has a backing of citations.

Please be kind enough to let me know what the next steps should be

Sltechy (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've left a comment on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

10:47:45, 7 October 2019 review of draft by Ray Oaks
Unable to detect why this draft does not meet the Following Criteria "Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner." Sources are the bais for a factual statement of what has been published. Help! Ray Oaks (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Ray Oaks (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . The popular culture section is original research. Shakespeare, D.H. Lawrence, and Dylan Thomas may have used the words womb and tomb, but did not write about Neolithic burial sites, and nothing you've cited demonstrates otherwise. Remove the section.


 * The archaeological evidence section has more promise. Add page numbers (and volumes, where applicable) to the citations. It isn't sufficient to say that somewhere in these 600+ pages is a statement that supports the claim.


 * Best practice would be to continue editing Draft:Womb tombs. It would be inadvisable to delete the first draft or create a second draft on the same topic under a different name or in a sandbox. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - Will reconsider the initial paragraph and focus the article on the archaeology. NB - Henshall is the primary archaeology authority - this is part of the References etc. ??? Will see if I can comply. The sequence of using the Literature sources first was to help the reader "into" the topic. Ray Oaks (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Am confused about which version of the entry you have commented on? Was it the version that was moved from my Sandbox a couple of weeks ago? Or the present version? If you could clarify, it would help. The Literature/ popular culture is the intro to a lengthy section with images etc that locate the concept "Womb Tombs" clearly in archaeology. Does that make sense? Thanks again Ray Oaks (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My comments are regarding the page you linked in your question, Draft:Womb tombs. Keeping multiple versions on different pages is a bad idea. It causes confusion, breaks the thread of development, and can become a copyright violation if anyone contributes something that you later fork without the contribution history. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding multiple drafts. I wish I knew how to delete the original draft I submitted for review. If you know how, please say so. I only wish to keep a draft in my current Sandbox. Can you help? I wish to proceed with editing the current version in the Sandbox. Ray Oaks (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As the only substantial contributor of content to the page, you may request deletion by adding Db-author to the top of the draft that you want deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

18:08:43, 7 October 2019 review of draft by ScottFromNY
I submitted an article to be reconsidered in august and it's october. Haven't heard back. It took like a day for it to be denied and now it's two months into the resubmission process. Any idea to find out what's going on?

ScottFromNY (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Some reviewers concentrate on recent submissions that can be disposed of quickly, which may explain the initial quick decline. The draft was resubmitted 7 weeks ago. The current backlog is 4-5 months, so you can anticipate another review by the first half of January. The company is fairly obviously not notable, so the draft is likely to be declined again. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

22:35:27, 7 October 2019 review of draft by Baozon90
Baozon90 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

droeloe should be made into an article. its in draft right now. Thnx Baozon90 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Speedily deleted for that reason after Baozon90's posting. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)