Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 February 24

= February 24 =

00:13:38, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Jebayles
Link from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Tasmanian_Football_Association_(formed_1996) does not point to our club information or history. Various other club pages exist from our league/association containing less content and references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Patrick%27s_Old_Collegians_Football_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsdale_Football_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgenorth_Football_Club Jebayles (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

00:28:20, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Elegant Nurse
Hello! What is the problem with the edit sir?

I simply cannot comprehend why you block my words of truth and conscience.

Thank you Elegant Nurse (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would advise reading the links provided in the decline messages on the draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

01:23:05, 24 February 2020 review of draft by Sungjinyun
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I've corrected the infobox and added notable sources like NYTimes and Newsday and leading industry trade publications as well. But the last comment said there was "no difference" but no specifics. just general guidelines that don't seem to provide more detailed direction. Please help! SJY 01:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

02:37:37, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Zzhu8516
Zzhu8516 (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi! My article is viewed by u. But i made a lot of changes up to now. Can u remove the speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhu8516 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Being handled at Teahouse. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

02:45:56, 24 February 2020 review of submission by VeritaHG
VeritaHG (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Your draft was rejected because it had no sources and appeared entirely promotional. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 03:45:48, 24 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Juanpatlang
I think I may need help in publishing my first article. Previously, I think I didn't add any content because I was still trying to understand the system. Now I've added a content. But don't know what the next step is aside from publishing it. So please message me if there's anything I'm missing. Thanks!

Juanpatlang (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , You need to provide WP:RS to show WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

05:24:29, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Mohitprakashsharma555
Mohitprakashsharma555 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to find at least three sources that are:
 * Professionally-published, mainstream academic or journalistic sources (for example, newspaper articles)
 * Specifically and primarily about Hansraj Raghuwanshi
 * Not connected to, dependent upon, nor affiliated with Hansraj Raghuwanshi or anyone he works with or for, nor his family nor friends
 * Once you have those, summarize them, and then paraphrase the summary, citing the sources throughout the paraphrase. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

07:13:37, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Josepbs
I need to create a Wikipedia page for a person, But its companies not listed on Wikipedia.what do? First, create a page for a person or create a page for companies.

Josepbs (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First, you must disclose your employment per the instructions I'll be leaving on your page. Next you should read our instructions on editing with a conflict of interest and a financial stake in a topic.  Then, once you understand that, these instructions will tell you how to create an article that won't be rejected or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

10:29:08, 24 February 2020 review of submission by 2601:8C3:8000:55D8:BC48:7798:CFCF:279C
2601:8C3:8000:55D8:BC48:7798:CFCF:279C (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Your editor wrote: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. With all due respect, I think whomever reviewed this entry is not familiar with Irish publications. This is one of the more important literary publications of Northern Ireland, whose editor, Amos Greig, is highly respected. Indeed, A New Ulster has been publishing for 8 years now and is so important that is is recognized by Poets & Writers in their directory, something that is not possible unless you are a legitimate, leading, publication. https://www.pw.org/search/google/A%20New%20Ulster That link alone should convince you that it belongs as a listing...


 * - the reviewer didn't make their judgement from their own assessment of how important the publication was (that would require an impossible breadth of knowledge for anyone to cover everything). It was made from the three sources you'd used - one of which is the own site, and the other two are primarily seeking new writers/content. As such, none of them are independent. The publication, like almost any other article, needs multiple sources that are reliable, independent (no bias & no interviews), in-depth, secondary.
 * Your link above seems to indicate various authors who have had their content included. Notability can't be "inherited" - you need sources writing about the publication itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your link above seems to indicate various authors who have had their content included. Notability can't be "inherited" - you need sources writing about the publication itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

14:39:10, 24 February 2020 review of draft by Brucewalker1
I am requesting help because I am using reliable, independent sources for this page, yet it keeps getting declines. Could you specify exactly what is wrong with it? Brucewalker1 (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You have one independent source, one is a press release type announcement, and one is a fluff piece. All describe the company's products and not the company itself. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is needed. If these do not exist, then the company would not merit an article at this time and no amount of editing can change that. Are you associated with the company? 331dot (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

16:07:57, 24 February 2020 review of draft by Ali.shaila
Ali.shaila (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

My entry was declined. I am not sure why someone declined my submission because I modeled my page after an already published Wikipedia page. The page I modeled after was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory

Why are the entries not reviewed by more than one person? And what if there are published pages in the same format? Why do reviewers don't search already published pages before commenting on other people's work?

I am trying to edit my entry but I am not sure what to edit.


 * A comment about copyright on this. This appears to be this paper. I am very confused about who the author is. It says "Ronald P. Rohner", but then it also says "Abdul Khaleque" and "David E. Cournoyer" contributed. Wikipedia can only accept freely licensed work, which only the author(s) may release as freely licensed. Who holds the copyright of the work at this time? Did previous authors transfer their rights to the current author? Does the University have copyright? Has the paper been released under any free license? — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

No, these people are just in the references. It is only my page. I am just referencing their work as contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I only compared the start of the article. The first paragraph from the draft:
 * "Interpersonal acceptance-rejection theory (IPARTheory) is an evidence-based theory of socialization and lifespan development that aims to predict and explain major consequences, antecedents, and other correlates of interpersonal acceptance and rejection worldwide"
 * Here is the first sentence from the paper:
 * "Interpersonal acceptance-rejection theory (IPARTheory) is an evidence-based theory of socialization and lifespan development that aims to predict and explain major consequences and other correlates of interpersonal acceptance and rejection worldwide"
 * What I said still applies, but only for any content that is copied like this. You have to summarize and paraphrase, otherwise it is plagiarism at best and copyright infringement at worst. Although you could make an argument it's the most concise and precise way to describe it. Or make it a quote. However, I would say that I am not familiar with the topic and this explanation did not really help my understanding that much, so it should be rewritten for a general reader anyway. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

16:48:14, 24 February 2020 review of draft by DougHill
I'm confused. The latest reviewer, User:Praxidicae, states that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Yet every claim on the page cites a reliable (and independent) source. What are we doing wrong?

The previous reviewer, User:WikiAviator, states that "the notability is already proven. What you need is to improve the format (like more on his personal life)". Aren't we liable to make WP:BLP violations with information on his personal life? If we have the notability and sourcing (which I understand to be the issues here), shouldn't this move into article space? After all, we should always be improving the article. The article already has more that many stubs.

DougHill (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that you should be aiming to just be better than stubs. Yes, we are liable of BLP violations but personal life is necessary for biographies or else you're writing a resume. After fixing this, then you can resumbit it and I will publish it if everything's okay. WikiAviator (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the constructive criticism. I aim for the page to be a lot better, but I don't want to waste time on a page that cannot be approved.  I've added some information about his work with his late brother, and mentioned in the lede that his main claims to fame are his work with other people.  (We've also added an infobox and made some other improvements.)  A difficulty with getting more personal information is that more is available from PragerU etc., which is reliable but not independent.  Earlier versions of the draft were criticized for citing this.  I think that the draft most needs expansion in coverage of his books; this is where I plan to contribute first if the draft can become an article. DougHill (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Could you please check the page and tell us what you think? We've added personal info as discussed above. DougHill (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

16:51:34, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Aliciasue.cote
Aliciasue.cote (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I was wondering why my draft for Draft:Take A Daytrip was declined again. I have added secondary sources to the page describing and accounting the duo as producers and I have cited various accounts of where the duo has been credited for their work. What else can be added to help this page get approved?
 * Be advised that Instagram is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

16:54:47, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Mingdaoisgod
The things in the article is already verified, Eg Dan does have 2 million followers on Instagram, and he has 2 million subscribers on youtube.

Hes story from Hong Kong to Canada To Millionaire is also true, hes net worth is 50 million according to famousebirthday. He has lots of companies including Dan Lok Media, Closers.com, Copywriters.com.

He is the leader of a global movement, high income skills, its a concept he stands for and he has lots of programs and courses that teaches that, the reviews and feedbacks are very possitive.

Hes books is best selling in some catagory of books according to Amazon ranking.

He has been interviewed in lots of news, channels, magazine, radio because hes rich and famouse. He has been features on lots of sites like forbes.com, entrepreneures.com, inc.com, fox business...

All that is true, please suggest what i could edit on. Mingdaoisgod (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Linked In, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Amazon, and his own website are not suitable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

17:30:44, 24 February 2020 review of submission by BramsKK
My draft was submitted 2 weeks ago and was denied the reason stated was: Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. I checked and it seems that I am in line with wiki guidelines for inline citations. The page is on the first lady of my country all references are from our local legitimate and reputable news outlets and official government websites. Given the above-mentioned reasons could you please assist me on where I went wrong and how I can correct this asap. thank you BramsKK (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Early Life and Career" section has no sources, "Marriage and Children" section has no sources, "Office of the First Lady 2018- Present" section has no sources, and the whole tone of the draft is promotional in nature. Theroadislong (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

17:41:46, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Liveshirdi
Liveshirdi (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is blatant advertising; there is nothing we can help you with. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

18:06:49, 24 February 2020 review of submission by ReadingRed
Hello. My draft for the author Talia Hibbert was recently declined, and the reason that was given was I did not show significant coverage of her in reliable, independent, secondary sources. In my list of sources I have pieces published by NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, Entertainment Weekly, among others. Some of these pieces solely focus on Talia Hibbert's work, while others discuss her in what I would categorize as more than a passing mention. I'm wondering how many more of these types of sources I would need for this page to be considered a publishable article because I felt confident submitting my draft with what I had. ReadingRed (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

18:40:05, 24 February 2020 review of submission by 68.103.78.155
I Put in 3 Sources that they are true from newspaper and tv websites and it says that those 3 are true statements. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 68.103.78.155 (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

19:18:56, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Sammy singhh
Sammy singhh (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

19:21:13, 24 February 2020 review of submission by 198.17.32.188
This organization is a growing organization helping thousands of those living in the impoverished country of Bangladesh where most of the world's clothing is exported and has almost 40% of its population living in poverty and 12% living in extreme poverty. BhaatBank is helping feed the poor of Bangladesh which has provided a considerable impact in the country. They have over 1500 volunteers and are expected to expand to over 10,000 in the coming years, the work that these people have done with clothing drives and the distributions of everything given to them is amazing. 198.17.32.188 (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm a family historian for the Ron Mickel family. Ron was a business man in the 1960's who had several businesses including a carry-out, a Fine Art Gallery, and a hardware store when he began selling custom cut frame moulding via magazine mail-order. His was the first company to start selling picture frames in this manner. Business boomed in the 1970's and 1980's and a large scale custom picture frame business was launched. Then when the internet came around in the 1990's, it morphed into the world's first online picture frame company. Today, this has become a two billion dollar industry. The reason you can find cited publications on American Frame is because everything is online now. Please check the history of this company before you reject the significance of it in the world of culture.

Thank you. Valerie Kopp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.251.90.252 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

20:07:28, 24 February 2020 review of submission by Chris.cornerstone
Thank you, editors, for your guidance in helping me to write an entry for the organization Cornerstone International Group. But I must admit to becoming depressed by the repeated reasons put forward for not accepting my entry. A quick note on me. I have been a business writer for many years and I learned my craft as a daily journalist and ultimately daily columnist for one of Canada's top three newspapers. Now for the sources of my depression. 1.	Bias. There is a boilerplate text that begins: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia" which I believe editors tend to reach for a little too eagerly. This has been the opening salvo on every rejection and, since possibly the first, is simply not true. The current text is entirely factual and written from a neutral point of view inline with other industry peers published in Wikipedia. The latest editorial comment implying no change in five revs is particularly egregious and reflects badly on the author ans an apparent lack of understanding of the business under discussion. .  There is clearly a downside to "community editing."

2.	Validation. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. I'm sure you receive many comments on this. I fully understand that you have to define "notable" but you must be aware of the flaws in your criteria.  Gray's "gem of purest ray serene' is still notable though no-one ever sees it, never mind writes about it in a "reliable source". One reason why Cornerstone has few references is because it has independent members in 36 countries who tend to be more newsworthy than the parent organization that binds them. I believe the references I have been able to give meet your standards. "	Forbes Media is an American business magazine publishing original articles on finance, industry, investing and marketing. It was founded 102 years ago and reaches 19 million people. "	Scanlon Hunt Media is 25 years old and is focussed on the HR and Talent Management Industries. "	Huffpost (The Huffington Post) is a widely cited American news and opinion website and blog, with localized and international editions. It was launched in 2005 and attracts 40 millilon visitors monthly "	AESC. This is not a news organization but an association of firms in the Retained Executive Search business for which it is the global authority. Membership criteria are stringent. An original interview of the Cornerstone Chairman by the AESC CEO can reasonably be considered "notable". AESC has been accepted as a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia entries of three of our peers. Since the references given are specific, the latest editorial criticism seems to be there should be more than seven: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". Please refer Randstad India (3 references), Whitehead Mann (4 references) Spencer Stuart (5 references)

3.	Who's running the store? I have not found any explanation of the editing philosophy or function or whether in fact there is a control process. If there is someone at Wikipedia responsible for the qualification of editors, I would appreciate being able to discuss this further. In particular, after having reviewed a dozen or more Wikipedia entries, I see no justification for this entry not being accepted.

Chris.cornerstone (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've taken a fresh look at the draft. I have cleaned it up a bit. However I am not sure why the organisation belongs in an encyclopedia. We don't have articles about every organisation. At the moment this just looks like you're intent on publicity for the organisation, which is against Wikipedia's terms of use. I know there are other articles that you think are less worthy than yours, but that's not a valid argument. If we have a number of articles that don't meet the criteria that the Wikipedia community has come up with then we certainly don't want more of the same. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have also declined it for being an advert too, lines like "Members are recognized leaders in global executive search and leadership advisory solutions." is straight out of the marketing department! Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

20:10:30, 24 February 2020 review of submission by 173.198.42.6
Additional information has been included. 173.198.42.6 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your additions haven't helped show how this station is notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)