Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 3

= January 3 =

11:04:26, 3 January 2020 review of draft by Devesh16041996
Devesh16041996 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You kept moving the draft into the mainspace manually. That is seen as an attempt to game the system. That is frowned upon, and has led to your article being nominated for deletion. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

12:35:09, 3 January 2020 review of submission by AugusteBlanqui

 * Your draft needs more and better sources. It also is overly promotional. If you have further questions about how to do that, please open a new question. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

15:15:13, 3 January 2020 review of submission by DylanStone17
Dylan Stone (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Team,

I am requesting a new review. This company is significant should be added to Wikipedia for reference.

Thank you.
 * No the rejection was correct the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, there are no independent sources covering the subject in-depth. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

15:18:00, 3 January 2020 review of submission by Eldan K
Hello,

I don't know why this page has been rejected, as the information about the game included is just an objective description of a VR game. There aren't links to the company website nor the stores where it's sold, just a couple of links to VR websites that covered the title. The game is already well known on Youtube and other social media.

If there is any formal problem with the text, I'm available to reword it following any directions provided by your editors. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines and I think I followed them to the letter, but I'm sorry if I made any mistake.

Best, Daniel

Eldan K (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Howdy hello! The issue here is notability. Wikipedia only covers topics that have recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. You did not provide any such sources. If you can find me five sources that discuss the subject with significant coverage and are reliable and independent, post them on my talk page and I will consider them, and if they show notability I will help you to write the article. For games, that usually means game reviews. If such sources cannot be found, the subject is not notable, and we cannot write about them. In that case, I'm sorry, I know it feels bad to have your work thrown away. But take it as a learning opportunity. To help your WikiJourney, you may wish to take the Wikipedia Adventure. General editing questions may be asked at the always friendly Teahouse. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

15:58:16, 3 January 2020 review of submission by Rohitmishra111
How long time it would take to move this article from draft space to main space. This article was begun with few contents and 25 references but now I have expanded its contents with 41 references. I am continually expanding its contents and references and trying my level best to improve this article. Other users are also improving the article. This article will be improving. So,you are requested to review this page in order to move it to main space (if still there's need to improve the article let me know). Would love to hear from your side.

Rohitmishra111 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The draft was reviewed and accepted on 27th December . Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 16:40:03, 3 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by HesamNM
Regarding the submission for "Ross Pomerantz" I was wondering why it did not meet the notable criteria?

HesamNM (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is not significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable and independent sources. We don't write about everyone I'm afraid, only those who have received coverage. Rather few instagram influencers meet our standards in general. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

16:43:20, 3 January 2020 review of submission by Iam brayann
I didn't find any article written on what I wrote about and its my prayer and request to know why it was not published. Iam brayann (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I take it you refer to User:Iam brayann/sandbox. The issue is that you didn't cite any sources. If you find reliable sources that discuss the subject, and add them (see referencing for beginners for a great tutorial) then the article may be accepted. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your additions may be better suited to an existing page, such as Thermal conductivity. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

18:47:13, 3 January 2020 review of draft by 195.245.160.206
My article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spoonfulone ) took a few days then weeks to be reviewed the first time, and after it was declined I made every change asked by the reviewers and now it tells me it can take as long as 4 months... How can we speed this up? I know reviewers are volunteers and I appreciate it, but I'm afraid something is wrong. Thank you LuisPerformance (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see that it has been reviewed today. Note that the backlog of pages is almost 4,000 which is why reviews are estimated to take so long. Taking a look at the draft, I agree with the latest reviewer that it is still overly promotional. If you have questions on how to fix that, please ask here. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

22:23:06, 3 January 2020 review of draft by Grog-unicolon
They ask for substantial unrelated sources that show why this subject deserves a wiki, and I included links to articles by the New York Times, NPR, the AJC, and many other sources. I'm not sure what else is required to see that this subject has been covered, as I see all kinds of articles with way less documentation than even this. What can I do to meet that requirement?

Grog-unicolon (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Grog-unicolon (talk). The references used (and added) demonstrate her notability. I just resubmitted the article on your behalf and accepted it. Thanks for the contribution, and I hope you stick around! JSFarman (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

22:54:33, 3 January 2020 review of draft by Vandyfellow
Vandyfellow (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Howdy hello! Its unlikely he saw it, as reviewers post a lot of notices everyday, and do not usually watch the pages they post on. If you'd like a reply from an editor, it is better to post on their talk page, which will be watched. Taking a look at your draft, it still needs section headers. It is also very technical, and likely meaningless to users without a background in the subject. Providing additional context and ensuring that the language is formal yet readable will help. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor, Robert McClenon, had a COI question regarding the following web page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fluorocoxib_A?action=edit

I responded that I do not have a fiduciary interest in this imaging agent. I'm not sure if he received my response or what the final decision was.

Please advise. Thank you.

23:34:13, 3 January 2020 review of submission by Nandasiri Gunaratne
I am still during the draft stage. Trying to understand how to write an article. You guys keep rejecting before even we learn this program how to use it. Nandasiri Gunaratne (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , AfC reviewers kept rejecting it because you kept submitting it. If you continue to submit a draft without improving between submissions, the usual outcome is rejection.
 * Also, who is "we"? Accounts are single use only.
 * The real issue here however is notability. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. You have a mere two references, which are not even cited inline. If you can find me five sources that discuss the subject with significant coverage and are reliable and independent, post them on my talk page and I will consider them, and if they show notability I will help you to write the article. If such sources cannot be found, the subject is not notable, and we cannot write about them. In that case, I'm sorry, I know it feels bad to have your work thrown away. But take it as a learning opportunity. To help your WikiJourney, you may wish to take the Wikipedia Adventure. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The real issue here however is notability. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. You have a mere two references, which are not even cited inline. If you can find me five sources that discuss the subject with significant coverage and are reliable and independent, post them on my talk page and I will consider them, and if they show notability I will help you to write the article. If such sources cannot be found, the subject is not notable, and we cannot write about them. In that case, I'm sorry, I know it feels bad to have your work thrown away. But take it as a learning opportunity. To help your WikiJourney, you may wish to take the Wikipedia Adventure. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The real issue here however is notability. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. You have a mere two references, which are not even cited inline. If you can find me five sources that discuss the subject with significant coverage and are reliable and independent, post them on my talk page and I will consider them, and if they show notability I will help you to write the article. If such sources cannot be found, the subject is not notable, and we cannot write about them. In that case, I'm sorry, I know it feels bad to have your work thrown away. But take it as a learning opportunity. To help your WikiJourney, you may wish to take the Wikipedia Adventure. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)