Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 June 25

= June 25 =

01:19:53, 25 June 2020 review of submission by Lddb8
I believe that this is a notable topic, as this individual is a part of the U.S. Congressional Record, served as President at the nation's number 1 high school where Former U.S. President Barack Obama signed the America Invents Act into law, and has been published by a variety of political news sources including BlueVirginia.

This student also writes regular articles with a circulation of over 10,000 readers and gathers lots of local and national news attention. This is sufficiently notable.

Lddb8 (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited by association; they must meet the definition of a notable person by themselves. There needs to be significant, in depth coverage of this person in independent reliable sources in order for them to merit an article. The sources you have provided are not such coverage. It is likely far too soon for an article about this person, if they merit one. 331dot (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

03:23:10, 25 June 2020 review of draft by 47.186.113.148
47.186.113.148 (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

03:40:47, 25 June 2020 review of submission by EttentionMarketing hello
}my page is rejected and I want help to publish it}

EttentionMarketing hello (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , your article cannot be published because it violates our policies. Do not use Wikipedia for anything that even remotely looks like advertising. Get rid of the buzzwords. Get rid of the promotional tone. Take a look at our featured articles, good articles or B-class articles for what is good, take a look at Category:Articles with a promotional tone for what to avoid. Take a look at our WP:TONE and the Manual of Style. If you have any specific questions, we can answer them, but you're paid, we're not—don't expect us to do all your work for you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

08:08:34, 25 June 2020 review of submission by Mohammedajameel
Dear Sir/Madam, this is my own page that I made myself by giving all correct information related to myself and can give written or documents that approves the accuracy of the data I have interned, please let me know if you required any extra information and that will be very much appreciated.

Also, please let me know what to change or what is the information I can keep or delete or add to make my biography publishable on wikipedia.

Many thanks.

Kind regards, Mohammed A. Jameel

Mohammedajameel (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

08:13:15, 25 June 2020 review of submission by Mohammedajameel
Mohammedajameel (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

My information I have listed here will guide many researcher for knowing my details and experiences to help them in the specific expertise I have listed.

Many thanks

08:31:29, 25 June 2020 review of submission by Little antipodes
Hi, I just created an article for Margaret Hislop (1894–1972) in my sandbox, I had saved and published all changes there. There was also a redirect link above it to a page I created recently for Gladys Barron. When trying to move the Margaret Hislop information to a draft page, I accidentally moved my whole sandbox which prioritised the redirect to Gladys Barron. I now can't find the text for Margaret Hislop - is there anyway to retrieve that history of my sandbox? Thanks! Little antipodes (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The foregoing notwithstanding, Margaret Hislop appears to be an article. Fiddle   Faddle  11:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

08:35:39, 25 June 2020 review of submission by RichieH206
RichieH206 (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I have a website that I created 16 years ago. I wanted to know how I could get it to Wikipedia?
 * Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. This is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about (in this case) a website, demonstrating how the website meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable website.  Wikipedia is not interested in what any article subject wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the subject say about it.  The significant coverage required is coverage that goes beyond brief mentions, routine announcements, staff interviews, or other primary sources.  Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on policies as well as declarations you may be required to make. Wikipedia prefers that articles be written by independent editors who take note of a subject in reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Start at WP:PROUD and WP:AUTOBIO. If you then are still sure you want to proceed, you can go to WP:YFA and learn how to do it. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I can understand your response. My only goal is to info people about life situations. It's not to make my site mention it's self! It's a different style of website. Can someone just visit and see what it's about please? If still your decision is the same, I have to respect your decision and just have my request for this Wikipedia project removed. I had no intention to change your policies. I only want to help my fellow man. I will not post my site because it won't be published due to your policies. I appreciate you at least allowing me the opportunity to join this Wikipedia encyclopedia.RichieH206 (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please make follow up comments in this existing section. What you state as your goal is not what Wikipedia is about, I must say. If you want to merely provide information to people, you will need to do that on social media or other platform where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

10:40:29, 25 June 2020 review of submission by Male.schmitt
Male.schmitt (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

because of your comment that the page requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability a section titled Reviews was added with two articles about the software. Do you think that this is enough to show the notability of this software?

Cheers Matthias


 * The two new references assist, somewhat. While you are considering when to resubmit it for review, do not sit idle. Look for more and better references.
 * We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * I am not sure a section "Reviews" itself helps. Try to take the material from that section and put ot in the meat of the draft, using the facts in the reviews to create that piece of article text. As a reviewer I look at sections like this as a cheap way to get references in. It's a good start, but it does not help the article's content. Fiddle   Faddle  10:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I merged the "Reviews" section into the text to improve on article's the content.
 * What exactly does "significant coverage" mean? Are independent magazines and popular blogs talking about a software enough?
 * I have two more blogs taking about the software but I don't see any additional value because the are rather brief and definitely fall under WP:SELFPUB.
 * Would it be ok to try resubmitting now?


 * "Significant" is a difficult word. It means "More than a passing mention", and usually more than new editors think. Blogs are almost always useless as references.
 * I haven't looked at the draft to judge whether it is worthy of submission. What I can say with certainty is that reviews often take a while to happen. Usually one is safe to submit while continuing to edit and improve referencing. Fiddle   Faddle  11:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

10:49:02, 25 June 2020 review of submission by 80.123.168.100
Cardano is one of the most legitimate cryptocurrencies, currently the 10th largest by market capitalization out of Cryptocurrencies: 5,618, with over 5 years of scientific peer-reviewed research and formal methods, please allow a Wikipedia page to exist. 80.123.168.100 (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this cryptocurrency does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it will not merit an article here. The sources that were offered seem to be routine business announcements or press release type articles, which do not establish notability. Please be aware of the special rules regarding editing about cryptocurrencies. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Request on 10:50:10, 25 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 89.76.82.103
Hi, My entry for SKYSAWA article keeps being declined due to insufficient references, although it includes 10 references to independent websites (mainly news portals, both in English and Polish). What can I do to improve? The article is devoted to high rise building being constructed in Warsaw, Poland and majority of secondary sources for the article will be in Polish. The building I'm writing about is also listed in existing Wikipedia articles such as List of tallest buildings in Warsaw. Thanks for any guidance! 89.76.82.103 (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe this has a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process. Those are the guidelines we review under. I ✅ your draft. Reviewers are individuals. We do disagree, and it is healthy that we do. Fiddle   Faddle  11:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

13:19:57, 25 June 2020 review of submission by Support Medias
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Support Medias (talk • contribs)


 * I see no draft yet, not quite, I see User:Support Medias/sandbox. We can move that to a draft if you wish and submit it for review for you? Fiddle   Faddle  17:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

13:36:19, 25 June 2020 review of submission by 2001:420:C0CC:1002:0:0:0:144
The info in this article isn't available anywhere else on the web, and it's info that most singing guitarists would love to have at their fingertips. I can't imagine why it would be rejected? I'm quite disappointed, especially as a consistent financial supporter of wikipedia. Would you be kind enough to reconsider? I am absolutely willing to make any changes that you'd like to see to make it more useful.

2001:420:C0CC:1002:0:0:0:144 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia, and is completely unsourced to independent reliable sources. It seems to be just your opinion, and you are soliciting other opinions.  Wikipedia is not for collecting opinions.  If you just want to tell the world your opinion as to who great guitar player/singers are, you should use social media, a blog or other personal website where that is permitted. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information; it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources state about article subjects.
 * Your donations are appreciated by us editors, but they are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation for operating the computers Wikipedia is on, and donations(or withholding them) has no effect on Wikipedia content or activities. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

16:57:36, 25 June 2020 review of submission by TacoTilla
TacoTilla (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft currently lacks independent, reliable sources. Interviews and other primary sources are not considered reliable. directory entries neither. Note that your draft has been rejected, meaning that it's probbably useless to invest more time as no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

17:29:29, 25 June 2020 review of submission by Stephen C Taylor
I do not believe any rules were broken I gave truthful and honest background information. Most of the key information is in fact shared with the article 70th Anniversary Grand Prix which was published. Stephen S.C Taylor 17:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . There are two pages on the same topic, User:Stephen C Taylor/sandbox/2020 British Grand Prix and Draft:2020 British Grand Prix. Having two copies is a bad thing. The reviewer wants you to forget about the sandbox and submit the draft space page for review. You can do so by editing Draft:2020 British Grand Prix, adding the code  at the top, and publishing the change. One could argue about the way the review of the sandbox was handled, but it's usually easier to just do what the reviewer asked. Jump through the right hoops and they may throw you a fish at the end. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

18:45:59, 25 June 2020 review of submission by Caraalee
The feedback for rejection stated that the article is "basically promotional." It's unclear whether it's promotional of the subject herself (Cheryl L. Dorsey) or the organization she is running (Echoing Green). If it is the latter, it would be helpful to know what elements are creating a biased framing. All references have citations from other sources, so I've done my best to be obective. Cheryl is an accomplished and revered Black woman in the U.S., and it's important to share her life's achievements, so any feedback is appreciated.

Caraalee (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

19:57:34, 25 June 2020 review of submission by Zestysms
I am wondering why my Wikipedia page for J. Scott Plank got rejected. I would like to resubmit for approval. Thank you. Zestysms (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Draft:J. Scott Plank was rejected for being contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It's difficult to be more precise than that now, because it was then deleted for being unambiguous advertising. Wikipedia may not be used for any kind of promotion, marketing, or public relations. Choose a completely different topic to edit, one with which you have no close connection. We have millions of existing ones to choose from, and 98% are rated less than "good" by the community, so there is much scope for improvement. See Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

21:07:11, 25 June 2020 review of submission by 07Ziad
Hi. I want to clarify that I'm not looking to promote or advertise the company with this article. I think it's a worthy entry for Wikipedia. I have cited 16 sources and I have not written any information that I didn't back up. I have even gone to great lengths to make the tone of the article as neutral as possible, using other published articles for reference (Dacast for example). Please advise. 07Ziad (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All that the draft talks about is all the things the company provides sprinkled with vanity praise. It's not the fault of your writing, it's the fact that reliable publications have not covered the company in-depth. Rather, it's all superficial sourcing from brief mentions. Dacast is also a pretty bad article. I'm not sure it would survive a deletion discussion. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

23:04:05, 25 June 2020 review of submission by Mbecker1749
I believe that the proposed entry has not been accurately described or evaluated by the two individuals who have rejected it. The subject of the entry is not "an erstwhile preacher" but a tenured professor at a private liberal-arts university. I am not trying to "whitewash" anything but simply report basic facts about this expulsion that have been reported in mainstream media (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Washington Post, the Kansas City Star, the Portland Oregonian, the Christian Century, Lutheran Forum Letter, and Christian News) and that are indirectly addressed in two scholarly books. Reference to a few of my publications are simply given to provide context for the controversy and expulsion. The two individuals who have rejected the draft entry have not properly assessed its content. It appears that neither individual is knowledgeable about the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, its history, and its districts. The Northwest District of the LCMS is comprised of more than 65,000 individuals across more than 260 congregations. The other districts (not "congregations") that voted for the expulsion represent more than 420,000 people across nearly 1,000 congregations. Each of these districts has its own Wikipedia article that verifies this information. The LCMS itself is comprised of more than 2 million members. It is the tenth or eleventh largest Protestant denomination in the US. The expulsion was widely reported in the press of this church body, as well as in secular media.

There are Wikipedia articles about other officials and professors who have been expelled from this church body (e.g., John Tietjen, Seminex professors) or who have been involved in formal expulsion proceedings but who were not ultimately expelled (e.g., David Benke). The expulsion described in this draft entry is consistent with the content in these other Wikipedia articles. I am certainly open to correcting any factual errors or distortions in the draft entry and to eliminating any material that is considered irrelevant. If, however, others agree that this draft entry falls short of Wikipedia standards, then I will certainly take steps to delete it. Mbecker1749 (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)