Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 May 27

= May 27 =

00:01:10, 27 May 2020 review of draft by Mtrayyubi
Mtrayyubi (talk)

01:25:06, 27 May 2020 review of submission by Bmantha
We received a message from reviewer --' Your submission at Articles for creation: Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam has been accepted. But this is not seen in the general search wikipage. When this article gets visible in search ..Bmantha Bmantha (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'm not sure what you mean by "the general search wikipage". Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam is visible from https://www.wikipedia.org/, which is the most general Wikipedia search page. Perhaps you mean external search engines such as Google, Bing, Yandex, etc. When the article is patrolled (the timing of which you have no control over) it will be released for indexing by search engines. Whether and when search engines actually index it is beyond the control of Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

06:51:13, 27 May 2020 review of submission by Mtrayyubi
Mtrayyubi (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

08:14:39, 27 May 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA
SONGEZO SA (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As suggested already, you need to show how the subject meets the criteria of WP:NMUSIC.Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

12:08:38, 27 May 2020 review of submission by Molee4real
Molee4real (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Please I have correct some errors in the article so I would like someone to review it and help me to re arrange it please.


 * To reiterate my reply of 13 May, the big "STOP" sign on Draft:Counsellorsalah is to signal that you should stop pushing the topic. No amount of editing can make the subject acceptable. You are free to edit a different article, but this draft will not be reviewed again, so stop asking. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

12:32:07, 27 May 2020 review of draft by EnricoFlx
Hello everyone,

Thank you in advance for the feedback on the draft. From now on, I'll handle the draft on J. Howaldt. I noticed that the criticism mentioned above (secondary sources about the subject) is missing on other Wikipedia articles as well, even from comparable persons (other sociologists or economists). Especially among scientists, their relevance and position in the scientific community is determined by the quality and number of scientific publications that are presented in this draft. I would be pleased if the article in its current form meets the requirements for Wikipedia. Otherwise I am happy about any kind of help and will develop a new draft.

stay healthy!

EnricoFlx (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Many articles were created before we began the ridiculous AfC process. Howewer, with total articles, its impossible to monitor them all constantely. We can only act on things we know about. If you find other pages you think are equally inappopiate, please mention them so we can take action. As for your draft:


 * ref #1 appears to be his shool, so its not reliable,
 * ref #2 is about the European School of Social Innovation, doesnt mention him and therefore doesn't helps for establishing notability
 * ref #3 is the same as #1, afaik a WP:PRIMARY and unacceptable per WP:BLPPRIMARY
 * ref #4 is an interview and therefore not independent
 * ref #5 is not accessible for me (my browser says he fails to find the IP adress of the server), but its not a deeplink and therefore not investigateable either
 * ref #6 is written by him
 * ref #7 is the same link as #6
 * ref #8 is a youtube video and presumably not reliable (I dont speak french)
 * ref #9 is not WP:SIGCOV of him
 * So we are left of with no references that qualify for establishing notability. Please read The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

EnricoFlx (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed answer. I will try to meet the requirements. User:EnricoFlx (talk) 9:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

18:54:21, 27 May 2020 review of submission by Tom in Vastervik
Dear sir, please help I'm new on Wikipedia and i made a atempt to get an article about my car published in/on Wikipedia, but it was not accepted , due to missing reliable sources (RS). But as I discribed below is the car so unik and not known to the general publik that RS can not been found within Wikipedia or other sources.

Quoting previous dialog with one of your editors: Lenham-Hurst GTR Dear sir, thanks for the promt reply regarding my article about my car, I understad that you was requesting (RS) reliable sources ( fully understandable ). #1 Concerning technical data on the car, I presume present owner (my self) and registration certificate would be considered as RS.

2 Regarding history and the story about this unik car, would I ref. A, an article in https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/june-1996/54/no-lemon-lenham where my car was described B When I made investigation about the background of my car I was able to locate a fellow who actually worked on the Lenham factory when my car was manufactured !His name is Mr Allan Hebb and his mail are (redacted). He been very helfull to me, and can sure confirm my statements. Best regards Tom Karlsson Vastervik Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom in Vastervik (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Tom in Vastervik, first point: NEVER share personal information about others (like emails). Such things are strictly prohibited. Second point: your car isn't notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia since your car isn't mentioned in reliable sources independent of the subject. JavaHurricane 03:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Dear Sir, so sorry abt my mistake, did not understand how "public" this chat was in fact, I'm new on Wikipedia and not that familiar with the language. Please note that this car is a part of British sportcar history, it's only builded in one example and not known to the public, it bin hidden away for more than 40 years, and now has my renovation of the car created curiosity in the motorworld, several magazine has asked to make reportage , and linked to this Wikipedia could be very helpful to get the fact's right. I personally love to check Wikipedia for fact's about odd items. So my humble question to you to reconsider your decision not to public an atricle in Wicipedia. Best Regards Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom in Vastervik (talk • contribs) 10:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC) -- So what is next step, please advise me Best regards Tom Karlsson Vastervik Sweden

Tom in Vastervik (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia may not be used that way. One of its fundamental pillars is that the information in the encyclopedia must have been published in reliable sources first, before it can be included here. Never the other way around. After several reputable magazines report on the car, then an article about it may be created here. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

19:08:49, 27 May 2020 review of submission by 2604:3D09:AC82:AB00:AD7A:FB77:8117:EF7B
me 2604:3D09:AC82:AB00:AD7A:FB77:8117:EF7B (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

23:49:23, 27 May 2020 review of submission by 72.160.148.206
72.160.148.206 (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

23:50:19, 27 May 2020 review of submission by Nashvillelotus
Nashvillelotus (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The author changed the infobox after the draft was rejected, and one of the reasons for the rejection was that the infobox was a hoax because it identified the subject as a member of the United States House of Representatives, which would have political notability. As mayor of a city of 65,000, the subject does not have political notability, and the draft does not satisfy general notability.  Putting false information in infoboxes is not a good idea.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)