Help desk
< August 24	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 26 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

August 25

01:28:21, 25 August 2014 review of submission by Forevermore2314

Forevermore2314 (talk · contribs)

I was just editing the page because it was not accepted but then there's An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. that appeared.. what should I do?????????? Forevermore2314 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What were you trying to add to the article? It may be you included a link to a website on our blacklist and that tripped an alert. Let us know exactly what you were adding and exactly what the error message said. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:35:19, 25 August 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by AshleyMarcella

AshleyMarcella (talk · contribs)
- User:AshleyMarcella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure why my article was declined. Can you message me? Thanks!

AshleyMarcella (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AshleyMarcella: There are comments on the draft, so you should read those. The draft reads promotionally and half of your sources are not reliable. I would chop half of the content to start with, sticking to the facts that are reliably sourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

08:25:56, 25 August 2014 review of submission by Limylemony

Limylemony (talk · contribs)

Limylemony (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Dear Team,[reply]

Pls clarify the reason for rejecting my article for Kredit Financial.

Regards,

Limylemony

13:30:13, 25 August 2014 request for review by 50.244.35.129

@Limylemony: It's entirely unreferenced and there's no apparent notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:39, 25 August 2014 review of submission by Emiskew

Emiskew (talk · contribs)
- Draft:March Networks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am hoping that someone can please read my article for submission. I have been waiting almost a month for another review on an article that has been in the works since early June. I have made significant changes as per the last editor's advice. I really feel this is a good article that is worthy of publication. Can someone please help? Emiskew (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emiskew (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiskew:

Declined I think the genesis of your difficulty is that you're trying to write a puff piece and you're using unreliable sources to support those assertions. By my count you have three, maybe four, reliable sources. Instead, cut down the draft and use like 80% reliable sources (leaving only 20% of the PR stuff) and then ask for another review. Try adding this book, this book, this book, this piece from The Guardian, and this piece from The Globe and Mail. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I have to disagree. Is our submission being declined, simply because it has been declined in the past? Our sources are entirely independent and reliable. Can I request a review of this review? Emiskew (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiskew: All reviews are reviews of the article as it stands today. Prior reviews are read with interest to see if the work either has been done or if the current reviewer agrees with the prior reviewers. Your draft is being declined because it stands very little chance of surviving as an article as it stands. Our objective is to seek to avoid summary deletion of your work when it is accepted. We tend to know what will and will not make the grade. If you think this process is hard you really do not want to experience a deletion discussion. Cut your article to the bare minimum necessary to make the grade. Use robust citations that pass WP:RS. We have no interest in declining article for the sake of it. All that does is creates a longer backlog. Once you understand that we want to accept articles you may start to take our advice better. Work with us not against us. Fiddle Faddle 16:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting another review of my draft article. We have used entirely independent third-party sources, yet the editors appear to simply repeat the feedback of the last editor, who has rejected it. The article has been changed to cite only THIRD PARTY SOURCES! If someone takes the time to read each reference, they will realize this. Please, can someone help? This is a legitimate article that deserves to be published. Emiskew (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emiskew (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Emiskew: There is a substantial difference between "Third Party Sources" and significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42.

Again, let me reiterate, we want to accept articles. You are simply making it hard for us to do so. Read my reply to you above.

Not every corporation is notable. If March Networks is, then look hard at WP:42 and show it well. The references you have so far are well placed PR pieces, but that does not make them independent.

You do not need to open a new section, by the way. Please continue to comment in this one. Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might also look at the list CT has suggested of potential references. He may be blunt in his words at times but he usually hits the nail on the head. Fiddle Faddle 16:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC

I have many notable references, - Toronto Star, Canada.com, Ottawa Sun, Ottawa Business Journal, Bloomberg News. How are these at all considered PR pieces? These are major daily and weekly newspapers. Emiskew (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg URL is a company profile, not a news article. The other sources you listed are good. The problem is that the few journalistic sources you do have don't convince me of notability, which is why I suggested other sources you can add to it. @JSFarman: would you want to review this submission? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left you a detailed analysis of the pseudo-references you have used on the draft itself. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim and Chris' assessment. Tim's already reviewed it, but I would have come to the same conclusion. The only difference in our opinion would be that I wouldn't consider ABCfunds.com a valid source, since the author of the article is an investor in the company. JSFarman (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had expressed doubts about that one based on needing to know more about the link between the two. This draft as it stands is quite a lot of WP:BOMBARD and needs to be cut right back to basics. I suspect some genuine notability can be found, but it is being well concealed by the bombardment. It's up to Emiskew to prove it. So go to it with a will. Fiddle Faddle 20:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:05, 25 August 2014 review of submission by Jfreije

Jfreije (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Abraham Freije (Ibrahim Freiji) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just moved this article around based on user name as suggested by the site. I've submitted this draft a month ago and no action has taken place. I'm very confused as to where this draft should go and now believe I may have created an issue by moving to "user" as suggested by site. Any suggestions/advice?

Thank you. Jfreije (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any issue you may have created we can solve. Be unconcerned

. The article is safely at Draft:Abraham Freije (Ibrahim Freiji) for the moment. It is awaiting a reviewer who feels they have the competence to review it. Sometimes one needs extra patience. To help with the review, are you able to find any online versions of the print media you are using as a reference. It is not mandatory, but, if you can find it, it may speed the reviewer's hand. I do not feel competent to review this draft or I would have done so already. Fiddle Faddle 17:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:24, 25 August 2014 review of submission by Summergs1

Summergs1 (talk · contribs)

Summergs1 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a question is usual at a help desk. What is yours, please? Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]