Help desk
< May 29	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 31 >

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.

May 30

Review of User:Imansoor/sandbox

can you let me know why the page is deleted actually?

One of competitors were able to publish it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LocalOye.com I did the same format with our brand and information. What is the actual reason removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imansoor (talk • contribs)

@Imansoor: Yes, LocalOye.com is crap. I've tagged it and it may be deleted. Meanwhile, your entry was deleted by Deb only 20 hours ago for being obvious advertisement. Now you're trying again? Neither entry has reliable sources or a real claim to notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted LocalOye.com for advertising - why mess around? It appears neither user understands the wikipedia guidelines. Deb (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Jesse Faber

Hi,

I would like to know more about why my submission has been rejected in order to improve it. There are several referencing to external articles that make the information verifiable.

Thanks in advance. JesseFaber (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jesse. I went through your draft and formatted the referencing properly in order to be able to see what kinds of sources you were using. Simply adding inline external links in the article is not the correct way to reference. I completely removed all the YouTube links. (1) They are not considered valid references in this context, and (2) they are all copyright infringements. I also removed inline external links to other Wikipedia articles and the inline link to your own web site. So what's left? Very little that would indicate that the subject passes the criteria for inclusion as an article here. You were given links to read in the decline notice at the top of your draft. I strongly suggest you click on each of those links and read them carefully—all the way through. They will explain why most of your current references are useless for establishing that the subject meets the notability criteria and why some of them are even inappropriate for simply verifying the information in the article. You should also look at the alternative criteria for Creative professionals. Finally, I am assuming from your name that you are also the subject. Wikipedia strongly discourages writing articles about yourself or on subjects to which you have close connection, either personally or financially. Suggested reading Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. – Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:European Academy of Bozen

i understand why the article in march was rejected. Independent sources were missing. I added them and resented the question for review. After this, nothing happened, but the article was moved from Articles for creation to Draft. Without a comment. Can someone tell me what’s wrong about the article? Niuwörldorder (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the submission from Articles for Creation to Draft (which was done by Rankersbo) means nothing; at the moment, we're trying to put some submissions in the Draft namespace since it (the namespace) was recently introduced.

The submission looks like it has a bunch of sources and will probably be reviewed, according to the banner at the top, sometime in the next month. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Niuwörldorder (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of User:LynxHungaricus/Ga-nime

I think I made some mistake but I'm not sure. When I made my draft, I pressed the "Submit your draft for review!" button. Then a new page appeared with only the content in the edit box saying I should not edit anything explicitly saying in that whole edit box just press the save button below. I did that, there was no warning that I may lose my article in the making... and now I can't find anything what I wrote. The yellow Review waiting window says "In the meantime, you can continue to improve this article by pressing the "Edit" tab at the top of the window" suggesting that what I see is not normal at all. If I did click the edit link, I'd just get the same edit box with the content do not change anything there. So... does my draft disappeared? I went to other drafts waiting to be accepted and most of them had the content in it, not just the yellow box. Do I have to recreate everything or is there a way to get back what I submitted for review?

LynxHungaricus (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LynxHungaricus: I moved your submission to Draft:Ga-nime. Your submission has no reliable sources, which cannot be allowed. You will also need to prove notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Edit: everything's proven reliably in the draft. Sorry for previous mistakes, I overlooked the fact that the main source has English site!

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KidCareCanada Society

Please advise why this submission was refused, and how I can change it.

Thanks. KatharineHolmes (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KatharineHolmes: Read the comments Timtrent left for you on the article. Please also read WP:TONE, WP:RS, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Perspective projection

My edited "Perspective Projection Distortion," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patkelso/sandbox was declined because it was deemed better to merge it into "Perspective projection," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_Projection#Perspective_projection. I would prefer to keep the former in my sandbox for reference but I would also like to edit and merge it into the latter via a sandbox. Can this be done? (I would appreciate a heads-up email, Kelso@coes.latech.edu, with link, of where I might find your reply.) Thank you.Pat Kelso (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. You would do so by editing Perspective projection.

You can reach me as demiurge1000.wikipedia@gmail.com and I hope that satisfies your requirements for replies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Evidence and Case Studies for Agile Software Development Methodologies

How do I communicate with the editor who rejected my article? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Evidence and Case Studies for Agile Software Development Methodologies Sarah M SarahMonsees (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SarahMonsees: While MatthewVanitas declined your submission, I can address your questions. Your first sentence: "When pursuing software or product development quality using Agile methodologies, there is Evidence and Case Studies for Agile Software Development Methodologies that Agile methods improve quality of the resulting products." is clear evidence you've written an essay. Please also read WP:NPOV. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roberta Joy Weir

I had my article Wikipediatalk:Articles for creation Roberta Joy Weir reviewed and turned down. I'd like to know what was wrong with the article; I believe the subject to have sufficient notability and verifiable references for publication. Thanks all for help & encouragement.P.g.duffy (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do have some reliable sources in the submission; however, Timtrent (aka Fiddle Faddle), who reviewed the article, thought (and I agree with him/her) that many of the statements in the article need citations, according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. You should look carefully at Fiddle Faddle's comment, and try to address the remarks made in it. APerson (talk!) 20:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P.g.duffy: I do try very hard to give as clear a rationale as I am able. It was wise of you to come here to get further opinions. We're always pleased when editors come and ask for help, the more so when a review has been disappointing. If, after reading and acting on the elements of my comments you feel are appropriate, you have further questions please drop by my talk page or {{ping}} me here and ask. Be as specific as you can, please.

One thing I try not to do is a further formal review of the same article. Our system is more useful when further pairs of eyes look at a submission. Our objective is to help you to avoid deletion when your article goes live. That truly hurts. We don't always succeed, but we do a pretty good job. I include you in the "we". You are as much part of the team as a reviewer. Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys; I do very much appreciate the encouragement and offers of help. I added a citation I'd been looking for for a month, but I suspect that in itself isn't really sufficient. I hadn't wanted to expand the article, rather, I had been paring it down...but I fear that more detail is needed. Roberta Weir is a woman who never sought notoriety, and managed to stay out of nearby spotlights like Jerry Garcia's, yet her effect on the culture has been profound in subtle ways (cf: her introduction of the Flammerion engraving to the masses in the 60's...). I'd like to keep working on this and making it worthy of publication.P.g.duffy (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Sheldon Ross

Hello, I have invited to contact by the OTRS team, now that permissions are in order for the new article below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mark_Sheldon_Ross What is next required before it can be published? Thank you EdouardGris (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just submitted the draft; now, all you have to do is wait until one of the Articles for Creation reviewers takes a look at it; after they review it, they will leave a note on your talk page. So, you should check your submission periodically. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 20:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdouardGris: unfortunately, I had to decline it, because there is no evidence that he meets either WP:GNG, or WP:CRERATIVE--see the note on the submission. If you do have such references, add them and resubmit. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edouard: I guess you meant: "unfortunately, I had to decline it, because there is no evidence that it meets either WP:GNG (...)"

Review of Draft:Narawa Games

I created the website in the article, but the site is not a popular one, so nobody knows it exists. That means there are no Internet sources available. How to I reference and cite it? The article is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Narawa Games. 2601:E:2C00:44A:16C:AC93:1C2C:5937 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any printed books from well known publishers that mention it? Or printed magazines from reputable sources?

If there aren't any of these either, then it is too soon to make a Wikipedia article about this website.

Wait until the website is widely known. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]