Help desk
< September 19	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current help desk >

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.

September 20

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/That Chick Crissy04:32:28, 20 September 2014 request for review by 50.187.32.119

50.187.32.119 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

What information would you need and how will you need it formatted to qualify as reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.32.119 (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:07:08, 20 September 2014 review of submission by Hipstercrite

Hipstercrite (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Geoff Marslett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I removed the wording that I had taken from the University of Texas Radio Television and Film site, and used my own wording. So there should be no copyright issue now. I also removed the sources that were references to Wikipedia and replaced them with reliable third party (not self published) sources. I also added additional information about his film career, and tried to make all of the wording more consistent.

I was not sure if I should delete the comments that the previous reviewers left at the top of the page or not, so they are still there.

Thank you. Lauren

Hipstercrite (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving and resubmitting this draft. It is now awaiting its next review. It is correct to leave the earlier review comments in place, as they may be useful for later reviewers. While waiting for review, you may wish to look at improving the format of your references so that they are not bare links... Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners may help with this. It's not a minimum requirement, but it can help a reviewer to better appreciate the quality, nature or content of a source. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:42, 20 September 2014 review of submission by Alimoddin

Alimoddin (talk · contribs)

This is extremely disappointing. We had mentioned only the basic details about the company and the magazine. We have no intent to promote the magazine and our only aim is to make it publicly available (and useful) magazine on Wikipedia which has a list of magazines and several pages about companies similar to us.

Our work is not only useful to readers and students across the world, but is already playing a role in policy making related to foreign trade.

Please let us know what could be done to get it back on Wikipedia and without the deletions.

Thanks in advance for all suggestions and help.

Alimoddin (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alimoddin. Please review the decline reason given on the draft page itself carefully. The draft was not declined for being overly promotional (for it is not), but for not providing sufficient references to independent reliable sources that discuss the company (or the magazine) in detail. These are required to prove the notability of the topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia. There are many thousands of companies in the world, and Wikipedia does not have, nor need, an article about all of them. This is why the notability requirements summarised at Wikipedia:VRS are used. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone a step further and left a full comment on the draft. Interestingly my comment is longer than the draft, which simply does not yet pass muster. Work will achieve that, though. Fiddle Faddle 10:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]