Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 February 10
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 9 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 11 > |
| 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. |
February 10
[edit]01:23:09, 10 February 2017 review of submission by Smyser-Bair House
[edit]{{SAFESUBST:Void|
I dont understand why they deleted it, I just don't agree with it. 1) I need to tag the photographs as being my property. 2) we need to make it clear to them that I (the owner of the house, owner of the website, and submitter of the wiki article, am the author/owner of the language/content. Once they understand that, they should be able to turn it back on, even if they suggest we delete some of the details (like all the rooms and such). I'd rather have just the history, custodians, etc. than nothing at all. If we have to delete the room descriptions and points of interest, I can live with that.
I want to edit the page which has been deleted.i need the opportunity to get back it
- Hello, Smyser-Blair. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I see that you have already filed your concerns at the Administrators' Noticeboard and have received some responses. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
02:02:43, 10 February 2017 review of submission by 12.205.34.138
[edit]
12.205.34.138 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC) i do not know why they keep declining me for source reason books have me but they keep saying footnotes does not make any sense here anthony Eugene Campbell
- Hello, Anthony. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I see that you have already asked this question of one of the several reviewers who declined your submission. Their response, advising you to read WP:Referencing for beginners, is the same response that most of us here would give. Also, not all of the reviewers declined your submission on the basis of your failure to provide in-line references. At least one questioned whether you are "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. Your draft fails to establish that you satisfy any of the criteria set forth at WP:NGRIDIRON and this, in addition to proper referencing, will be needed if your article is to be accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
02:04:21, 10 February 2017 review of submission by Arsenal966
[edit]- Arsenal966 (talk · contribs)
Arsenal966 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
what are the problems with my page?
- Hello @Arsenal966: the issue is you have no footnotes except one bio on Toggle (which I'm not sure qualifies as a reliable source). You have given many facts, but you haven't showed your sources for most of them. For any fact, or group of facts, that you state you must footnote what source proves those facts, like newspaper articles, books, etc (which can be in any language). MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just a quick follow-up to Matthew's post. The sole source in the draft was supporting material that was copied verbatim from the source. It has been removed and the draft now has no sources whatsoever. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
02:27:40, 10 February 2017 review of submission by 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3
[edit]
The Reference is not a dead link get this article in now. 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- NOTE TO REVIEWERS. This demand was originally placed on my Talk page. I am copying it here so that some other reviewer can give it the attention it deserves. For the record, the draft's sole reference continues to be a dead link. Also notifying User:NotTheFakeJTP, who has received a similar demand from this IP address. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- First, it is so a dead link. Second, demands such as "get this article in now" are not useful and are likely to annoy the reviewers. If you really want to contribute to Wikipedia, you should try being polite rather than rude. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
02:56:31, 10 February 2017 review of submission by 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3
[edit]
When Will This Article Be Ready. 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- First things first, you will need to click "resubmit" and it will be reviewed again. If it is determined to be acceptable for Wikipedia, it will be moved into the mainspace (become an article and no longer be a draft). —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
16:37:57, 10 February 2017 review of submission by WikipediaSara2
[edit]It got denied for not enough valid sources. The problem is that this topic doesn't have substantial coverage - but hopefully by putting it on Wikipedia then it'll interest people and get more coverage. But - until then - there's not much more that I can put. What do you suggest that I do, in order to get this accepted? Thank you very much. WikipediaSara2 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- If it doesn't have substantial coverage, then it probably isn't notable enough for its own article. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that you want to put the topic into Wikipedia to "interest people and get more coverage" means that you are attempting to use us for WP:PROMOTION; which is part of why the draft was deleted as obvious and unambiguous promotion. We have articles about things that are already notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)