Help desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

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 20

10:33:13, 20 February 2017 review of submission by NoahsArk44

NoahsArk44 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

I have submitted an article a long time ago entitled Andrew Lawson Photographer but it doesn't seem to get reviewed. I would be so grateful to know how to amend if it needs amending or get it looked at?

NoahsArk44 (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, NoahsArk. I've already left a comment on your draft. To quickly reiterate, you need to provide sourcing for all of the personal information. Also, I don't think you've demonstrated that the subject is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. If you believe otherwise, it will be helpful to know which of the criteria under WP:CREATIVE has been met. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:06, 20 February 2017 review of submission by Akrumoftruth

Akrumoftruth (talk · contribs)
- Gareb Shamus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I'm hoping I'm asking this in the right place...

I saw a Ted talk over the weekend on a friend's facebook page with a speaker/author/media guy named Richard Greene. His talk was awesome and while I was listening I started to Google him and discovered he is a published author (Penguin Publishing); a globally reknown speaker and coach (for people like Princess Diana); that he hosted a popular radio program with tons of celebs and high profile people on Air America (you actually have a wiki page dedicated to his show (and it mentions him); and he was on a television series as a celebrated judge on TLC. He also - according to the forward in his most popular book, Words that Shook the World that was written by Tony Robbins was a co-collaborter to Robbins in the start of his career and helped launch Robbins empire.

He's been in the news for several highprofile situations throughout his career and frankly, he's pretty amazing. So I wrote an article about him and as I was starting to put in links and references (I found over 40 credible sources) a user added a speedy deletion tag to it and a few hours later, the article - which had 40+ clearly legitimate links (Including the New York Daily News and the Huffington Post (as well as links to the Ted talk and Penguin Publishing) - was deleted by another user saying it was a promo. I don't understand whats happened, but I love being a contributor and I really want to learn. Can someone help me??

Akrumoftruth (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akrum. Our apologies for the delay in response. As best I can tell, your article on Richard Greene (author and speaker) was not submitted through the Articles for Creation process. If that's correct, then we can offer no insights that go beyond the messages that you've already received on your Talk page. I regret that we can be of no assistance here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:40, 20 February 2017 review of submission by Darreg

Darreg (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Angela Okorie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SwisterTwister needs to reduce his standards for evaluating articles on AFC

I hope this is the right place to post this. While I commend the promptness in this editors' reviews, I'm a little uncomfortable with his rate of declining article creation. Correct me if i'm wrong but AFC wasn't created as a platform for extensive scrutiny during evaluation of articles. An article does not have to be a Good article contender before it can pass AFC. If an article is properly referenced, no advertising, free of COI concerns, has a basic claim of notability, etc. I see no reason why such an article should still be declined. Lets remember that it's mostly new editors that use AFC, we deter them from editing by mandating an unreachable threshold for a first article. cc @SwisterTwister:

Darreg (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Darreg. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I took a look at your submission and found that I too would have declined it. Presumably, you believe that the subject meets the guidelines under WP:NACTOR on the basis of having played significant roles in multiple films. And yet, your submission does not document this. Indeed, you source the actress's appearances in only two films (out of the 100 she says she appeared in), and both of those sources are interviews with the actress herself. Indeed, most of the submission's references are interviews with the subject. I think there needs to be more effort made in finding reliable third-party sources before this draft becomes an acceptable article. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:55:50, 20 February 2017 review of submission by Bill Nemecek

Bill Nemecek (talk · contribs)

My first article has been denied based on the following feedback; "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of films and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time."

Comparing my article to several dozen other articles I've found on Wikipedia that are poorly written and contain no "notable" citations, this feedback seems to be based wholly on the subjectivity of some reviewer rather than on objectivity.

Can someone help me understand how to meet Wikipedia's publishing standards please?

Bill Nemecek (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bill. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I see that you have already received a great deal of information from the good folks over at the Teahouse. If we can be of any further assistance here, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]