Help desk
< March 12	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 14 >

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.

March 13

07:52:07, 13 March 2017 review of submission by E.balante

E.balante (talk · contribs)
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like someone to help me and tell my why the Page Saber Astronautics keeps getting requested for speedy deletion. Please tell me what needs to be taken out of it to get it approved.Thanks :) E.balante (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, E. As you probably know by now, your draft has been deleted on the basis of "unambiguous advertising". Because it has been deleted, I am not able to see precisely what material it contained. But the very fact that it was deleted (and not simply declined for publication) suggests that your draft contained nothing but advertising. If you decide to make another attempt at writing the article, you might find WP:Identifying blatant advertising to be a useful guide on what not to include. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:45, 13 March 2017 review of submission by B kresna

B kresna (talk · contribs)

i need some explaining why my draft is declined, and can give advice how can i improve it. thank you B kresna (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@B kresna: Hello, B. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. As noted in the reviewer comments, your submission was declined for failing to demonstrate that the ranking system is "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses that word. I think this failure was self-inflicted, because your draft focused almost entirely on a description of the ranking system itself along with an overly-detailed description of its development. Instead, you'll fare better if you devote more attention to showing how the system has been received by people other than the ones who developed it. And, of course, you'll need to do this by citing to reliable sources that are independent of the developers (and of the University of Indonesia) and that discuss the system in depth (and without simply repeating what the system developers have already written).

The system itself looks interesting and I hope you succeed in getting the draft accepted. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Thanks for your reply, so i need to add like review from universties (comment or criticism) about the ranking ? B kresna (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to specify exactly what additional material might be useful here. Anything that provides a reliable, independent and in-depth discussion of the ranking's impact on the world or its historical significance will be helpful. Such material might come from academics, or it might come from outside of academia. For example -- has the ranking system been used or discussed by any agency of the United Nations? Or any other multi-national organization? Any governmental environmental agencies? Or private-sector environmental groups? There are many potential sources of relevant discussion; no need to limit yourself to academia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:05:10, 13 March 2017 review of submission by Laz-vasily

Laz-vasily (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Lazarev Sergei Nikolaevich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good day, Sir. My English is not so good. I can't understand how to make minumum wiki page for it to be accepted. I was remarked to fill in citations. I added them, but the article wasn't accepted. What exactly should I add?

Please read the message left by David.moreno72 at the top of your draft, that states reliable sources are required to establish notability. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:17:43, 13 March 2017 review of submission by Arthemisbilon

Arthemisbilon (talk · contribs)

Hello, I am trying to add an article about Galeries Lafayette Haussmann which is the flagship store of Galeries Lafayette in Paris. There are a lot to say as it's the birthplace of the brand, I did a lot of research and I'm disappointed it has been declined. I already updated the sources and rewrote the passages that could appear subjective but the article is still declined. I read it again but don't find it subjective, could someone help me re-writing or pointing out the passages that seems to have a POV tone? Thank you :-)

Arthemisbilon (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right away, the very first paragraph (the lede) ends with the following breathless advertising language: "offers shoppers a wide range of brands, from the most affordable to the most prestigious. Its art nouveau architecture and panoramic view of Paris has made it into a tourist attraction in Paris." That's not encyclopedic; that's marketing copy. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthemisbilon: The topic has potential. Concentrate on the building more than the business, which is already covered in Galeries Lafayette. Don't create a zillion one- and two-sentence sections.

Stick to reliable sources. Don't cite the French sources, especially the offline ones, unless you've actually read them - you can't assume they support the content just because you copied them from the French Wikipedia article. Look for books and academic journal articles (about Art Nouveau architecture, department stores, European retailing, commercial space, shopping malls, and the various architects who have worked on the building) that contain a few paragraphs or pages about Galeries Lafayette Haussmann. You may need to visit a university research library.

Contrast the draft with some of Wikipedia's best articles about buildings: Chicago Board of Trade Building, IG Farben Building, and Monadnock Building. The draft doesn't have to be nearly that good to be accepted, but please aim in the general direction of the target. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:44, 13 March 2017 review of submission by Catlion7

Catlion7 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

Catlion7 (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Maxeke Secondary School

Hi, I'd like to know why my draft was declined, and what was the cause of being declined?

Catlion7 (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)catlion7[reply]

Your submission, User:Catlion7/sandbox was declined due to the lack of reliable sources. In addition, your submission is not likely to ever be accepted because of the RfC consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that states "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:35, 13 March 2017 review of submission by Kent Westlund

Kent Westlund (talk · contribs)
- Draft:LuLaRoe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If you could take another look at this article and advise on what to add and subtract, I would appreciate it. Worldbruce provided some very useful advice back on 10-March-2017, that I've tried to incorporate.