Help desk
< March 11	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 13 >

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 12

Request on 05:04:48, 12 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Celesteortegapaghubasan

Celesteortegapaghubasan (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Celeste ortega paghubasan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Celesteortegapaghubasan (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Celesteortegapaghubasan: you have provided no WP:Sourcing whatsoever, and you appear to be writing this draft to promote yourself, which is not allowed or advisable on Wikipedia, see WP:Autobiography. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:35, 12 March 2018 review of submission by SaranyaRethas

SaranyaRethas (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Nelson Dilipkumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reviewer is asking to stop resubmitting the article without making proper changes.

I have added a reference from another Wikipedia page and I am not sure if that is not a reliable source. I have added a reference from a news page which is given as a reference for another Wikipedia page Kolamavu Kokila. If this news page is not reliable, how come the reviewer accepted it as reliable while reviewing the other Wikipedia page. Please stop declining the article without proper explanation. Can you give a more reliable page than a original wikipedia article itself ? . I would like to have a proper explanation please. SaranyaRethas (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are being given proper explanation, SaranyaRethas. Your article has been declined four times in the last week with the same explanation; you do not have reliable sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand it. But I am not sure which source is considered as a reliable source if not a news page. (NewIndianexpress) ????— Preceding unsigned comment added by SaranyaRethas (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:55:12, 12 March 2018 review of submission by Suneel Dutt

Suneel Dutt (talk · contribs)

Suneel Dutt (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Hi, as I edited the version for my contribution, it was declined again, and as for Me I wrote all the information there was totally true. Now I don't know how to do it exactly. I know that doesn't allow any kind of news that indicates publicity or something but what else I should write? Everything I wrote here was true, is true and will be true in coming ages too. Plz help me with publishing. Wikipedia needs only truth, that I already wrote, I can't cook it in other ways. It's just truth. I don't know how to you people make believe. But respected sir/madam, this is All I have and its true. If you have any doubts you can visit any of religious conventions of Sadguru Brahmrishi Shree Kumar Swamiji, and you will find out the truth. I request you all to help me with publishing. I never did any Wikipedia publishing before, so it's very confusing for me. Thank you God bless you all.[reply]

Hello @Suneel Dutt: there are several key issues:

The single largest issue is, since the subject is alive, specific facts must be cited with footnotes. Please see WP:Referencing for beginners for how to make footnotes.
I'm not able to speak to the strength of your sourcing, since I don't speak Punjabi (it is fine to use Punjabi sources if you cannot find an English source to prove a fact). That said, if they are WP:Reliable sources like news, they are fine to use, but if they are internal newsletters from his religion they are not neutral.
With sourcing, like I mention above, you appear to be just "telling you everything I know" and then putting unrelated news articles at the bottom. That is not how this process works. You are supposed to find all the good sources you can, clear your mind of all prior knowledge of the subject and write the article as though all you know is what you get from the specific sources (and cite those sources).
Your draft is very much written as praise of the subject, not neutral description. Let me put it this way, you need to write an article that the Swami's best friends and worst enemies would both find acceptable. Does that make sense?

Hope this helps, MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:06:43, 12 March 2018 review of submission by Saurav.webkul

Saurav.webkul (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Webkul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you again review my article and let me if it's still like promotional and what else needs to be added to COI(preferably if you can show me an example)? Saurav.webkul (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Saurav.webkul. Just press the resubmit button in the declination box and your draft will reenter the reviewing queue. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:13, 12 March 2018 review of submission by MACCAWALES86

MACCAWALES86 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jennifer Kehoe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, still waiting for a review on the changes made.

MACCAWALES86 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MACCAWALES86. Please be patient in waiting for a review. The queue is highly backlogged, and, after all, we are all volunteers. At this high of a backlog, I would say that you can expect a review within the next six to eight weeks. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]