Help desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 23 >

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 22

Request on 00:44:22, 22 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Bryce Holdaway

Bryce Holdaway (talk · contribs)
- User:Bryce Holdaway/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bryce Holdaway (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for help surrounding my rejection re article. "It is not a place to post your cv"??? Not sure how to share information.

Hi Bryce Holdaway Editors may create a user page to share limited autobiographical information for the purpose of collaboration with other editors. If that was what you were trying to do with User:Bryce Holdaway/sandbox, then you do not need to submit it for review. Simply write at User:Bryce Holdaway.

It is draft articles that need to be submitted for review before being published as encyclopedia articles. If that is what your sandbox submission was intended as, then please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). --Worldbruce (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:51:09, 22 March 2019 review of submission by Esaïe Prickett

Esaïe Prickett (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Battle for Dream Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I WANT THIS🤬

Page is deleted at MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island. CoolSkittle (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:55:47, 22 March 2019 review of submission by 49.128.62.182

49.128.62.182 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Vidfish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Vidfish is a video-streaming platform that is used by more than 500,000 in Southeast Asia, with a huge presence on social media platforms as well. It has many features in many publications (footnoted) as well.

49.128.62.182 (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:41, 22 March 2019 review of submission by Osterreichforum

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

Please can somebody kindly publish the draft article into main article for Wikipedia. Helga Michie is a very notable artist

Osterreichforum (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Osterreichforum/sandbox }} Please will somebody kindly publish the draft article Helga Michie I have prepared. She is an important artist and subject of books and conferences. Osterreichforum (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC

Hi Osterreichforum. Part of the draft had to be removed because it infringed copyright. You may continue working on it if you wish, but write in your own words. When you are ready for the draft to be reviewed, click the blue "Submit for review!" button on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk)

Worldbruce Many kind regards. I will try that. Please also edit it if you have some time. Osterreichforum

13:46:30, 22 March 2019 review of submission by Srinath kandala

Srinath kandala (talk · contribs)
- User:Srinath kandala/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Srinath kandala (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srinath kandala. You haven't asked a question, but presumably you want to know why David.moreno72 rejected as non-notable User:Srinath kandala/sandbox about E. Subbiah, former Member of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu. Personally, I would have declined the draft rather than rejecting it as non-notable. An article on the topic already exists under a variant transliteration, E. Subaya.

If you have no conflict of interest, you are welcome to edit that article, but you may only add statements for which you can cite a reliable source, something you failed to do in your draft. See Help:Referencing for beginners. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:18:29, 22 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Fruitypebbles69

Fruitypebbles69 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Chris The Ghost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, i need assistance on my article becoming "worthy of inclusion". At first i needed more references but once i added them i no longer got denied for references, Its now denied for not worth inclusion on wiki. I believe this is an error as my references/information meets guidelines. And there are other simular articles existing to the one im creating. thanks in advance

Fruitypebbles69 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your refs are to user generated content like Youtube. Anyone can put anything on youtube - no one checks it's accuracy. The topic is not notable and has been correctly rejected. Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:28:47, 22 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Niallpm

Niallpm (talk · contribs)
- User:Niallpm/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Oh dear! It’s very disappointing to see such a summary rejection and so quickly. I was given to believe that the review would take several weeks. Your comment I really doubt this would ever be accepted as an article is most perplexing.

From what I can gather, your objection is based upon this: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites).

The word notability is interesting. If this article truly is not notable, how then can you account for all the approved scholarly articles on Wikipedia, that either reference the website mentioned in our article or that use content from it? Namely:

In most of the articles above, the content I refer to is images, downloaded from the website of the International Moldovan Philatelic Society, and then used in the articles. We (IMPS) have never once received a request from any of these authors. Nor have we been given any accreditation. We are only aware of this activity because all of the images on our site have embedded meta data which can be read on Wikipedia Commons and identifies the IMPS website (moldovastamps.org) as the source.

We have never made any objection to this, simply because we were happy to have information about Moldovan Philately propagated on Wikipedia. Additionally, it was always our belief and understanding that, when it came time to publish our own Wikipedia article, this would all be taken into account. Were we mistaken?

Clearly, based on the above list, the offending article about IMPS can hardly be considered as not noteworthy, by any measure. I am sure you will agree that it is not equitable for all these articles to be allowed to use content from our site, without accreditation, whist writing off an article about the source as not noteworthy.

Additionally, I am perplexed about the existence of so many Wikipedia articles published by other, similar organizations, with very similar content as ours. Some examples are…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raflet_Stamp_Club
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Miami_Stamp_Club
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philatelic_Society_of_Pittsburgh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Stamp_Collectors_Club

There are many others. But I am wondering what special qualities these article have that our article lacks. In our article, we have tried to be totally impartial and to cite external sources for everything. We would consider the article we submitted for approval to be superior quality to the examples above, but apparently not. Can you clarify this for us.

It is also important to note the IMPS (and its website) have always been great supporters of Wikipedia. We provide fully accredited links to thousands of Wikipedia articles. You are most welcome to examine any page on our site to confirm this. Perhaps for example www.moldovastamps.org/catalogue_stamps_issue.asp?issueID=4004

Finally, based on the above, we ask you to reconsider your evaluation of the article. We absolutely admit that we are complete amateurs regarding the Wikipedia article writing process and the Wikipedia protocols and if we have made mistakes regarding the coding of the article, or if we have included some text or reference in error, we ask for your kind advice regarding corrections. In particular, regarding Wikipedia categories, we could use some guidance.

Niallpm (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero reliable sources so cannot be accepted in it's current form, as for other Wikipedia articles please read other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:16, 22 March 2019 review of submission by Gato63

Gato63 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:.350 Legend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is the hottest new cartridge of the decade, the most exciting new cartridge since the 6.5 Creedmoor! The .350 Legend stole the show at the 2019 Shot Show. Yes, it's not available for retail purchase until next month (April 2019), but it's available for pre-order at major retailers such as Midway USA, and there are already rifles and barrels available for it from CMMG (AR-15 uppers), Winchester Repeating Arms (bolt-action rifles), Match Grade Machine (MGM, for their TC encore barrels), etc. There's a video of MGM test-firing it here: https://matchgrademachine.com/350-legend-winchester/ and their overview of the cartridge is here: https://matchgrademachine.com/winchester-350-legend/. Despite the newness of the .350 Legend cartridge, there have already been feature articles about it in Guns & Ammo magazine and the current issue of American Rifleman magazine. Gato63 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is not the place for your refs - add them to the draft. AfC is an optional process. If you are sure anout Notability you can move it yourself. Legacypac (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]