Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 28 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 30 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 29

[edit]

04:44:25, 29 March 2021 review of submission by BikyownK

[edit]


BikyownK (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BikyownK, and welcome to AfC Help Desk. The Draft:Bikram Malati has been rejected by Hatchens. It will not be considered any further. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 05:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:22:49, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Xister-reply

[edit]

Hello! I've received a message that my submission for this page has been declined because it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia" and it has to be written in a neutral point of view. First of all thanks for taking the time to make this review and leave me a feedback. I'm a newbie so I don't understand exactly why it is perceived as advertisement, please can you help me to improve the page to be compliant with wikipedia policies? Can you give me some examples of paragraphs that seems advertising? Because I thought they were simply descriptive of the school and I would like to work on them so that they are more neutral. Thanks! Xister-reply (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Xister-reply (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xister-reply The draft is an advertisement because it just tells about the school and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization.
If you are associated with the school, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:13, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Abhuwan14

[edit]

I have removed un-used references and other references from google and amazon .

Abhuwan14 (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhuwan14 and moved it to be an article. So there is no point in asking questions here Fiddle Faddle 11:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


10:29:15, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Walezzy

[edit]


Walezzy (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walezzy Wikipedia is not for you to advertise your corporation. If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your corporate reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:CORP does that. Fiddle Faddle 11:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


10:55:16, 29 March 2021 review of submission by DrTES

[edit]


Hello, I appreciate reviewers taking their time and checking the article. Checking the Wiki guidelines for notability in music, it says that there should be multiple publications (that basically don't recite press release). The band here have had printed and online publications in English and other languages, interviews, news (aside of the official press release). Romania doesn't have national charts. However, band's album made to iTunes national chart. Has released at least 2 albums on major label. The band has released 2014 Album and 2021 re-release album with Universal Music. Has been placed on national radio - since 2014 band's music is on Rock.Fm in Romania.

German Wikipedia has approved Scarlet Aura submission as an article there. I understand, that all this is very subjective. But for example, how this band is included in EN.Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magica_(band)?

I would like to have another look at the article and perhaps, if you can, suggest improvements (in more details). Thank you!


DrTES (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DrTES I suggest you start with @SL93 who rejected it. If you can persuade them to reconsider, then we can move forward Fiddle Faddle 11:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DrTES Your argument is convincing so I approved it just now. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:11, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Chaudhary Mohammad Aamir Nadwi

[edit]

I want re- review because I want to new name Chaudhary Mohammad Aamir Nadwi (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaudhary Mohammad Aamir Nadwi I want a bacon sandwich Fiddle Faddle 11:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:56:58, 29 March 2021 review of submission by LoriAmour

[edit]


Hello, I do not understand why the article i created is not getting accepted. I cited with footnotes as requested. Is it possible i can get specifc information as to what needs to be edited/ updated? Thank you.

The page I created is for Brandi Webb, i hope that helps you to find and review.

LoriAmour (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LoriAmour no Declined with a full rationale. This ought to help you a great deal. It is intended to do so. Fiddle Faddle 14:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:15, 29 March 2021 review of draft by Artandarchives

[edit]


Dear Reader(s), Over 7 weeks ago I submitted this article for review, but it has not been reviewed yet. I have heard that there is a possibility to publish an article publicly before it is reviewed, is this correct?

Artandarchives (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artandarchives 100% correct. The review scheme is simply intended to help you avoid the traps and pitfalls of creating an article as a new user Fiddle Faddle 14:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:39, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Gotam502

[edit]


Gotam502 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


17:49:19, 29 March 2021 review of draft by 6SyXx6

[edit]


Just wondering when somebody will get to check out my revision with sources and references. It's been 13 days now.

6SyXx6 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. None of the Cagematch sources help for notability, the YouTube videos should not be linked to or cited at all, Profightdb has the same issues as Cagematch, and Solie seems a random blog and has the same issues as Cagematch. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:03, 29 March 2021 review of draft by Micadodd

[edit]


Micadodd (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add Wikiproject tags to a submission for review "Whatawhata Research Centre" and it says my draft page doesn't exist, but it won't let me create a draft page because it says the page already exists. I cannot find any such named page already created on Wikipedia.

@Micadodd: Hello, and Welcome to the AFC Help desk. I assume you want to ask for User:Micadodd/sandbox, because it is newer. The right thing to insert into the box on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags would therefore be "User:Micadodd/sandbox". Unfortunally I have detected a bug in the scripting behind that input boxes that needs fixing. I will add two WikiProjects manually. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:17, 29 March 2021 review of submission by 162.72.17.151



Request on 21:21:17, 29 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 162.72.17.151

[edit]


21:23:03, 29 March 2021 review of submission by 2409:4053:41D:2BFF:0:0:1F67:88A4

[edit]


2409:4053:41D:2BFF:0:0:1F67:88A4 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not for posting your resume. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:48:40, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Rbvp2000

[edit]


Dear Reviewer,

I was told in a Q&A forum that the article has not been re-submitted, so I am re-submitting it here :) I am requesting a re-review because of two reasons:

1. I have added reliable journalistic sources that were absent before; 2. The entire previously submitted text was very incomplete and partially inaccurate.

I look forward to hearing from you :)

Kindly, rbvp2000

Rbvp2000 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_March_29&oldid=1015862251"