Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

• Holly1688 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Holly1688/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When I check in the main page if there has the details about patterned color coated steel sheet, it shows no, and say I can create this page. But when I created and submitted, the page was refused by Wikipedia, and told me there already have the same page. So for this problem, may I know the reason? Or please tell me the specific reason why the page I create was refused. Thanks very much. Holly1688 (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Holly1688: The reviewer, David.moreno72, is suggesting that instead of creating a new article, you consider improving our existing article, Corrugated galvanised iron. Does that make sense? ~Kvng (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tebellolenyatabernice (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Tebellolenyatabernice (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tebellolenyatabernice: Hello, Bernice. Although you didn't actually ask a question, I thought it might be helpful to note that your draft is unlikely to be accepted for publication here on Wikipedia. Not only do we generally frown upon people writing about themselves (see WP:AUTO), but your draft looks like nothing more than a social-media posting. This is not the kind of thing that gets published on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Aparna Nanjunda (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Amrolyn Airlines Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Any one who can help me out

Thank you

Aparna Nanjunda (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aparna Nanjunda. Wikipedia only accepts articles about topics that have gained significant attention from the world at large. No information about the airline is available in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so Wikipedia should not have an article about it. There are millions of other articles that could be improved, see Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pictank (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

This page creation was declined and would like to know why. Thanks

Pictank (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pictank. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is that all content must be verifiable in reliable, published sources. This is typically demonstrated by using inline citations. In biographies of living persons, inline citations are required for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, which in practice means almost everything. Draft:Mary W Maxwell cites no sources.Help:Referencing for beginners explains the mechanics of citing sources.

Also, Wikipedia only accepts biographical articles about individuals who meets it's notability criteria for inclusion. Maxwell may have led a full life, but it is not clear that anything she has done rises to the level of encyclopedic notabilty. Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, and the bulk of any article should be based on such sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Donat.natthanan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tod Mun Hua Plee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you suggest me how to write Wikipedia in Tod Mun Hua Plee Topic .In This topics, I must send to a teacher to get the score.Please you suggest me

Donat.natthanan (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donat.natthanan. Wikipedia is not a cookbook, and articles should not be written like recipes. Borscht and Gumbo are two examples of well-written articles about dishes. Note their emphasis on the history of the dish and their use of scholarly sources instead of random websites. Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Tools/sources may help you find reliable sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hagennos (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:OPNSense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed that my submission of page for OPNSense Firewall was rejected stating that one of the references is not allowed. I assume that this is because the reference is to a blog post. OPNSense is an Open Source Firewall with regular updates. The project has two major updates a year and minor updates every month. The minor updates are important from a security standpoint as these are normally issued to correct bugs and close security issues. The announcement of the release is only through the blog post which I had referenced. OPNSense Release Announcement Only the major releases are referenced through the web page directly OPNSense Roadmap. I do not see any other way to reference the release and the only other solution would be to remove the reference which I believe is not correct. Hagennos (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Hagennos (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oyaron (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Transient Name Server (TNS) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The TNS is the formal IAU (International Astronomical Union) name designator for discovered optical transients and Supernovae, mentioned e.g. on this wikipedia entry - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT_2017gfo, therefore we - at the Dept. of particle physics and astrophysics in the Weizmann Institute for Science - wanted to make sure that there exists and entry for the TNS on Wikipedia.

The article we posted was rejected for the reason that it is not supported by reliable sources, and we wonder what is necessary for this entry to be accepted.

The TNS is a utility serving the world wide astronomical community, supported by the IAU, with no commercial benefits or as such. All professional sky surveys, as well as amateur astronomers, report to the TNS for receiving formal IAU names for the discovered astronomical transients.

As a formal world-wide astronomical resource, an entry for the TNS must exist on Wikipedia

We'll appreciate your advise what is required to add/revise so that the entry is approved.

Kind regards,

Dr Ofer Yaron, on behalf of the experimental astrophysics group at Weizmann.

Hi Oyaron Your topic is so specialized that I strongly advise you to get advice from WP:WikiProject Astronomy. The regular editors there would know best how to deal with these issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• AndHereComesJohnny (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Gary Copec was a significant computer scientist (over 30 publications according to DLBP, well over 2000 citations according to google scholar), if people of his stature are not notable enough it is unclear who is. I'm not a coauthor, just someone who's done work in his field, and I was trying to fill in what I thought was a lacuna in WP coverage.

AndHereComesJohnny (talk) 6:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

AndHereComesJohnny If Kopec were an academic rather than industry scientist he might have had an easier route to notability. The only open route to notability requires that there are multiple independent and reliable sources that contain substantial information about him. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he did most of his creative work at Xerox PARC, considered a "university without students". Anyway, I added another link.

AndHereComesJohnny (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TonyParis (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

TonyParis (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why my article was declined and how can I get it accepted?

Thank you.

@TonyParis: Thanks for your submission. Your draft was rejected because you have not provided any WP:RELIABLE sources. Facebook, blogs and other self-published sources are allowed in some circumstances but cannot be used to establish notability of a subject New articles must meet a notability criterion. In this case the criterion is described in WP:NMUSIC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hi TonyParis. Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. I've left more information about that on your talk page.

Wikipedia does not publish articles about all musicians. To be included, a musician must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people or specific guidelines for musicians. Independent, reliable, secondary sources are necessary to show that a person meets these guidelines. Draft talk:MC Tony Tee was declined because the sources it cites are not independent (Facebook, soundcloud), don't have an established reputation as reliable sources (pinterest, oldschoolhiphopofficial.wordpress), or don't contain significant coverage (pinterest, rateyourmusic); they do nothing to demonstrate notability.

The only route to acceptance of the draft is finding independent, reliable sources that cover MC Tony Tee at some depth. Insane Clown Posse is an example that makes good use of a range of solid sources: Billboard, The New York Times, and books. The draft need not be that long, but those are the sort of sources to be looking for.

A secondary problem is that as a biography of a living person, the draft must use inline citations for certain material. The statement, "It [the single "Jealsousy Rap"] was the number eight hit on the European charts for 4 weeks", for example, requires an inline citation. There is a table of charts, Wikipedia:Record charts, that may help you find proof. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• عمر العالم (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nadin Khatib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

عمر العالم (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Handfield123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

I am being asked to provide reliable sources for the Yummy Devils page. This is a band that had a short duration from 1983-1986. It was not covered in the press, but had a strong influence on the local rock ecosystem. The only sources are really the people who saw the band play. There are also recordings, available on the page https://archive.org/details/iuma-yummy_devils

What is the best way to address this issue?

Handfield123 (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Handfield123: Your submission (User:Handfield123/sandbox/The Yummy Devils (edit | [[Talk:User:Handfield123/sandbox/The Yummy Devils|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) must meet our notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. In this case, the applicable notability criteria is described at WP:NMUSIC. The situation you describe can possibly be accommodated in point 7 there. You'd have to make that case in your draft and you'd have to back that up with WP:RELIABLE sources. For example if you found an interview in Rolling Stone of Bruce Springsteen in talking about the impact The Yummy Devils had on him, you'd be halfway there. Establishing notability requires satisfying the WP:GOLDENRULE so you'd need to find more than one such source. This looks like it will be difficult. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Irshad1289 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bagalkot Railway Station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I come to Know Copyright items which i included from Bijapur station and now i have removed that and done some changes and resubmitted the article may i know how much time it takes to review for second Edited Submission? Irshad1289 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Irshad1289: We have a backlog of submissions waiting to be reviewed. Currently it is taking on average over a month for a submission to be reviewed. However, we don't review submissions in strict first-in-first-out order so your wait could be significantly shorter or somewhat longer. Thanks for improving your draft and thanks for your patience. ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rayzhang123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Luo Yonghao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is there anyone can help me find others sufficient content to require an article

@Rayzhang123: The sources look quite acceptable. It is also quite acceptable to create WP:STUB articles here. I have resubmitted and accepted the draft. Congratulations! ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Erwin Lackner (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Trash Polka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article has been declined twice due to it's informal tone and peacock terms. I have made it as neutral and formal as possible, and need assistance with which part I am writing incorrectly. This is my first Wikipedia article attempt and I am very new to this. I have included as many reliable sources as possible. What does it mean to write it in a more encyclopedic format?

Erwin Lackner (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erwin Lackner: We see a lot of WP:PROMOTIONAL content submitted to Wikipedia and so many reviewers are very sensitive to this. You can improve your draft by reworking it to describe the style itself with less emphasis on the people who created the style. Right now the article is written from the perspective of the creators which might lead one to suspect that the article itself was created by one of these people which would be a conflict of interest, which is another issue reviewers here are sensitive to. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Erwin Lackner (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Trash Polka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't seem to find any wikipedia policies on whether I can use references that are in another language. For example, this article is about something that originated in Germany. Most of the references that are online are in German. Is it required to use references that are only in English?

Erwin Lackner (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erwin Lackner sources can be in any language, if good English sources are not available - see WP:NOENG. Sources also do not need to be online - see WP:OFFLINE. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bruschi12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fethard St Mogues GAA CLub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I have just submitted a page for review. However the main title of the page has a minor spelling error. could the "L" in "club" be changed to a lower case. Thanks.

Bruschi12 (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruschi12: I took care of that for you. You can do these adjustments yourself in the future, see WP:MOVE. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: thanks for that!

• ChaitaneyaDalvi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abhay Patil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ChaitaneyaDalvi (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just informing that I manually reverted your accidental move of the Draft into mainspace. Please try to refrain from doing so .The reviewers will move it into mainspace when your Draft will be okay-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unleasher82 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

hi , i created an article about one of our major organization in the state of Kuwait. all the information are valid from genuine websites , i was wondering why the article was declined ?

Unleasher82 (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unleasher82. The accuracy and reliability of the draft's sources is not in question. However, to justify an encyclopedia article about a company, there must be significant coverage of it in independent, reliable, secondary sources. None of the sources cited by the draft (the company, it's parent company, and a partner company) are independent. A quick search for independent sources found some brief mentions, but nothing of substantial depth. In the absence of better sources, I suggest you add a paragraph to Kuwait Petroleum Corporation describing the history and function of Kuwait Gulf Oil Company within the context of that organization. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RPritzlaff (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:RPritzlaff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The portions of our wikipedia page that are being called 'copywritten' is all language that came from us that was then written on a site about us. They are our words used with our permission on the other site, but we did not take them from that site. How can we resolve this? RPritzlaff (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RPritzlaff (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RPritzlaff: Your question raises a number of concerns. You write "our words" and "we did not". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. You write "our wikipedia page", but no editor owns an enyclopedia article. If you meant that Draft:The feath3r theory is about your organization, see WP:BFAQ#COMPANY. Writing about yourself or your organization on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. It's almost always a huge waste of time for you and for Wikipedia volunteers. If a person or organization is foolish enough to think that an article about them would be a good thing (is unfamiliar with the law of unintended consequences), then the preferred way to get an article is to ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles.

With regard to using copyrighted text, you may be able to license the text to solve the legal problem. There are steps that must be taken to verify that license. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Even if you are able to establish a compatible license, it likely will be impossible to use the text here. Material on https://www.dance-enthusiast.com/dance-listings/classes/view/Incubator-Series-Raja-Feather-Kelly-2017-04-25_27 has been written to publicize Raja Feather Kelly / The feath3r theory, a purpose which is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. Writing an encyclopedia article is an entirely different undertaking. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• PATRIZIA KinderHaus-Stiftung (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:PATRIZIA KinderHaus-Stiftung/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Sir or Madam,

my article about the PATRIZIA KinderHaus-Stiftung was declined, due to lacking reliable sources.

What if I don`t have any reliable additional sources?

I have one official source from the Bavarian Government: "Bavarian official directory of foundations"

The others are articles from newspapers. For the article in the German Wiki the sources were sufficient.

I kindly ask for request.

Thanks in advance and with best regards

Wolfgang Unger

PATRIZIA KinderHaus-Stiftung (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PATRIZIA KinderHaus-Stiftung. Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. The good news is that if an article satisfies one set of rules, it can often be improved to satisfy another set of rules with a small amount of work. I've changed the draft so that it uses cite templates, which can make the nature of its sources clearer.

A number of other improvements could be made. The best person from whom to seek direction is the draft's most recent reviewer:

@Ammarpad: You wrote "most of the references (if not all) are that if the foundation" and asked for reliable "news sources, websites, newspapers not affiliated with the foundation." One of the five sources is the foundation, which clearly is not independent. One source is a state government office, and the other three are newspapers. These four are ostensibly independent. Would you elaborate on what makes you feel they are not independent? Or what other aspects of the draft prevent it from being accepted? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Worldbruce: I think my comment is self explanatory. I didn't accept it because in my (limited) judgment it is still not ready for mainspace notwithstanding it's presence in dewiki. However, if you feel I made a mistake (or the reviewers who rejected it previously) just accept and publish it or ask for someone to do so at the Reviewers' talk page.  — Ammarpad (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:29, 14 November 2017 review of submission by 190.19.207.150

• 190.19.207.150 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Dear All. This is the first time I try to submitt a wikipedia page about Valeria Vegh Weis but it has been rejected. Unfortunately the last rejection was not very clear. It states: ¨This submission needs significant improvements and copy-editing to look like a wikipedia article.¨ I worked on the proposal and I sent another version on September 22. I have not receive any response yet. I would be delighted if you could help me out with more precise information about the mistakes that the proposal has and I would also appreciate if someone could indicate me how long would it take to receive feedback in relation to my last submission.190.19.207.150 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2017

There is a large backlog. The version submitted by Enzo Guido Leone on 23 October 2017 will probably be reviewed by the first week in December. You may continue to improve it while you wait. A large portion at the end of the draft appears to duplicate content above it. If so, it should be removed. If you are trying to show that she meets a criterion of WP:PROF, be more explicit in the first sentence or two about which one she meets. Wikipedia tends to concentrate on an academic's books, and not list their journal articles, so I recommend removing those. If there are reviews in scholarly journals of her books, cite them. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Chandler Slavin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I don't understand why my article was denied publication. The reason provided was that the references do not show the subject's notability, though in each case I reference reliable and independent sources that support my statements. Chandler Slavin (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chandler Slavin. The draft's sources are a trade association blog and what appear to be three trade journals. Reviewers may be discounting these as evidence of notability because of their limited audience and because the often too-cozy relationship between them and the industries and companies they cover raises concerns about their independence and objectivity. Chandler Slavin, for example, is: a member of the family that owns the company, Sustainability Coordinator for the company, and a contributing writer for Packaging Digest - a source that is cited three times.

Reviewers may also be concerned by the narrow and promotional focus of the draft, which omits much basic information about the company - public/private, size, locations, history, controversies, etc. Max Liboiron's 2013 NYU PhD thesis, Redefining Polution: Plastics in the Wild, for example, cite's the same Chalder Slavin's views on ocean plastic pollution as an example of controversial minority views about plastic pollution.

Without a broader range of sources (ideally more mainstream ones such as The Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, or Sierra), it's unlikely that the draft will be published. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nayirim (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Science gateway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am revisiting this entry as I'd like to get something posted about science gateways soon. As I have been considering adding it to the web portal page, I'm a bit concerned as to how to appropriately integrate it. Science gateways, which are an international topic of interest have enough information about them that would cause an imbalance if I tried to integrate with the web portal section since there are a number of lists and subsections within the "science gateway" entry draft. Moreover, I considered adding it to the Virtual Research Environments page but I realized that VREs are a subset of science gateways, not the other way around. Finally, I considered the entry of "gateway (webpage)" but the "science gateway" content does not fit with this either.

Can you please advise if it would be appropriate to add all the content I've created in the "science gateway" draft in the web portal entry and, if so, how I would then create (per your suggestion) a redirect. If this is not appropriate, then I am hoping my request to make this a new entry can be reconsidered. The person who originally reviewed this entry has been blocked.

Thanks very much, Nayiri

@Nayirim: Hello again, Nayiri. We discussed this question here on July 21 and it's good to see that you're now exploring the suggestions made to you back then (about adding material to Web portal article instead of having a separate article). As for how much of the content could be moved into that article, that's not something that we decide here at the Help Desk. Instead, I encourage you to open a discussion at Talk:Web portal. When you do so, provide a link to your draft and ask the folks there whether they see any problems with you adding all of the material. And then see what response you get. Frankly, that Talk page doesn't seem very active and, if you get no response within a week or so, feel free to add the appropriate material and see if anyone objects at that point.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just re-read your question and noticed that I didn't address the matter of a re-direct. I'll be happy to do that for you once you've sorted out whether you'll be adding the material to Web portal. Feel free to drop a note on my Talk page when that's been done. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try that route. Before I do so, though, can you please let me know if there's any way my request to make this a new entry will be reconsidered? I think it would be challenging and not fit very well with the suggestions made to incorporate in the web portal page. As you can see, I have created a significant amount of content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayirim (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayirim: Yes, you can request a reconsideration simply by re-submitting the draft for review. It will take a few weeks before someone gets around to looking at it, but you'll get the opinion of a third editor and perhaps that person will view the draft more favorably. I do think it fair, however, to point out that a lot of your content is unsourced and will probably generate a decline even from a reviewer who might otherwise have accepted the notability of the topic. There's also quite a few in-article external links (i.e., links inside the main text that take the reader outside of Wikipedia). These are almost never acceptable. So, if you do choose to re-submit, you might want to address those matters first. Whatever your choice, I wish you good luck. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ilovepitts (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sara Jay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ilovepitts (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help...

I am at a loss to know how someone who is in the Hall of Fame is not noteworthy.. the highest honor in the business... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sara_Jay

I think the references are all adult recognized. It would qualify under WP:PORNBIO. Sara Jay was rejected before by an admin who has since been banned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ktr101

Ilovepitts (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovepitts: Hello, Ilovepitts. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Although this topic has been deleted (at least) four times, I see that the subject has now been inducted into her industry's Hall of Fame and satisfies WP:PORNBIO on that basis. But the reviewers who left comments on your submission do raise valid points about the general quality of the sourcing. On a very basic level, you should be aware that IMDB is not accepted by us as reliable, so any information being sourced to it will need to be either removed or backed up by a different source. Similarly for YouTube sources, with the added complication that YouTube is notorious for allowing uploads from people who don't own the copyright in the uploaded material. There's more that can be said about the sourcing, as well as the draft's structure, but it will take more discussion than would be appropriate here at the Help Desk. If you don't mind waiting a day, I'll be happy to add detailed comments on the Talk page of your submission tomorrow, and will notify you when I do so. If you have any questions that require an immediate response, feel free to ask them here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you! This is my first subject and the learning curve has been nothing but difficult. I will follow your direction and attempt to do my best to clean up and source as needed.Ilovepitts (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SSangeertha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Puviarasu Muthusamy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@SSangeertha: Hello, S. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TonyPizarro (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I've requested assistance because this article is simulor to other Dj articles on Wikipedia TonyPizarro (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyPizarro: Hello, Tony. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best sources of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewers who looked at it. You can find their names and Talk page links in the "decline boxes" near the top of your submission. But I did take a quick look at it myself and found that you've provided no evidence that the subject has achieved encyclopedic notability. Blogs, the subject's own website and things written by the subject do not provide evidence of notability and you would do better by providing links to mainstream publications (e.g., the Los Angeles Times or Billboard) that have discussed the subject in depth. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

@TonyPizarro: I second everything NewYorkActuary wrote. It is natural to learn by and reason from example, but it's safer to reason from official policies and guidelines. The essay "Other stuff exists" may make it clear why. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high-quality and low-quality content. The argument that articles exist that don't meet the policies and guidelines, so more such articles should be created, is not one that will convince any experienced editors. If you use an example, be sure to use one from the best content Wikipedia has, such as Sasha (Welsh DJ) or DJ AM. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Eboyd42 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Football Power Index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I currently am writing a WIKI page for ESPN's Football Power Index (FPI). It appears that in order for the FPI page to be created I need to provide additional sources that are not from the source of the idea (ESPN). Are you looking for other views of FPI, comments/criticisms of FPI, or something else? I want to provide as much detail as I can, but there is not much information on the definition of FPI that is outside of ESPN. I am happy to provide any coverage needed, just need a little clarity.

Thanks so much! EvanEboyd42 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eboyd42: Hello, Evan. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the person who reviewed it. I see that you've already reached out to the most recent reviewer and I trust you'll get a response from them soon. In the meantime, you've got the right idea when you suggest "looking for other views of FPI" and "comments/criticisms of FPI". If there is indeed not much discussion of the index by anyone other than its creator, then it is unlikely to merit a stand-alone article. Conceivably, however, some of your material might find a home in the article on ESPN. If you wish to pursue that approach, you can start by opening up a discussion at Talk:ESPN. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuno Kincaid (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sogrape Vinhos Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page Sogrape is of the Group company (Sogrape Original Legacy Wines) wich has several other companies (Bodgas LAN in spain, Finca Flichman in Argentina, Los Boldos in Chile, Framingham in New Zealand, Evaton in USA, etc.) and this page if for the Sogrape Vinhos Portugal wich is one of the companies that is hold by Sogrape Original Legacy wines

@Nuno Kincaid: Hello, Nuno. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I see that you've already reached out to one of the reviewers and I'm sure you'll get a response from them soon. If you don't hear from them in a day or so, feel free to ask again here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want create Wikipedia article of Mr. Rossi Looks for Happiness, but there is a page and said:

″The article that you're looking for doesn't exist.

You can create it, but...

• Before you create an article, you should read Your first Wikipedia article.
• New to Wikipedia? See the contributing to Wikipedia page for everything you need to know to get started.
• Need interactive help? You can ask questions at the Teahouse, help desk or through live chat.

There are different ways to edit Wikipedia:

Sandbox Ready to try editing? You can experiment in your own sandbox to get a feel for editing Wikipedia. This is a great place to start without affecting live articles. Start editing

Improve Wikipedia needs your help. Pick small editing tasks from a list, such as fixing spelling and grammar. Learn by making improvements to existing articles. Start helping

Article wizard If you already have experience with editing, you can use our article wizard to create new articles. In just a few steps, you'll be on your way to contributing to Wikipedia. Start creating″

What can I do for create the Wikipedia article of Mr. Rossi Looks for Happiness? Please help me.

ML8 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ML8: Hello, ML. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I'm not sure what to add to the guidance that you've reproduced here. If you have never before created an article on Wikipedia, then you really should read WP:Your first article. And you probably want to work through our WP:Tutorial to learn the basic techniques that are used to craft an article. After that, when you feel you're ready to go, return to the page that you already found and click the link to the Article Wizard. Happy editing! NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your advice, but it does not go on. Every time I click on red writing (pages do not exist), it returns to the page I dropped over. I don' t know how to do. ML8 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ML8: Hello again, ML. Sorry to see you're having problems. But I'm very puzzled as to what's going on here. I checked your contribution history and found that you have succeeded in creating both a sandbox page (in your User space), as well as a Draft. You've already submitted the draft for review (and had it declined). And the User space sandbox has a button that you can click when you are ready to submit it for review. Why don't you simply start editing one of those two pages to add the new content? NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, tell me something, but with Wikipedia:New user landing page how do I create a page? Wikipedia:New user landing page always appears when I want to create a page. ML8 (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ML8: New users are no longer allowed to create pages directly in article space. Using the article wizard, you may create drafts, which will be published to article space if they are acceptable. Or you may gain experience by improving existing articles. When your account has been open a certain number of days and you have made a certain number of edits (the exact number depends on circumstances, see WP:ACTRIAL), you will be able to create articles. If, however, you create articles that are unacceptable, they are likely to be deleted, and if you do so persistently you might lose your editing privileges. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much for find article wizard for create drafts, but if I want published from a drafts to article in my self what can I do? --ML8 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SPARNOLD (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Steven Skyler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Steven Skyler used to have a Wiki page, until his former manager deleted it out of spite. I'm working with him, this is his account, to try and get one back up and running. As far as I can tell, I have WAY more in the way of sourcing and citations than his previous page had, so, I'm no sure what else needs to be added/done in way of proving he should have another page, or, if that isn't an option, getting his old page reinstated.

SPARNOLD (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPARNOLD: Hello, Sparnold. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. It would be very unusual for a single person to delete an existing article, whether "out of spite" or for some other reason. Could you provide more detail on that (it will be relevant if you truly want to get the old page restored). As for the new version, the best sources of information as to why the submission was declined will be the reviewers who looked at it. You'll find their names and Talk page links in the "decline boxes" near the top of your submission. I hope this response was helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SPARNOLD The previous article about Skyler was deleted following the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Steven Skyler, it was not done by a single editor acting on a whim (or spite). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Baronplotn (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

THEN TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING ASSISTANCE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} As a former association publishing executive and much-read author of eight trade books and hundreds of other pieces, mainly on writing and expressiveness, I submitted a brief biography for an entry on myself. It was declined owing to lack of evidence of notability. What kind of evidence would be persuasive? Should I include a bibliography of my major works? Baronplotn (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baronplotn (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Baronplotn. Firstly, WP:Autobiographies are extremely frowned upon on Wikipedia. Please read this attached guideline for more information. Secondly, you need reliable, secondary sources. You provided a link to a Google search (not a source), your website (not secondary) and Wikitionary and English Wikipedia links, which are not proper sources, per WP:USERGEN. Please fix these issues before resubmitting for review. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TheGalaxyMan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kornelija Slunjski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking assistance as the page I created is being rejected- I don’t understand why as I’ve attached numerous references, the article is not written in promotional and the subject has notability.

Please let me know what can I do to have this article approved.

Thank you!

TheGalaxyMan (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGalaxyMan (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGalaxyMan: Hello, GalaxyMan. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I see that you've already gotten this question answered at our Teahouse and by one of the two administrators who deleted the main-space version of the article. Both responders gave you good advice. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BhushanWikipedian (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:EON IT Park,Kharadi. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, there please help me to improve my article, EON IT Park, Kharadi that I submitted yesterday (15/11/17) but it gets a decline. So, please help me so that I can improve and resubmit it. Thank you!BhushanWikipedian (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BhushanWikipedian: Hello, Bhushan. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best sources of information as to why your submission was declined, and how it might be improved, will be the reviewers who already looked at it. You can find their names and Talk page links in the "decline boxes" near the top of your submission. But before posting here, I took a quick look at it and found that I too would have declined it, and for the same reason. An office park for which little more can be said other than that it exists is not likely to have an article on Wikipedia. And the fact that you chose to list the tenants of that park, along with links to their web pages, adds a substantial element of promotionalism to the submission. In all, if you can not demonstrate that the park has been the subject of in-depth discussion by reliable independent sources, it is unlikely that an article on the park will ever be published here on Wikipedia. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary:Thank you NewYorkActuary for your guidance.I try to improve my article so that it meets the criteria and please guide me further if any issue.Thank you! BhushanWikipedian (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Holly1688 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Holly1688/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

So dear manager, may I know how I can post an article successfully in Wikipedia? Because what I post always be refused with the reason that it has already existed. But I am sure it doesn't.

Holly1688 (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Holly1688: Hello, dear Holly. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your submission consists of just a few sentences, none of them sourced and one of them written in the first person (i.e., "we"). To me, it simply looks like an attempt to convince people that they should use galvanized metal roofing for their homes. The reviewer who declined your submission suggested that you might try to use your material to improve the article on corrugated galvanised iron. Or you might prefer working on the metal roof article. Either way, improving an existing article offers an easier way to get your material on to the encyclopedia. However, regardless of which article you choose to work on, the material will need to be referenced to reliable sources (something that you didn't do in your submission). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Arobittech (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Why my page is being rejected, I am submitting a page for the 1st time in wikipedia. Please allow me with step by step guide. Thanks

Arobittech (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Arobittech#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Danzzig (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thumbhole Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have included some independent reviews from various blog sites on the record label, however it has been declined. I have checked other record label pages on wikipedia that all seem to be similar and don't know why a site not related to the topic would mention a record label.

Most of the blog reviews etc have all been for the later releases - so wasn't sure if the reviewer hadn't looked further down at the references for Tracks You Might Have Missed v1 for example.

Danzzig (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Danzzig: Hello, Danzzig. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best sources of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewers who looked at it. You can find their names and Talk page links in the "decline boxes" near the top of the submission. But I took a look at it myself and found that I too would have declined it, and for the same reason. Virtually all of your references merely serve to confirm the existence of albums released on your label. Furthermore, most of those sources carry no weight when assessing the subject's notability, because they are either cites to your company's website or to iTunes and Spotify. And I find myself in respectful disagreement with the reviewer who opined that the AllPunkedUp cite was helpful. A review of an album is not at all the same as an in-depth discussion of the label. Adding to that the fact that the "History" section contains no sourcing whatsoever, it becomes easy to agree with the reviewers that you haven't demonstrated notability. I'll add that you might also have done yourself a disservice by presenting the reviewers with a lengthy listing of red-linked names of albums and albums. To me, it simply suggests that your label has not really produced enough notable work to establish that the label itself is notable. I expect that you will disagree with that assessment, but that is the impression created by all of those red-linked names.

As for articles on other labels, there are more than 5 million user-generated articles here on Wikipedia and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they should not. If you're looking for examples of well-written articles on labels, take a look at some our better-quality articles such as Mr. Lady Records and Key Sounds Label.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jayantarana (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

Hi,

Please let me know why the content GameMine platform have been removed? I have added relevant links that I got from the internet. It will be great if you can guide me how to approve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayantarana (talk • contribs) 11:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayantarana. I do not understand your question. Draft:GameMine Platform was declined because it is promotional. No content was removed. Account Akash2017 is the only one that has contributed to that draft. Are you saying that you have also edited using that account? --Worldbruce (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• G Kalpana (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

G Kalpana (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Please give me suggestions to improve my article and tell me the reasons for rejection, so that i can rectify it[reply]

Hi G Kalpana. The only sources Draft:Aju Karthick cites are videos on YouTube. I assume these are works by Karthick. If so, they are primary sources and not independent of him. To demonstrate that he is notable (that he satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria), the draft would have to show significant coverage of him in multiple, indpendent, reliable, secondary sources (think books, newspapers, and magazines). --Worldbruce (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Forpr ep (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Robert Taft (chemist and author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I was informed that my submission for Robert Taft (Chemist and author) was denied because it "appears to be taken" from the text oat the following URL: http://www.kshs.org/archives/40172

While I did use that page as a cited reference, I did not plagiarize that page and didn't copy or paste any text without proper attribution.

So I'm not really sure why the submission was declined. I am quite sure the article could be improved, but as the text was not actually copied wholesale, but rather original writing based on multiple sources, I don't think the rejection is warranted or fair.

Forpr ep (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Newzealandspaceagency (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

Newzealandspaceagency (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newzealandspaceagency. If you are wondering why Draft:New Zealand Space Agency Limited was declined, it was declined because it cites no sources. To demonstrate that the company is notable (is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia), the draft should cite multiple, indpendent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the company. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alligator77002 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

Trying to create an article about a United States Copyrighted title "Ping Pong" (Copyright 1997; Anthony Charles Thomas). The title is expressed as an amusement where an object is oscillated over a linear platform until it is stopped. In essence, it is a table tennis amusement. With this title, I am not sure where to start as so many articles are published for amusements along this line. I do not want to err with Wikipedia for my title but I would like to get credit for it's creation. As well, I have numerous other titles that will not be beyond impartiality; Biorhythms, Fortune Teller, Horoscopes and Tarot to name a few.Alligator77002 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Alligator77002 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligator77002 (talk • contribs)

Hi Alligator77002. Worrying about the title is putting the cart before the horse. First gather multiple, indpendent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic you want to write about. Without such sources there will be no article.

If you draft the article in your sandbox or through the article wizard, submit it, and it is published, an Articles for creation reviewer will assign an appropriate title at that time. They may distinguish the title of your topic from Ping Pong by adding a parenthetical disambiguator with what the aforementioned sources generally call your subject. In other words, if most of them call it an amusement, they may use the title Ping Pong (amusement). --Worldbruce (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnbow2233 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ursula Hayden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. There is a page named "ursula hayden" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ursula_Hayden&action=edit that is under review. There are other Wikipedia's made about other GLOW girls. I know Ursula is a series consultant on GLOW Netflix etc so this page would be useful. If you could look over the page and let me know any changes you think should be made to get it approved that would be great. Thanks, John Johnbow2233 (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbow2233. Draft:Ursula Hayden is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog suggests that it will be reviewed by the end of the year. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Omega68537 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Xu Geyang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I use what Xu Geyang said in interviews(by well-known medias) as information in my article?And who can give me more advices to my article?I've used all the useful information that I can find, and I can't find any more information. Because of Xu Geyang is a new singer,I can't find information on books and journals yet. I know that the biggest problem with creating articles is notability, so how to use the existing information to show the notability of the subject better? ~Omega68537(talk)14:16,17 November 2017(UHC)

Omega68537 14:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Noreen Banks (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Blair Aldridge Ruble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Noreen Banks (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] Above is a link to the page I created for Blair A. Ruble who is an American non-fiction author and scholar. I submitted the page for review last evening. I used a photo in the information box that he uses in his promotional materials. I think I was not clear in the credits. It is his photo which was taken by a Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars and given to him. I have an email exchange giving me permission to use this photo. I received a notice that the photo was being deleted because it violated copyright but I think the problem is that I did not understand the way to credit it. Both Mr. Ruble and The Center gave permission for it to be used in Wikipedia. I can't figure out how to get the photo back into the page and would appreciate any help you can give me. I am a first time Wikipedia author so I'm sure I just did not word the credit info correctly. Thanks so much! Noreen BanksNoreen Banks (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]