Help desk
< October 4	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 6 >

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.

October 5

07:30:43, 5 October 2020 review of submission by Baolovesmochi

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

Hello, I have submitted several edits of the AAAtrade page and I am not sure which content I need to remove to ensure that the page is not considered promotional. If you could point out what needs to be removed I would greatly appreciate it. Kind Regards Baolovesmochi (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baolovesmochi (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baolovesmochi Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a subject. Your draft merely tells about the company, and is only sourced to things confirming the specific factual information in the article. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unaffiliated with the organization choose to say about it. "Significant coverage" does not include press releases, the company website, staff interviews, announcements of routine business transactions, brief mentions, or other primary sources. In essence, you need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage. If no such sources exist, your company will not merit an article at this time. Not every company does, even within the same field. Please see Your First Article for more information.

I see you declared as a paid editor- feel free to show your superiors this message. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:51, 5 October 2020 review of draft by Phohammer

Phohammer (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Social Ecology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, we at the Institute for Social ecology were wondering if we could get some tips or pointers as to how we could improve the article since it seems fairly devoid of "peacock terms" & was written by one of Bookchin's editors in a style similar to that used for other political entries. Any insights would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Phohammer (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phohammer Please note that only a single person should have access to and be operating your account. You will also need to review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. Most of what was written seems to be original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should only be summarizing what independent reliable sources state about the topic, and should not be drawing conclusions. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:07, 5 October 2020 review of submission by Greenock1998

Greenock1998 (talk · contribs)

the article I wrote about Ardmaleish boatbuilding company the last shipyard to the Scottish island of Bute was rejected for ( not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia ) by Salimfadhley who lives in London in England and is of Arab descent, has rejected my article on part of Scottish shipbuilding history I find this very offensive I wish for a ethically Scottish person to review my article some who should under stand the importance of shipbuilding in Scottish history , I was say this again I find this very offensive that my article was rejected for ( not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia ) by some I believe who does not understand Scottish history .

thank you your time.

when there are other article about other shipyards that have not been rejected

here are 25 article on other British shipyards that were not rejected for being ( not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia )

I have roughely checked some of them. All that I looked at seems to meet WP:NCORP respectively WP:NPERSON for persons. If you want me to have a detailed and explained look at one or two of them, tell me which and I can see... Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greenock1998, Seriously, this is racist. All Wikipedia editors are equal. Reviewers review based upon the cotent of the draft before them. Fiddle Faddle 22:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greenock1998 I have raised this matter on your talk page Fiddle Faddle 23:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:09, 5 October 2020 review of submission by Zimne

Zimne (talk · contribs)

This is my first submission, I made a first draft and I think I followed the NPOV rules, but it seems I didn't. Can anyone help me understand which points are non-neutral and/or look like advertisement? Zimne (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zimne, the best person to ask is the reviewer who declined it. All of us who review must be able to explain our rationale when asked Fiddle Faddle 22:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:59, 5 October 2020 review of draft by Westfield1800

Westfield1800 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Marcus Hayes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Westfield1800 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield1800 You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:16:36, 5 October 2020 review of submission by Hallieedit

Hallieedit (talk · contribs)
- Draft:E-flux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I edited this page and am requesting a re-review. The reason it was rejected was the it does not appear to be notable. The user left the note "The article is about a temporary video store which appears to be no longer open. At the time it received some coverage in blogs and independent media, but no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It does not appear to be notable." However, from this note, it would appear that the user did not even read the page.. The video store was a temporary exhibition, yes, but it makes up maybe 5% of the page's total content. e-flux is not a "temporary video store"; it is an arts institution with a robust platform and a significant spot in the contemporary art world. I am requesting a re-review on the basis that the rejection was unfounded. I've spent the past 6 months editing this page after it initially was taken down because a user flagged it as an advertisement. Since then, I have changed approximate 75% of the wording of the initial page. My investment in this page is that I am a student who has relied on e-flux sources for many years, and I want this wikipedia resource to be available to other people within the arts community. Thanks. Hallieedit (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. You may ask the reviewer if they read the entirety of the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:35, 5 October 2020 review of draft by Thesocialmatters

Thesocialmatters (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Tejaswani Behera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thesocialmatters (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thesocialmatters You haven't asked a question. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:22:49, 5 October 2020 review of submission by Jamesinhere

Jamesinhere (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Certified Professional Coder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have created draft article, pending review. Need help with template selection. This page is about a kind of certification examination done in the United states to be licensed as a medical coder/Clinical Coder and want to know if I need to use any specific template type in it.

Jamesinhere (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesinhere, generally these things take care of themselves once an article is accepted because other editors jump in. in the search box start typing Template:infobox and see what it brings up as suggested templates. I haven't checked, but there is likely to be a useful one there Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle I have taken a look on all templates after typing Template:infobox and can't see any template available for exam, certification or credential. Please help if I am missing something. Jamesinhere (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesinhere, if searching for one does not reveal it then there cannot be one. Perhaps looking at other qualifications would locate one? Fiddle Faddle 15:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]