| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 22 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 24 > |
| 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. |
June 23 Information
- TrimmerinWiki ( talk · contribs)
This is my second rejection for the Draft article, Caloola Club. The first was for the given reason that the article was about 'a run of the mill local organisation'. So, I added more material, which I think demonstrates that was not the case, and resubmitted it then with twenty-two references. Now, it has been rejected again based on the sourcing not being verifiable. This is not the first article I have written for Wikipedia, but it is my first 'second rejection'. I am comparing the Caloola Club Draft with some other articles (The Bush Club, Sydney Bush Walkers Club) on similar topics, which have made it past draft, and I really don't understand what more I need to do. Although I did not intend to expand this article, beyond what is there now, I am willing to do more work, if needed. I would really appreciate some guidance. For example, is it because the 22 references in the article are not verifiable - most are on-line - or are more citations needed? Are there some particular examples that you can give me? Note that I do want to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I don't want to argue about this second rejection; I am accepting that there is a valid reason for this second rejection. Also, take it as a given that I have read the link on reliable sourcing. I am just unsure of what is necessary to move the article forward, without some concrete examples of where I am astray.
Also, I am unsure on how I avoid a 'third rejection' due to some other as yet unidentified issue. In previous rejection situations, I was given very clear guidance on the problem and was able to fix it for the next (successful) resubmission. What has happened this time, leaves me full of doubt.
Thanks. TrimmerinWiki
PS: I have asked a somewhat similar question of the reviewer on his Talk page, but perhaps that was not the correct thing to do.
TrimmerinWiki ( talk) 02:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi TrimmerinWiki. When seeking clarification of a specific review, it's best to start on the reviewer's talk page. If they don't respond or don't give a satisfactory explanation, then ask in a broader forum such as this.
- You describe The Bush Club and Sydney Bush Walkers Club as articles "which have made it past draft", but neither was ever a draft. They were created directly in article space. The first was deleted in May 2017, promptly recreated, and just as promptly tagged for notability (which is often the first step on the road to another deletion). The fact that they exist could just mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. It usually isn't productive to compare a draft to an article, unless you use an example article that has gone through a formal process, such as Articles for creation, Articles for deletion, or good or featured article review. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 05:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
British Herald is a media company and would request you to review the draft as early as possible. It will really have influence and impact on our credibility.
Ansif ( talk) 07:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please note that the draft (which is promotion of a non-notable online service) is almost certainly eligible for G5 deletion - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amvivek. -- bonadea contributions talk 07:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Good Day am trying to create a profile article for a website call theawardnews.com blog so it can be widely known by all in the world and as many time i try creating it over and over its rejected by one of your team staff i would like to know the reason behind the rejection or decline of the article post
EmmyDread (
talk)
15:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ EmmyDread: Since Wikipedia is not a directory or a place to promote ( WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMOTION), articles can only exist if they have achieved a certain level of notability ( WP:NOTABILITY). To demonstrate notability, third party independent reliable sources ( WP:RS) that show significant coverage about it should be cited ( WP:CITE). I hope this helps, — Paleo Neonate – 15:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Good day, please I am asking for a review show that I can know if my articles meets with the requirements of wikipedia for approval. And also, so that the team can help me with suggestions on what I need to do if the article is not good enough to meet with the requirements.
Thank you!
Samwbc ( talk) 23:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Samwbc. Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the subject is not notable, so that no amount of editing will make the draft approvable. See Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers#Picking a topic, particularly the "Pick something notable" subsection. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 01:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 22 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 24 > |
| 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. |
June 23 Information
- TrimmerinWiki ( talk · contribs)
This is my second rejection for the Draft article, Caloola Club. The first was for the given reason that the article was about 'a run of the mill local organisation'. So, I added more material, which I think demonstrates that was not the case, and resubmitted it then with twenty-two references. Now, it has been rejected again based on the sourcing not being verifiable. This is not the first article I have written for Wikipedia, but it is my first 'second rejection'. I am comparing the Caloola Club Draft with some other articles (The Bush Club, Sydney Bush Walkers Club) on similar topics, which have made it past draft, and I really don't understand what more I need to do. Although I did not intend to expand this article, beyond what is there now, I am willing to do more work, if needed. I would really appreciate some guidance. For example, is it because the 22 references in the article are not verifiable - most are on-line - or are more citations needed? Are there some particular examples that you can give me? Note that I do want to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I don't want to argue about this second rejection; I am accepting that there is a valid reason for this second rejection. Also, take it as a given that I have read the link on reliable sourcing. I am just unsure of what is necessary to move the article forward, without some concrete examples of where I am astray.
Also, I am unsure on how I avoid a 'third rejection' due to some other as yet unidentified issue. In previous rejection situations, I was given very clear guidance on the problem and was able to fix it for the next (successful) resubmission. What has happened this time, leaves me full of doubt.
Thanks. TrimmerinWiki
PS: I have asked a somewhat similar question of the reviewer on his Talk page, but perhaps that was not the correct thing to do.
TrimmerinWiki ( talk) 02:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi TrimmerinWiki. When seeking clarification of a specific review, it's best to start on the reviewer's talk page. If they don't respond or don't give a satisfactory explanation, then ask in a broader forum such as this.
- You describe The Bush Club and Sydney Bush Walkers Club as articles "which have made it past draft", but neither was ever a draft. They were created directly in article space. The first was deleted in May 2017, promptly recreated, and just as promptly tagged for notability (which is often the first step on the road to another deletion). The fact that they exist could just mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. It usually isn't productive to compare a draft to an article, unless you use an example article that has gone through a formal process, such as Articles for creation, Articles for deletion, or good or featured article review. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 05:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
British Herald is a media company and would request you to review the draft as early as possible. It will really have influence and impact on our credibility.
Ansif ( talk) 07:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please note that the draft (which is promotion of a non-notable online service) is almost certainly eligible for G5 deletion - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amvivek. -- bonadea contributions talk 07:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Good Day am trying to create a profile article for a website call theawardnews.com blog so it can be widely known by all in the world and as many time i try creating it over and over its rejected by one of your team staff i would like to know the reason behind the rejection or decline of the article post
EmmyDread (
talk)
15:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ EmmyDread: Since Wikipedia is not a directory or a place to promote ( WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMOTION), articles can only exist if they have achieved a certain level of notability ( WP:NOTABILITY). To demonstrate notability, third party independent reliable sources ( WP:RS) that show significant coverage about it should be cited ( WP:CITE). I hope this helps, — Paleo Neonate – 15:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Good day, please I am asking for a review show that I can know if my articles meets with the requirements of wikipedia for approval. And also, so that the team can help me with suggestions on what I need to do if the article is not good enough to meet with the requirements.
Thank you!
Samwbc ( talk) 23:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Samwbc. Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the subject is not notable, so that no amount of editing will make the draft approvable. See Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers#Picking a topic, particularly the "Pick something notable" subsection. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 01:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)