Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 June 8

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< June 7 << May | June | Jul >> June 9 >
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.


June 8

edit

02:48:04, 8 June 2022 review of draft by 174.88.30.132

edit


Are these sources good enough to have my draft accepted? 174.88.30.132 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is, indeed, one of the main things the reviewer will consider, when they come to assess your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:16:25, 8 June 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me

edit


I need assistance to get this draft accepted through AFC. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me: the draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. It isn't necessary to flag it up here at the help desk, especially merely as an attempt to jump the queue (not that there is a queue), unless you have an actual question you want to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I need assistance, whether I need something more to add in the draft or is just enough. As the draft article person is yet alive, further development can be found as time goes. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you want a review of the draft. The draft will be reviewed in due time. --bonadea contributions talk 07:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:37, 8 June 2022 review of draft by Row2022

edit


Row2022 (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The following comment has been added to my article, and yet when I look i cannot see that there is any such redirect. Please can you advise whether you too can see the redirect to enable me to correct this.


There is a redirect from Victoria Evans to Eunice Spry, but it seems to be a mistake. That article does not mention a Victoria Evans, and there is no indication that Victoria Spry was known as Victoria Evans. So if this draft is to be accepted, the redirect should simply be tagged for G6. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Row2022: it just means that there is currently a redir at Victoria Evans which forwards to Eunice Spry, and that it could be replaced by the new article if/when accepted. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:33:53, 8 June 2022 review of submission by Qhamro

edit

I am currently rewriting the contents of the page, in the current form (which has been declined) there are references which I'm trying to decide which ones are appropriate and which are not. I am a little confused on if some are considered appropriate references, for example I've referenced Companies House (reference 1 and 2) which is a British government website to prove the ownership of a company, is this something I need to do? The same question can be applied to references 4 and 8 which are links to the UK charity registry. In the "Charitable Work" section references 14-25 are mostly links to the named charity websites (some of which include the mention of Hamro Foundation as a partner) whilst these are primary sources, would they still be okay to use as they provide more information on a charity and show that the subject of the page has been involved with them? Qhamro (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qhamro (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qhamro: I can't immediately think of any reason why you would need to cite Companies House or Charity Commission records. As for primary sources in general, they don't contribute towards notability, therefore whether you take them out or leave them makes no difference in that respect. (I also don't think we particularly need to know what companies or charities this person is involved in, unless that information is somehow crucial, so you can probably remove all that.)
In any case, you're going about this the wrong way: you shouldn't write what your client/boss wants to say about themselves, and then try to find sources to support that; you should be summarising what reliable, independent sources have said, which then tells you exactly what sources you need to cite — namely, the ones that you're summarising. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. This information has been really helpful Qhamro (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:45:51, 8 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Liao.benny

edit


The reason why I am reaching out is because after submitting the article, the reviewer said the sources were not reliable. These sources were published by the best 2 universities in Canada. The company I am writing about is new and not peer reviewed article has been written about it. All the sources I get are from the schools and news letter that have published the company. I don't know what else to do because I thought my sources were reliable since the University of Toronto and Queen's university are the best in canada and all the sources cited in the article came from them. Please advise me on how I should proceed because I have tried my very very best and also consulted many people who agreed that the sources I provided should be considered reliable considering that the company is new and there haven't been any peer article written about it yet.

Liao.benny (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liao.benny The provenance of the publishers is not the issue- it is the content. None of the sources you provide have significant coverage of the company itself. If, as you say, there are no articles written about the company yet, then it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time and no amount of editing can change that. It's unfortunate that your company has given you an impossible task. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at these articles, they all talk about the company:
https://thevarsity.ca/2022/03/13/utsc-the-hub-2022/
https://smith.queensu.ca/grad_studies/mei/our-students/venture-spotlight.php (this one is from one of the best university in Canada)
https://smith.queensu.ca/grad_studies/mei/our-students/success-stories.php (this one talks about the CEO of the company in the article)
https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/thehub/startup-intake (this one talks about the competition that the company was involved in as mentioned in the article)
Please please advise me on what I should do because I have been working on this content for awhile. I even waited longer until someting about the companany was written somewhere so I could use that fir my source Liao.benny (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liao.benny: no, what the reviewer said was that there was no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. You're citing four sources, three of which are primary, and the one secondary one (NYT) probably doesn't provide significant coverage (I can't read it as it's behind a pay wall, but I'm going by the article title). Therefore in conclusion, only one of the sources meets the secondary requirement, but may or may not meet the significant coverage one, and in any case isn't alone enough to meet the multiple sources requirement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at these articles, they all talk about the company:
https://thevarsity.ca/2022/03/13/utsc-the-hub-2022/
https://smith.queensu.ca/grad_studies/mei/our-students/venture-spotlight.php (this one is from one of the best university in Canada)
https://smith.queensu.ca/grad_studies/mei/our-students/success-stories.php (this one talks about the CEO of the company in the article)
https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/thehub/startup-intake (this one talks about the competition that the company was involved in as mentioned in the article)
Please please advise me on what I should do because I have been working on this content for awhile. I even waited longer until someting about the companany was written somewhere so I could use that fir my source Liao.benny (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources must be at once secondary, independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage; those attributes are not alternatives to each other, they must all be satisfied by a single source, for it to count towards notability. The U of Toronto, their student paper, and the Queen's U are all primary sources, and the first two of them are also too close to the subject to be truly independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the draft reads like advertising eg. "Anticipating Toronto’s growing talent and it’s reputation as Canada’s fasting growing Technology hub" " primarily focuses on providing an online Marketplace" "Verxil Learning aims to help people around the world" "Verxil has accumulated over 50 unique vendors and local businesses" etc. etc. is just blatant marketing puffery and totally unsuitable in tone. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liao.benny: Maybe take a step back and read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly this section: More than 200 articles are typically deleted from the English Wikipedia every day, mostly because of lack of notability. Please make sure your topic is notable by our definition before you spend time and effort on it. An article on a non-notable subject will be rejected or deleted. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liao.benny, it looks as if your company, like many other companies (and bands, brands, youtubers, artists etc) is under the mistaken impression that it can use Wikipedia to promote itself: it cannot. Promotion is forbidden on Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. You might also find it helpful to read an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:14:01, 8 June 2022 review of submission by 23laudanoh

edit

Article made for reference link for the page about the name "Van Geel" 23laudanoh (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@23laudarch: I've just removed a MASSIVE and improperly-done quote from the draft as copyright infringement. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:54:05, 8 June 2022 review of submission by Alex Magezi Kanuga

edit


Alex Magezi Kanuga (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC) i have failed to submit my article[reply]

  Courtesy link: User:Alex_Magezi_Kanuga/sandbox
@Alex Magezi Kanuga: Your only source is Facebook (No editorial oversight). This is not acceptable for any article, let alone one with stricter sourcing requirements. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_June_8&oldid=1093020162"