Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 15

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 14 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 16 >
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.


May 15

edit

00:04, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Altberry65

edit

I've edited my draft and curious about if it's more appropriate for submission? Altberry65 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The issues raised by the reviewers remain. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altberry65: The issues I raised last time have not been addressed. Continuing to submit a draft without making any effort to address reviewers' concerns will eventually lead to the draft being rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altberry65 also see WP:AUTO and WP:ABOUTME. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:02, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Jampowl

edit

Hi! Can I ask what was lacking in the draft I just made, and how can I make it more neutral? I've also removed the "advertising" sound from my previous draft. Thanks! Jampowl (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jampowl! The first thing that caught my eye was your sources. They do not appear to meet the golden rule: articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. All three criteria must generally be met in a single source, which I do not think you have just yet.
1 The Flame is a UST publication; not independent.
2, 3, 4 are from the main UST site, so not independent.
5 The Varsitarian is also a UST publication, and not independent.
6, 7, 8, 9 are also from the main UST site, and not independent.
It would be a good idea to look for articles in newspapers, magazines, online, etc - there may even be chapters in books written about UST since it is so old.
I also notice that the College is part of a larger organization (UST) that has its own article already. You will need to find sources that are specifically about the College of Information and Computing Sciences, not just about UST, because you must demonstrate that the College is notable by itself and not only because it is part of UST. If there are not enough reliable sources to show this, you may want to consider adding any new information you have found (from reliable, independent sources!) to the main UST article instead. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:31, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Pengfeichen403

edit

I have added references to the draft I submitted, why does it still show no reliable sources? Pengfeichen403 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pengfeichen403: Speaking as someone who can't even assess your sources (incompetent), the text strikes me as written for an audience that's already significantly read into the scientific field in question. Wikipedia's audience is Joe Blow from San Antonio, not necessarily those who're already very familiar with any given topic area. It also reads promotionally, which doesn't help. Regardless of the sourcing, the draft would need to be rewritten significantly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:58, 15 May 2024 review of submission by 2603:8000:1000:7200:25C3:3866:4223:AC31

edit

how to post 2603:8000:1000:7200:25C3:3866:4223:AC31 (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. In addition, if the draft is about yourself, don't. See WP:AUTO. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cite IMDb, https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/06/9846920/wearing-perfume-at-home-quarantine-psychology is useless for notability (wrong subject), and https://fashionista.com/2020/03/beauty-salon-hair-nails-appointment-pandemic is useless for notability (too sparse). We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Hwang news/scholarly sources that discuss her at length, are written by identifiable authors, and have undergone rigourous editorial processes and fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:27, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Janand12333

edit

I have submitted a draft article 7 days ago. I haven't received any notification accepting or rejecting the said article. Kindly help me as to what would have gone wrong. Janand12333 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Janand12333: you seem to have created two copies (why?), of which Draft:Anand Ingale is awaiting review, and User:Janand12333/sandbox has been declined as a duplicate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the message at the top of the draft: Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Nothing's gone wrong; drafts are manually reviewed by volunteers, and a 7-day turnaround is not guaranteed. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:33, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Grabup

edit

The draft was submitted 96 days ago and has not received any responses other than comments (also by me). The Hoichoi article was deleted by AfD on 9 April 2023, initiated by @Lordofhunter, and closed by @Seraphimblade:. There was a big discussion that happened last year on the AfD; the majority of the editors said it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Another point is that no new articles were cited; all these citations in the draft were also available at the time of the previous discussion.

The article has now been created by @Akashekhar, an employee of the company, as he also mentioned on the Talk page. Pinging users who commented on the draft; Cl3phact0, Xoak. Also, ping other users who voted in the last AfD, Toddy1, TimothyBlue, HighKing, Oaktree_b.

My questions

  • What is your opinion on this draft?
  • Should it be accepted, deleted, or declined?
GrabUp - Talk 07:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup, As far as notability is concerned, to me, the subject meets notability. Since the last AFD, there's been a good deal of recent coverage of this platform. Even while it was on AFD, I felt it could have been kept if someone introduced some better sources. Note that sources exist in Bengali language as well.
Re the draft, it seems okay-ish, with some minor copy edits it'd be good to go. X (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While checking the AfD I found some experieced editors voted Keep. GrabUp - Talk 08:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only major concern I had when looked at the Draft was the missing COI declaration. This seems to be sorted (though needs a bit tidying). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sourcing is still a concern. The Business Line article is unsigned, The Financial Express is fine, Mint is fine but rather brief coverage, the Telegraph is a staff report of the newspaper (basically unsigned), Variety is fine but also very brief. So one good source, the other I'd count for about half a source... The unsigned articles are typical of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still don't see extensive coverage in RS, and the COI is a concern. I don't think the draft is quite ready for publication. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. GrabUp - Talk 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup notability is still not met. We are again in the same loop as the last year. Please read the last AFD, and add new sources which are not related to launches and announcements. Lordofhunter (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To emphasise this, I will assess your sources. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature below as "critiques").
None of your sources that I could assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed assessment. It’s amazing. GrabUp - Talk 02:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to reiterate, you need to be aware of the criteria for establishing notability depending on the topic subject. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. As per the assessment above, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements or information provided by the company and/or execs and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing++ 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:53, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Tanhasahu

edit

I need assistence from fellow editors. I have submitted this page for "Articles for creation" and the submission got declined. I need some assistence with the sources used in this draft. Can anyone please let me me which are the non-reliable sources in this draft? It will help me to develop better understanding about the RS and to improve Wikipedia content. I have also added some new sources which are shown reliable on WP:RPS like INC, Bloomberg, Venture Beat, Fortune, Sydney Morning Herald. Also, I want to know that do I have a list or URL to check reliability of the sources which are not mentioned at WP:RPS. Thank you. Tanhasahu (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanhasahu: this draft wasn't declined for non-reliable sources, but rather for lack of evidence of notability. Notability requires sources that are reliable, yes, but they also must be entirely independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage directly of the subject. See WP:GNG for more info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing, I understand it. I have checked most of the sources used in the draft are reliable, independent of the subject and cover the subject significantly. I believe it meets WP:GNG. But, still unable to understand the review process clearly. Sometimes, it seems biased and unclear. Tanhasahu (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tanhasahu You have done a good job of summarizing the routine business activities of the company and documenting what it does. The thing is, that's not what we are looking for. We are primarily looking for a summary of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company. That is coverage which goes beyond merely telling about the activities of the company and goes into detail about what the sources see as important/significant/influential about this company- how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
I think you are referring to WP:RSP and not WP:RPS. RSP is a list of sources whose reliability is commonly discussed, it isn't meant as a list of acceptable (and not) sources. Reliable sources are those that have a reputation of fact checking, editorial control, and journalistic standards(i.e. they don't just make stuff up). If you aren't sure if a source has those qualities, you may discuss it at WP:RSN. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the three(and only three, please) best sources that you have that provide significant coverage of this company? 331dot (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 331dot, I think this statesman article, Bizjournal, Bloomberg, are good sources that talks about company details in depth like founding details, key persons, company services, acquisition, and other details related to the company. Also, this | Independent news article is also reliable and also some other passing mention sources like [1], Morning Herald, Beat. I know, I'm new and can make mistakes to review the reliability of the provided sources that's why I have asked from the reviewer GSS on my talk page message but I got no response, this seems like biting the new editors without telling them where they're wrong. Every experienced person is newbie one day. So, I asked here at help desk so I can also contribute to Wikipedia with right edits. Don't take me wrong here, I am curious about the better and reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. And thanks for taking your time to be here to help the newbie editors like me. Tanhasahu (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those links do not work; the Bizjournal sources just documents a routine business activity; personnel changes are a routine matter. (it may say more, but it is paywalled and I can't read it, paywalled sources may be used, I just can't examine it) 331dot (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the dead links. Readded the correct links here for your check: [2], [3] Tanhasahu (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both routine business activities, this doesn't establish notability as defined as WP:ORG. Specifically, see WP:ORGTRIV. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted with thanks. But, how will differentiate the routine business activity and a geniune news article? Is there anything special that indicate us? I have seen hundrends of company pages with such news articles. It really hard to differentiate the organic news article and routine business activity. Tanhasahu (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are likely many inappropriate articles about businesses that we just haven't gotten around to addressing yet. Articles like Microsoft or Ford Motor Company don't just tell of the activities of the company, they go into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about those companies. Microsoft has 70% market share and has been highly influential in the technology field. Ford is known for pioneering the assembly line and its economic influence. Those are extreme examples, but the point here is any article about a company must describe what sources say is notable about it. That doesn't normally include things like acquisitions of competitors/businesses in related fields- unless some sort of widely reported record is involved, or extensive legal action is triggered, something like that. Just telling what the company does is not enough to sustain an article. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Provided information is easy to understand and I appreciate it. Thank you for your time. One more question, does the same thing apply for the BLP articles? Tanhasahu (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions do not establish notability- the coverage must be significant. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Pupujoy

edit

I dont know what references to add Pupujoy (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pupujoy: just because this mall exists doesn't mean it should be included in a global encyclopaedia; for that, it needs to be notable. Notability means that multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, etc.) have written about it at length. Those are the sources you should be summarising, and then citing as references. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:15, 15 May 2024 review of submission by WhiteCliffsNative

edit

I need help making this page work, eventually i am doing interviews with blogs and magazines that i can site, then i can back fill data on myself as an artist as my own wiki page that i can link to this page and vice versa WhiteCliffsNative (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WhiteCliffsNative. I am very sorry to say but your album does not merit a Wikipedia article. Only musicians who meet our strict notability criteria may merit an article.
If, some time in the future, you are written extensively by reputable music journalists a volunteer editor might write an article about you.
In any case, your draft was written in a completely inappropriate way for Wikipedia. It is prohibited to promote on Wikipedia, which is why I have marked it for deletion.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand that reasoning, and if i happen to fulfil those things in the future I will reach out, and hope that I can fit within the appropriate parameters, anyway thanks for letting me understand the criteria, and all the best, Paul WhiteCliffsNative (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - feel free to come back if you think you merit an article. It may be worth reading WP:TOOSOON too.
Good luck with your music career. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those sentiments, much appreciated and i will use that link as a guide and basically as a soft of goal. Thanks for your time and effort, Paul WhiteCliffsNative (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:58, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Randomuser335S

edit

I've never done a successful citation attempt on my own before on a wikipedia article. Would like some help with my article, but placeholder citations containing the sources where I intend to place them have been inserted Randomuser335S (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomuser335S Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. If you need handholding after reading and understanding these may I suggest WP:TEAHOUSE will give yiu good results? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just revised the page's citation issues, and now currently awaiting its resubmission. Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. Randomuser335S (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Macrae.xmyint6418

edit

this is for my friend. other people with less profile information are up on wikipedia. why is this rejected? Macrae.xmyint6418 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrae.xmyint6418
  1. It's written completely inappropriately for a neutral online encyclopaedia. We prohibit promotion of any kind.
  2. It's clearly been written by ChatGPT.
  3. It has no reliable independent sources to speak of.
Please, do go ahead and link "other people with less profile information are up on wikipedia" and I will take appropriate action.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 15 May 2024 review of submission by DeadSanz

edit

Hello! I'm trying to create a page about one of my favorite photographers all time. I don't believe I infringed on anything from a copyright perspective, but was creating this draft prior to going into any of the numerous articles that have been written about him. DeadSanz (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see much of a copyvio, but it was thoroughly promotional. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 15 May 2024 review of submission by ASL41689

edit

I do not know how I can get this accepted. I need help. It keeps getting rejected ASL41689 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ASL41689 It has been declined prior to being rejected.
Only a total rewrite based only on reference material will give this a chance of acceptance. You have written a short magazine article, an essay, not a Wikipedia article 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that this user copy-pasted the contents of the draft into mainspace after it was rejected. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this multiple times with only using the specific references I have sourced. So I am not following what I am doing wrong. ASL41689 (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ASL41689 The draft was declined four times, before being rejected, for a reason. The draft got little to no improvement between declines. (e.g. [4][5]) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then how can I improve it because all I get is vagueness and no specific direction.... ASL41689 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have received specific instructions above. #01:35, 14 May 2024 review of submission by TeamChicas. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you connected to ASLhistoryGHKU in any way? I noticed the similar usernames and a similar draft awaiting review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi Rather than start a full sockpuppetry investigation I have issued the good faith warning to each account, referencing the other. While others may disagree, I feel that the behaviour exhibited, while below the standard we expect, does not (yet) require the use of formal sanctions. Anyone disagreeing with me and having strong feelings may obviously initiate an SPI at any time they feel it to be justified. Certainly the appearance of more accounts editing in this area would trigger one.
@ASL41689, @ASLhistoryGHKU, we are unconcerned if you are genuinely different editors. If you are the same, please select one account and abandon. the other, ideally declaring what you have done on the user page and the talk page of the abandoned account.
@ASL41689 Please read and understand HELP:YFA, then read this essay, one of many that give a process for article construction. Start from first principles and follow the process. Only write in your own words, not close paraphrasing what appears in the references, which do not need to be online. Do this using the wizard at WP:AFC and submit it for review when ready.
Please remember we do not need editorial. We need dull-but-worthy prose, flat prose, with no opinions expressed unless they are in the references.
I hope these instructions are the help you seek. I apologise if you found any previous guidance tp be confusing or difficult to follow 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ASL41689 I mean, of course, that you should create an entirely new draft, starting from the references. Do not simply re-create the draft that has been rejected. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's some sort of an editathon or similar going on:
Could explain what otherwise might look like puppetry? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I think you may be correct. The challenge is that these editors will be disappointed unless they write in the correct manner. WikiEd seems only to handle the USA, but "ASL" suggests American Sign Language, thus it may be covered by WikiEd.
I'm never sure how to involve them. LiAnna (Wiki Ed), Ian (Wiki Ed), is this one of your programmes? If so I believe the tutor needs guidance for the students to succeed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't one of our classes, but we'd be happy to provide assistance if it is a class and the instructor contacts us. Thanks for directing them our way. If you are able to figure out the course and institution, we can also try proactively reaching out, but I couldn't see any reference to one. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a post at EDUN. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 15 May 2024 review of submission by LemurLiterature

edit

Hi there. My draft was declined for lack of reliable sources. I know the Bandcamp citations were removed by the reviewer (and I understand Bandcamp isn't reliable, so my apologies for the mistake). I'm unsure which of my citations I can keep? A few of my sources are reviews or interviews with the band, which I understand might not be the best quality, and my guess is that my Guardian source is okay. Apologies for the likely simple question.

And a brief follow up - if it turns out that very few of my sources are unreliable, would the draft be deleted for lack of notability due to lack of sources? I ask because the band's third album actually has an article (If I Don't Make It, I Love U) which serves as its redirect at the moment, which meets notability criteria.

Thank you so much for your help! This is my first article so I apologise for my errors. LemurLiterature (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LemurLiterature The problem that you have is that you need to demonstrate that the band passes WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:46, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Carolynpethick

edit

I can resubmit my draft Carolynpethick (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolynpethick yes, you can, but please don't until the draft is improved. First of all, the draft is about yourself. See WP:AUTO; the draft is in a promotional tone right now, with phrases such as renowned keynote speaker in Australia and passion for justice and her commitment. Secondly, see WP:AUTHOR, which the draft currently does not meet. We cannot cite Soudcloud as a source, especially when it's a podcast recorded by yourself. We also cannot cite a YouTube video uploaded by yourself. The book is also written by you. We need independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carolynpethick, statements like Carolyn’s journey is nothing short of remarkable are the exact opposite of how a neutral encyclopedia article should be written. Self-promotion is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Please be aware that 99.9% of people who try to write autobiographies on Wikipedia end up failing, having wasted their time and the time of Wikipedia's volunteer reviewers as well. Since it is clear that you have no idea how an acceptable Wikipedia needs to be written, I suggest that you spend your time promoting yourself on other websites where self-promotion is welcomed. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to suggest that you are notable in Wikipedia terms, if you were it would need a complete re-write in neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_15&oldid=1224892828"