Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 1059225728 by Imcdc (talk)
No edit summary
Line 595: Line 595:


[[User:Sspringett|Sspringett]] ([[User talk:Sspringett|talk]]) 04:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Sspringett|Sspringett]] ([[User talk:Sspringett|talk]]) 04:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

== 10:15:17, 8 December 2021 review of submission by Garryishere ==
{{Lafc|username=Garryishere|ts=10:15:17, 8 December 2021|declined=Draft:Suraj_Beera}}

Please tell me how to fix the faults. The entity in this article is a well known public figure of national importance.

[[User:Garryishere|Garryishere]] ([[User talk:Garryishere|talk]]) 10:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:15, 8 December 2021

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


December 1

Request on 02:15:45, 1 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Greatder


Need help understanding why Draft:Ethercalc isn't notable enough. I got references from Opensource.com, softwaregarden.com, bricklin.com, aosabook.org, two Chinese refs and Security Boulevard sources.

Greatder (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1- Maybe, though writer says doesnt take self too seriously. Source 2 through 5- all appear connected to company. Source 6 - Not even seeing mention. Source 7 - Interview, not even primary topic. Source 8 - Partner given they are hosting a distribution. Source 9 - github, not independent.
So you have 1 maybe good source and the rest are not independent sources to establish notability. Focus on finding Independent sources. Slywriter (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:35:01, 1 December 2021 review of submission by Khogendrarupini2


Khogendrarupini2 (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)khogendrarupini2[reply]

06:18:50, 1 December 2021 review of draft by Wiki102030


The page created below, was declined due to lack of reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manta Five references have been already noted, all independent and reliable news publishers + the official website of "Manta" was linked by an "external link" format. Please let me know what more should be done in terms of backing up the facts dealt in the article so that it does not get declined.

Thanks

Wiki102030 (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source is independent. They are press releases. Slywriter (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:22:43, 1 December 2021 review of submission by Sepehr Mahdavidoost


Sepehr Mahdavidoost (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello dear Wikipedia, help me for publish my article because I need it

We don't host native advertising or any other forms of promotion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:35, 1 December 2021 review of draft by Sjchin


Sjchin (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why the previous article was rejected by Wikipedia about Akribis Systems.

@Sjchin: Your second source is 404-compliant (it redirects to the homepage of an outlet called "The Japan Herald"), your third is the company itself, the Straits Times source is an interview with a company principal that hardly discusses the company in its extensive lede, your fifth source is redundant, and Arc is M&A news that doesn't help for notability. You have one usable source, which isn't enough to carry any sort of draft. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Sjchin. If you mean why Draft:Akribis Systems has twice been declined, the reason is that it fails to show that the company is notable, that it has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time to justify inclusion in the encyclopedia. Novice editors are usually advised to cite at least 3 independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites 1, the article in The Business Times. The remaining sources do nothing to establish notability. Bisouv.com and ARC Advisory Group have no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. They are not reliable sources. The company's website and the primary source interview in The Straits Times lack independence; they are reliable support only for uncontroversial facts.
Perhaps you can find a different article in The Straits Times that isn't an interview and provides in-depth information and analysis of the company. Then you would need just one more. I searched 21 ProQuest databases and 25 EBSCO databases, but was unable to find a good third source for you. It's a bad idea to write about a company you work for. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:16, 1 December 2021 review of submission by Anu Natesan


Anu Natesan (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Hi, I tried uploading a biography by the name of "Sivayogi". Why is it declined? What all information has to be provided?[reply]

@Anu Natesan: When you last asked for undeletion you were asked point-blank by an administrator what edits you were going to make as you did nothing when it was undeleted previously. Unless you're actually going to put in the work and effort to write this, any answer I give would be a waste of bytes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:12, 1 December 2021 review of submission by Dizzlephunk


Dizzlephunk (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I am unsure why my page continues to be declined. Can you please pinpoint exactly what I need to do to complete my page properly.

thank you.

I've nominated your userpage for speedy deletion as Wikipedia is not for promoting yourself. Any article created requires reliable, independent sources. Slywriter (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:51:58, 1 December 2021 review of submission by Oasenn


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chayote

Hi, thank you for reviewing my changes. The reason for decline was, that the written already exists… I am a bit confused because the chapter I have added (Industrial Use) does not yet exist on the Chayote page. I am aware, that the description exists, but I have added information about the size and weight of a single fruit. How can I add this information without posting the whole paragraph again?

Thanks for any help.

Oasenn (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oasenn: This is for help with article drafts. For help with an actual article, start on that article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Chayote). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

08:24:25, 2 December 2021 review of submission by Bannashree250


Bannashree250 (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is barely coherent and a long way from an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:37:15, 2 December 2021 review of submission by 117.212.24.77


117.212.24.77 (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will refer you to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
I am tagging the draft for speedy deletion as a rather obvious hoax. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:44, 2 December 2021 review of draft by Graemesherriff


Good afternoon, I'm writign this article 'Eaga Charitable Trust' and have had the article rejected a couple of times on the basis of insufficient evidence/citations. The charity did exist (until 2019) and created a substantial 'archive and legacy' website at www.fuelpovertylibrary.info. This is the main source of information about the charity and contains downloadable versions of all of the research outputs over it's 25 year life. There are not a lot of other relevant references, but I have included those that are available - e.g. the closing event in the House of Lords.

Could you advise that more is needed in order for this to be published please?

best wishes

Graeme

Graemesherriff (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graemesherriff A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. An archive of materials put out by the organization is not independent. If no independent sources wrote about this charity, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 331dot for your response. I understand the need for independent references and I will try to locate some more of these. The online library, however, is an archive produced by other organisations (Universities, charities, consultancies) and funded by Eaga Charitable Trust. They are not materials put out by the organisation as such, and the library was produced by a academic team at University of Salford and a reference group consisting of academics working on fuel poverty research. Would changing the text to somehow emphasise the independent nature of the archive website help to make the case for this entry to be published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemesherriff (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the archive itself is independent, but- unless I'm not understanding something correctly- the materials it holds are not. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:36, 2 December 2021 review of draft by Skennedy98


Hello! I thought that I put credible sources in my article but Wiki is saying that they are not. Could you help me know what kind of web source I need to input? It's a professional racing driver. Do you need an announcement stating that he is a driver for a specific team? Or somewhere that shows his official results in a series?

Skennedy98 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:46, 2 December 2021 review of draft by Moores10


The post I am trying to publish has been put under review and I was told that there is not "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Therefore, I was wondering how many attempts I am allowed e.g. if I added in more sources but the problem is seen as not being resolved will it then be deleted?

Also part of the problem in finding corroboratory references for this article is that most references to the subject matter repeat a misleading assertion which can be proven to be false by reference to Companies House records but this cannot be referenced in a Wikipedia article and therefore I am unsure how to proceed, as some references can be used but they state misleading information.

Thank you.

Moores10 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moores10 There is no formal limit on the number of times a draft can be submitted. However, if you keep submitting it without addressing or at least making progress towards addressing the issues, it will eventually be rejected(meaning that it cannot be resubmitted). 331dot (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moores10 You'll need more than what's there. I think if you can find 4-5 more good sources, there's a chance. I'd also get rid of any titles in the discography that can't be sourced or don't have an article of their own. It bloats it and hurts your chances of success, since it's a stream of non-notable items. You can always ping me again to review, but I'm not as frequently on the site as I'd like to be. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:47, 2 December 2021 review of submission by ZX2006XZ


ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Just letting you know that there is a new poster.

[1]

@ZX2006XZ: Please do yourself a favour, stop trying to get this rammed through, and wait until the discussion at WT:FILM has finished or the film has released. Power-posting here when someone in the studio opts for prosciutto over salami in their lunch is a waste of everyone's time and doesn't help your case a whit; if anything it makes all your protestations of having no connexion to the subject ring hollow. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:34:32, 2 December 2021 review of draft by AmirahBreen


Amirah talk 17:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen: This hasn't been submitted for review, but it would be summarily declined if it were. This needs to be written as prose, not as a bunch of lists/cirriculum vitae. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General references are allowed in articles, particularly if they are stubs. See Wikipedia:CITETYPE Amirah talk 17:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AmirahBreen: I think you're close with the BBC coverage, but I prefer the earlier version TheRoadIsLong tried to help you with, without the small subsections. Better an flowing longer stub than a staccato disjointed one. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you are saying, but in one breath they are telling me to expand the sections and in the next to remove the section headers. There is no point in working backwards on it. For that reason I would rather go the route of expanding it. But when I try to do so they are accusing me of reverting their edits in which they removed the section headers. I have also considered abandoning the draft and publishing a stub with no section headers, which may get it published quicker, but the work on expanding it would still have to be done either way. Amirah talk 21:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


December 3

00:59:40, 3 December 2021 review of submission by Sjchin


}} Asking for this page - Draft:Akribis_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Akribis_Systems #cite_note-2 Wanted to ask if this link can be used as a source? https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/becoming-global-hub/connecting-world-2277481 This is a part of the docuseries done by Channel News Asia. Our part starts at 28:00. Sjchin (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:09:13, 3 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by StrategyLady



StrategyLady (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:14, 3 December 2021 review of submission by Rajeshrajesh2345


Rajeshrajesh2345 (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeshrajesh2345 You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone; please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:27:20, 3 December 2021 review of submission by Bobbiecompulsory


I am trying to make a page regarding a short film, I have included over 50 citations from reputable sources including film festival websites, reviewers and news websites. I have added links and credited all statements within the article. In order to highlight that what I was stating about the film's synopsis was indeed correct I cited the film's website which would additionally support that information. This page was by no means to promote but to highlight the cast, crew and festival accolades of the film, which were all supported by related links and sources.

However this is what I received with my rejection:

Besides notability concerns, you can not just lift content from the webpage of the movie and transfer it to wikipedia. we are not here to promote a product and truly care very little what a subject has to say about themselves


Bobbiecompulsory (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbiecompulsory The draft was deleted as a copyright infringement; if you lifted content like the syopsis from the film website, that would indeed be a copyright violation. "Highlight the cast, crew and festival accolades of the film" is indeed a promotional purpose. Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a film, not based on any materials put out by those associated with the film(such as interviews with staff/cast, press releases, basic announcements), showing how the film meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable film. If you are associated with this film, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the synopsis, the biographies of the cast were word for word copyright violations. This plus the overly promotional tone of the article left no discretion when reviewing. Slywriter (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:26, 3 December 2021 review of draft by 2601:646:4300:3050:CD09:2F86:5158:F8CF


Please delete the following draft wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stan_Polinkovsky

I created this on accident.

Thank you! 2601:646:4300:3050:CD09:2F86:5158:F8CF (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:56, 3 December 2021 review of submission by 27.59.83.184


27.59.83.184 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide actual independent sources. Interviews, blogs and re-printed press releases do not establish notabilty. Slywriter (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


December 4

Request on 01:43:52, 4 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Spacemud1


I apologize for the inconvenience but my article about the youtuber "bodiggles" was declined, and I need some clarification of what i need to change/do so it is acceptable. Thank you for your time.

Spacemud1 (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. We cannot accept "I know <foo> personally" as a source - What should happen if you should become an amnesiac, become incommunicado, or die, and how can we be sure you aren't lying for his benefit? Published third-party sources are a hard requirement on Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spacemud1: (re-signing for ping) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:00:48, 4 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Parthyadav51



Parthyadav51 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:41:02, 4 December 2021 review of draft by Abodiiyi


i just wanted to know if the draft is ready to be submitted for a review or i have to wait to get Autoconfirmed access first then submit of a review?

Abodiiyi (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abodiiyi: No, you don't need to be autoconfirmed in order to submit a draft for review, however, if this draft were to be submitted in its current state, it would almost certainly denied. Wikipedia is not for promotion of any kind, however noble your cause might be. Please review MOS:PEACOCK. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you assistance is very appreciated. however my submission got rejected because lack of notability, from my point of view i can see that making a lot of explanation would lead to unfortunate Promotional materials so that is why i had to give a brief description of the company and its locations, website, number, field of business, official logo and finally some references that are being reliable enough to get this article approved, please make sure that you have read the article carefully after i have made some changes. you understanding is highly appreciated as i have spent 8 days trying to put this on Wikipedia as it is a huge step for me.

Abodiiyi (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abodiiyi For additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in full desktop mode, the app and mobile versions do not have full functionality. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. If you are associated with this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:01, 4 December 2021 review of submission by Lèo KVPS

Hi, my draft has just been rejected by you and I really want to know the detailed reasons and also hope to receive some suggestions or advice. I guess I should mention some articles/ newspapers or other sources so you can get more information about this boy group, right? Thanks in advance. Lèo KVPS (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Press releases, blogs, bands own website are not acceptable sources to determine notability. You need independent, in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Slywriter (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:12, 4 December 2021 review of submission by Saidzouhdi


18:45:19, 4 December 2021 review of submission by Saidzouhdi

Hi, I created this page about a scientific journal. Your comments to improve it are most welcome! Thank you! @saidzouhdi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saidzouhdi (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saidzouhdi: I added the template so you can submit your draft review. S0091 (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: Thank you! the article was submitted and declined. The reason was: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

Could you please explain to me what "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" means? should I add more references? what kind of references (the article is about a scientific journal)? I saw that some of the journals referenced by wikipedia have cited only one reference. Thank you your help!

19:47:29, 4 December 2021 review of draft by 37.186.32.254


37.186.32.254 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:55:58, 4 December 2021 review of submission by Xfix

Since last rejection, article changed to focus on "Scott the Woz" web series rather than its author, and article got additional secondary sources. Xfix (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was rejected so it will not longer be considered. Also, IMDB is not a reliable source so should not be used. S0091 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xfix:. S0091 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

01:08:16, 5 December 2021 review of submission by IntlLaw


Not sure what the protocol is for replying to an earlier reply. But creating a new entry, quoting the original issue, just in case.

Request on 15:02:16, 23 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by IntlLaw


I am new to submitting on Wikipedia. Can you please review this entry? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Asoka_De_Zoysa_Gunawardana

For a simple article like this, I am trying to understand how you strike the balance between a) citing sources and b) not infringing copyright.

I have taken a second pass at re-drafting the content after the initial rejection.

Thank you for your guidance!

IntlLaw (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IntlLaw I suggest you read Help:Your first article coupled with Help:Referencing for beginners
You must use your own words. You may quote small items from cited sources FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IntlLaw Reply on 14:14, 2 November 2024 UTC [refresh]
@Timtrent Thank you for the suggestion. I have read the getting started guide and have made edits. Is it possible for you to take a look and give feedback? Thank you so much!


IntlLaw (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:15:52, 5 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Gardenkur


Dear Authors. Need help in improving the article if it meets Wikipedia policies. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Gardenkur (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:08:49, 5 December 2021 review of submission by KODAIKANALSPCA


KODAIKANALSPCA (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:08:49, 5 December 2021 review of submission by KODAIKANALSPCA


hi, why has the draft been rejected? Janani Krishnamurthy draft. do let us know how we can edit it and what changes need to be made so it's reviewed and published. She is one of the top 100 women in India and has been awarded and it's great because no one from south India especially the rural parts of Tamilnadu has ever got the award.

It was rejected and deleted because it was blatant spam, and your message above is almost certainly a factor in why your account got blocked. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:56, 5 December 2021 review of draft by LaurenceLian02


I do not know how to adequately support my article with reliable sources or have my article show significant coverage about the subject on Lion Mums. LaurenceLian02 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LaurenceLian02 Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something; you should summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:15:19, 5 December 2021 review of draft by ThinkerCastillo


ThinkerCastillo (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you please let me know the page standing in the review process?

@ThinkerCastillo: You have submitted the draft and as the message states, it may take up to two months or so for review. S0091 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:06:07, 5 December 2021 review of submission by 79.79.146.201


The rules on submissions seems rather arbitrary - could you please explain how my entry is significantly different to that at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Diorama_Theatre

Thanks

79.79.146.201 (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist for that argument. Your draft has zero independent sources and has spam links to their own website. Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

Request on 01:06:08, 6 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Wcsneel


Hi, I have edited the page of Gleneagles Hospital Penang with adding in more info, but that particular info was removed. It was last edited on 4 December 2021. I understand my article may encountered some copyrighting issue, but in fact all my info was founded myself. I'm not sure which copyrighted issue I violated. Please assist.

Please refer to the article of: Gleneagles Hospital Penang and my draft article Draft: Gleneagles Hospital Medini Johor

    • A note here, I have no relation with the said companies.

Wcsneel (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:47:13, 6 December 2021 review of submission by Syedanustanweer


Syedanustanweer (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:58:27, 6 December 2021 review of submission by Wcsneel

Hi, I would like to submit this article, I've tried to submit twice but has been declined twice as well. Please let me know if this is good to go, or do let me know if there's any copywriting issue that I've violated that I did not notice.

Wcsneel (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:01:47, 6 December 2021 review of submission by 7wonders123

Hello, why Mana couldn't be published if sport same group is online https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octagon_(sports_agency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Artists_Agency and many others?

Should I provide more images and external links like "talent" and "sports agency "? Thank you 7wonders123 (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:01:58, 6 December 2021 review of submission by Prashank321


Prashank321 (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:01:00, 6 December 2021 review of submission by CarinaMClaesson

Hi, I registered an account on Wikipedia today and tried to add a new article. It is my own site Power Wiki, which I provide for free in order to help others learn more about Microsoft Power Platform and related technologies. The article was not accepted and there was a note about copying information. But I have written that information on the Power Wiki site. I'm thinking it is good to have it on Wikipedia in order for more people to find it. :) Kind Regards, Carina

CarinaMClaesson (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CarinaMClaesson, Wikipedia is not about informing the world about your website. We care what reliable sources independent of the subject are saying. See WP:Promo and WP:COI for additional information about writing about subjects you have a connection to and WP:V and WP:RS for more information on sourcing needed. Slywriter (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:57, 6 December 2021 review of submission by Yasminto2000

I just updated the article following the guidelines requested on the Teahouse group, and add sources as well to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject, but I can't resubmit the article anymore. Thanks a lot for your feedback Yasminto2000 (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected and the message you received was "DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection." I think you are wasting your time. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:09:50, 6 December 2021 review of submission by GSB2021


Hi there,

Greystone Kids Draft Wikipedia page has been rejected, due to it being too similar to the Greystone Books Wikipedia page. The companies are connected, but are different imprints (different companies, like a branch of a big company) that should have its own Wikipedia page. Could the Greystone Kids page please be reviewed? Also, we have different staff, contributors, a unique logo too that can be added to the page too. More so, I can add more different information if needed too.

Though we are connected to the parent company of Greystone Books, we at Greystone Kids would really like to have Greystone Kids as a seperate entity.

Please review and let me know what you think. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this for me!

I look forward to hearing from you.

Warm regards, and thank you, Olivia


GSB2021 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GSB2021, Please see WP:COI and WP:Paid and make any relevant disclosures.
With that out of the way, Wikipedia doesn't care what a company wants. Wikipedia cares about what independent reliable sources are saying about the article subject. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle and it is not where you create an article to get noticed.
Robert's advice that it can be included as a section of the parent article is a good one and the best case. Down the road enough coverage may occur to justify a standalone article. Slywriter (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:16:59, 6 December 2021 review of submission by Whiteloans1


Whiteloans1 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteloans1 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the information left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


December 7

04:07:30, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Jepwashere


Hi,

First-time contributing to Wikipedia so please bear with me.

I read your comment saying that new mainstream sources don't mention the subject or only provide a trivial mention. Do you consider all the references in the article as trivial mentions? If not, what can I remove? I already replaced the references which I though was passing mentions from the last edit I made.


Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance :)


Jepwashere (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jepwashere: There's two things what need discussed here:
  1. When it comes to sourcing for businesses, we have a certain subset of sources that do not help for notability due to them being routine coverage; i.e. they'd be reported on as a matter of course. You can see a (near-exhaustive) list at WP:CORPDEPTH.
  2. This draft falls under WP:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. For details on how general or discretionary sanctions function, see WP:General sanctions. I do not work in areas under sanctions, and so will not be doing a source assessment here; part of the issue that led to the sanctions regime is the rampant promotionalism and the constant pushing of dodgy sources.
Hope this helps. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:30:24, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Abodiiyi

i have added the necessary sources to get this article approved, all of the sources now are reliable enough. Thanks Abodiiyi (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:58, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Pryi1499

I want to understand why the draft page was rejected. Please elaborate on the issues with the draft page. Ihe institute is a notable institute in India and its fellow institutes are also published on wikipedia. Please guide if there was an issue with the draft, notability or otherwise.Pryi1499 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Pryi1499 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something; a Wikipedia artice must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:56:41, 7 December 2021 review of submission by AnanthuRg


AnanthuRg (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC) 07:56:41, 7 December 2021 review of submission by AnanthuRg[reply]



Can You please tell me why my article Climate Angels has been rejected

@AnanthuRg:, as it notes at the top of the draft in the red box is that the draft didn't show notability by sufficient, suitable, sources. In practical terms, you need at least 3 sources that meet these criteria. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:49, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Sush150


Sush150 (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try again when movie is released. Unlikely to be notable as an upcoming project. Slywriter (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:25:06, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Mastetchi

I am writing an article on David Eric Gokhshtein, an admin pointed out that another user had written an article on him before but it was rejected due to copyright issues. Mine is a brand new article, citations are in order. I need a reviewer to look through what I have so far. ThanksMastetchi (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Mastetchi (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected as a topic not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:10, 7 December 2021 review of submission by RichardWillows


Good morning, I have a question based on two articles based for boxers Dennis Hogan and Campbell Hatton, where their Wikipedias are not available when I search them via Google and usually when you search their names a little knowledge panel appears about them too. It can be seen for my first article based on Kazakhstani boxer, Firuza Sharipova, but not the others. How can this be fixed?

First, this page is not for asking about non-draft pages. Second, the Knowledge panel is out of our control and does not pull exclusively from Wikipedia; yell at Google. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:54:18, 7 December 2021 review of submission by User-ana5


Hello, 

I submitted a draft article named Lingaro but it was deleted. The note I received from the editor was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

My question: is the problem only in the style, manner of writing that it looks like an advertisement? Or this means the topic is not notable - not enough trustful sources linked to this article?

Thank you very much


User-ana5 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It appears to be an advertizement" is an indictment of the article as it is written, and not its sources. What is your connexion with Lingaro? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:01:41, 7 December 2021 review of submission by 103.155.194.182


103.155.194.182 (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:28, 7 December 2021 review of draft by Vandanatalwar


Vandanatalwar (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please help me to get this draft publish

@Vandanatalwar: All your sources are worthless. We do not cite Instagram or any other social media (no editorial oversight) and the TOI articles are either Shit She Says(TM) or are too short to be usable as a source in any case. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:07, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Mastetchi

Good day, my article was declined by an admin but I hope this will change your mind. David is a notable person. He has a verified twitter handle with over 500k followers. He is on the board of Forbes and a writer for Forbes online, I can provide a link. He runs a YouTube channel with large following and a huge voice on cryptocurrency. I may not have covered all of who he is and what he represents in my article but it's a start, I plan on constantly updating the Artice after it goes to the main space. Consider approving the article or if there's any recommendation that can make the article better, I will appreciate. Regards Mastetchi (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Mastetchi (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter - Irrelevant, Forbes Contributor - irrelevant, coverage in non-reliable sources - irrelevant. You need to find in depth, independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources. At this time, that bar has not been met. Slywriter (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:12, 7 December 2021 review of submission by 2409:4071:E9B:A980:0:0:2B09:9F02


2409:4071:E9B:A980:0:0:2B09:9F02 (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given sufficient guidance in the draft. Further submissions will not be considered as there is no indication of notability. Slywriter (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:48:07, 7 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Mesubutabkk


Greetings, I've spent a great amount of hours working on this article, so I'd like to do know what additional information I should add so I can publish it.

The article is very complete, and since it is a sexual fetish with many relations, there are not statements but mostly descriptions, and each of these sexual actions can be found plentiful on any porn site, or social ones such as Twitter, Discord or Reddit.

So I'm assuming the lacking sources issue comes from the "Figure Bukkake" itself. About this, I've found a book, which is a hentai manga featuring figure bukkake, plus many articles by personal blogs. I've posted one where a female interviews different individuals who engage in this fetish.

I've looked for reference on pages featuring other moderately uncommon fetishes such as scatology and footjob, and have noticed coprophilia has 3 sources on the main definition, and footjob has the same. So I'm wondering if I need to find more quantity, or more quality sources. The fetish is there, and every minute people on Twitter and other places are uploading it, besides the ones who don't film it. But it is a very taboo fetish and media don't write about it, and it is not like foot fetish that mentioning it on a book can make you even look sophisticated. Most of the people who mention engaging in figure bukkake get frowned upon even by friends.

So it will be hard to find professional articles. It is my first attempt at creating an article, before starting and during the writing I went through so much information, about copyright and sources especially. The latter -and reason the article was reject- I'm still confused about, so I'd love if anyone could help me saying what type of sources should I look for. It is a shame because one of the reasons of doing this article was helping normalize this fetish so people can see it as any other sexual activity like any other fetish, but that is the same reason it's really hard to find anything about it, no one wants to talk about it, so it is a real stalemate. I wish with some guidance I can overcome it and fix the issue with the sources.

Thanks!

Mesubutabkk (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mesubutabkk - Reddit, Twitter, social media are not reliable sources and not useable. Your article is largely unsourced. You are saying alot but not properly attributing, so its impossible to say if the information is accurate or is original research. Cut out any information you can not link to a source. Slywriter (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slywriter - Thanks for your answer. I'm only mentioning these communities have a large user base and specifically mentioning the name of the subreddit, and the Twitter hashtags. Not using them to verify any information I say. Everything I described is based on being inside the fetish for around 10 years. I would appreciate if I knew specifically what should I source.

For instance, for all the relations and types of figure bukkake, I could post an image of each, I have a 100GB collection and contact the users for things I'm not involved with such as feces to ask for their permission, but other than that the only way to support these definitions is either linking examples or posting images.

I state artists often share and like seeing users doing this with their products, and use a reference for that linking to Twitter, where the original artist comments and shares the post with his main account. He is a professional artist, his twitter is https://twitter.com/nukonukopaizuri and my statement is that artists often follow this content, and in this case he proved it on Twitter, so the only valid reference is linking one of the tweets where that happens.

Then I also make statements about companies either adapting concrete products (point 6 and 5.3) or advertising them to use as sexual stimulation (5.2.1). For 6.1 I've linked an example of these from the original manufacturer, with their official name in japanese (Bukkake Bath Poster) http://rootnuko.jp/products/tenioha2_lo/special/reserve/

For 6.2 (Dakimakuras adapted for sexual play) I can reference either the shop or post a picture, same with 5.3, dollfies sold with fleshlights inside their torso for sexual play. Would referencing all of this be enough? I didn't think I had to reference every toy as I already did with bukkake posters that might be the hardest to imagine than just a sexual doll and the others, but I have no problem in adding these links too.

In origin where I talk about how it originated all I can do is source the oldest posts on the japanese imageboards or blogs, but these are often deleted, that is why instead of simply sourcing I give the main reasons why it started in japan, basically they're the ones who started doing sexualized figures, the ones who coined the term figure bukkake and their imageboards is where it started years before it was common in the west.

Then the creators and viewers, I am a creator and viewer myself, and what I state there are from conversations with males and females interested in the hobby that I've had during these years. Still it follows a logic and I'm not giving any opinions, as I explain the reasons, for instance saying one of the reasons some people get attracted is because of the inanimate nature of the figures, having a sense of domination tied to the hobby for some. Some of this information comes from agalmatophilia. I never say anything in an absolute truth, I talk about the different reasons for different individuals, and use words such as "most likely" in the case a source doesn't exist, but saying some individuals feel attracted to a figure because it's overly sexualized or sexy is like saying the pole is cold. It's not like I'm filling the article with a pile of make up stuff, I have been very serious and have reviewed it many times before publishing it.

Seeing now the agalmatophilia page, I see it is also heavily unsourced, especially the "Fantasy, transformation, role-play" and "Fantasy, transformation, role-play", the latter is very similar to the issues we have on my articles, when I talk about origin or reasons, we know these are true but we're talking about why people feel attracted to very specific things, or origin of figure bukkake who no one has ever written professionally about it. Yet I see the article has "This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" boxes, would be fine if I add these on the respective sections of my article where an official source doesn't exist yet? Mesubutabkk (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you seem to be engaging in original research (WP:OR), which is prohibited on Wikipedia. If you can not find reliable sources then the information does not belong on wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see other crap articles exist, that is not an excuse to create another poorly sourced article. Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:50:41, 7 December 2021 review of draft by Zarabernal


Zarabernal (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarabernal: Your sources are unacceptable. We don't cite his personal webpage (connexion to subject) or his agency (connexion to subject). In addition, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a in-depth third-party source with competent editorial control that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


December 8

01:56:41, 8 December 2021 review of submission by Sjchin

Wanted to ask if this link can be used as a source? https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/becoming-global-hub/connecting-world-2277481 This is a part of the docuseries done by Channel News Asia. Our part starts at 28:00. Can I just mention that CNA did a docuseries with Akribis and use this reference there? CNA would not do a docuseries without verifying the company background. Also, since the business times article can be taken as the first source, Can I mention about a couple of awards that Akribis won and take these two sources as reference for those awards and patents filed by Akribis? https://sbr.com.sg/co-written-partner/more-news/akribis-systems-pte-ltd-clinches-made-in-singapore-award-automation-sys https://www.designworldonline.com/2020-leap-awards-winners-announced/ Thanks

Sjchin (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:30:22, 8 December 2021 review of submission by Sspringett

The CycloneDX SBOM standard is of significant technical relevance due to the requirement of the U.S. federal government on all software vendors and the downstream impact that causes on all other software vendors. By the end of 2022, millions of organizations will be producing CycloneDX SBOMs. Currently, it's estimated to be over 100K organizations.

Also of relevance is the fact that SPDX, a older standard with less adoption, is already included in Wikipedia. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Package_Data_Exchange. I believe if Wikipedia is to be viewed as non-biased, then both standards would be included.

Sspringett (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:15:17, 8 December 2021 review of submission by Garryishere


Please tell me how to fix the faults. The entity in this article is a well known public figure of national importance.

Garryishere (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1059250259"