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
m sock draft, remove empty help request
Line 557: Line 557:
[[User:Americanretail|Americanretail]] ([[User talk:Americanretail|talk]]) 19:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Americanretail|Americanretail]] ([[User talk:Americanretail|talk]]) 19:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|Americanretail}} Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't just accept random articles about people. You have to demonstrate that the person has been covered in-depth by multiple reliable independent sources. That is why the article was rejected. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color: #B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 19:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|Americanretail}} Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't just accept random articles about people. You have to demonstrate that the person has been covered in-depth by multiple reliable independent sources. That is why the article was rejected. —&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;[[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color: #B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> 19:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

How many sources would you recommend to stop rejections?

Revision as of 19:38, 24 August 2019

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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


August 18

07:13:23, 18 August 2019 review of submission by Pequena Princesa

I am submitting this to you as it appears that you are the substitute for an appeal procedure against decline of articles for creation, as no appeal procedure seems appears to exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2019_2#Review_of_a_reviewer_Process, Decline Message Improvements, @Nosebagbear to @Smokey Joe (16 July 2019: 12.45).

My Draft:Marisa McKaye has been declined twice: on 9 March 2019 by Robert McClenon and on 23 May 2019 by Scope Creep. In both cases, the issue was notability of the subject.

I submit this appeal to you because the revised version of Draft:Marisa McKaye, declined on 23 May 2019, shows that the subject meets the requirements of notability as stated in wikipedia documentation, as shown below.

1. Criteria for Notability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) states:

“People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”

Draft:Marisa McKaye sets out at least 9 sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject itself, as well as verifiable.

I shall so demonstrate here:

(1) 2 paragraphs.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject, proving that she published a 7-song album in February 2017.

(2) wheretraveler.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject, proving that she is on the cover of the Where Nashville 2018 Guest Book. In addition, the article includes an interview with the subject.

David notMD (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC) expressed his opinion that interviews “are not valid references.” However, this is nowhere stated in the wikipedia documentation and I submit that, while an interview alone may not be sufficient to establish notability, an interview among other reliable, intellectually-independent sources, independent of the subject, may contribute as one of the “multiple” published sources proving notability. If such a source bothers to interview a person, I submit that they consider the person “notable.” You or I could not get such an interview. Even the questions put in the interview, regardless of the answers, stating the many places in Nashville where the subject has performed, I submit, is evidence of the subject’s notability in the Nashville area. (see paragraph 2 below Additional Criteria: Notability Of A Musician)[reply]

(3) celebsdetails.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject, which has chosen to include the subject as a “celeb” in their (admittedly incomplete) report of her personal details and confirming other evidence about the venues in Nashville where she has performed.

(4) people.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, while not writing exclusively about the subject, which devotes half their article about Kevin Spacey’s visit to the Children’s Hospital in Atlanta to his “discovery” of the subject in Nashville a few days before and her performance of her original song at the hospital, next to Spacey: this is no mere “passing reference.”

(5) tennessean.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, while focusing on the American Girl doll debut in Nashville, and mentioning nine unnamed songwriters who would perform there, considered the subject notable enough to mention only her by name.

(6) collegian.psu.edu is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject and her performance at the THON concert there.

(7) Middle Tennessee State University Sidelines (mtsu.com) is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject, as a “local” performing on America’s Got Talent.

(8) rarecountry.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, writing exclusively about the subject’s performance on America’s Got Talent. Not every performer who is only montaged on that show gets an exclusive report of their performance: in fact, few do, unless their performance is sufficiently notable.

(9) toofab.com is a reliable, intellectually independent source, independent of the subject, while not writing exclusively about the subject, includes the subject in their review of each of the performers on America’s Got Talent that week: as each receives relatively equal reportage, this is not a mere “passing reference”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) states that:

“If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.”

This I have done in paragraphs 1(1) to 1(9) above. The subject is thus notable.

2. Additional Criteria: Notability of A Musician

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) states that:

“Musicians . . . may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. . . .

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;”

Sources 1(1), 1(2), 1(3) and 1 (5) are reliable, independent and verifiable sources which demonstrate that the subject has become the most prominent child star of the local scene of Nashville, having performed in many venues there, been selected to represent the city in a book about Nashville and as the only named performer in American Girl’s Nashville “Tenney” debut.

3. No Basis For The Decision To Decline

I submit that, faced with such evidence supporting the notability of the subject, any roving Editor cannot merely decline the submission without proving that the sources presented, individually, are not reliable or independent or verifiable. To mention one source as being inadmissible, or to make general comments about inadmissible sources which have no relevance to the sources cited, is neither sufficient, objective nor credible and is little more than vandalism.

4. Request For Action

As the declining editor did not address the support for notability in the article and merely jumped to a conclusion (see paragraph 3 above), I submit that there was no basis for the decline on 23 May 2019 and ask that it be given no effect, taken down and replaced by acceptance of the article. Pequena Princesa (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pequena Princesa: I'm afraid there's quite a lot of incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. To sum up, none of the non-trivial sources (except the interview) are about the subject. They are news articles about an event where the subject appears. That's the key difference. Of the sources given, only collegian.psu.edu and mtsusidelines.com could arguably pass WP:GNG as being sufficiently in-depth, but of course they are about an event primarily. If it came to a deletion discussion, I am unsure which way it would lean. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Pequena Princesa: Hi there, and yes this is the right place to appeal a review. One note first, we didn't actually got your pings. They look like "@Nosebagbear" but you actually type {{ping|Nosebagbear}} (you also have to sign it, which you did)
So I've looked through every source other than 1 which was behind a paywall and 1 that only went to its site's landing page, rather than a specific article. They were both in the latter bit and not intended to provide notability, but specific facts, I believe.
I'm going to make one big answer for criterion 1 (general coverage quality) and then look at the aspects
There were two issues looped together that meant your sources didn't provide sufficient coverage. Failure to have significant coverage was a constant killer. Two paragraphs can do it, but they'd need to be big - there's no fixed line but most editors view about 10 lines as a good minimum. This was backed up by the "interview problem". The editor was right to say they're not useful for proving notability (if they're talking about themselves). They can be viewed to fail on reliability, independence or not being secondary sources (or a mixture of all), the most key one is that they can't be independent because they're talking about themselves. The same issue rules out either direct quotes or indirect quotes (Marisa also said X). This shrunk other sources down to a size that they failed Sig Cov.
So onto the rarer criteria - criterion 7 of WP:SINGER. This is an interesting one, and a possibility. Is child singing a particular style? Possible. @Scope creep and Primefac: for some thoughts on the issue
The person who tagged youtube wasn't one of your reviewers, but whereas some sources just don't aid notability, others are specifically unwanted. While the reviewers will have looked at every source (that wasn't from youtube etc), spelling the pros and cons of each out would be a monster task. The longest AfC draft I ever reviewed had 140 sources, and it still took a 3 day dispute with an Admin as to whether just 2 of the sources were good enough (so 138 unhelpful ones). In circumstances like that, the best thing to do is to pick the 3 best sources and ask your reviewer to reconsider them and give you more detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing ping Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{ping|Nosebagbear}} I wish to clarify that I do not submit the interviews for the answers given by the subject, as if the subject is giving self-serving evidence of his/her own notability, but merely the fact of the interview as evidence that a reliable, independent and verifiable source considered this person notable enough to be interviewed: it is another kind of coverage, exclusively about the subject and substantial. Pequena Princesa (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, interviews can be used for article content sourcing. The sources needed to show notability have much stricter requirements. The sources used in the article for content only need to be reliable, but can be related to subject, not in-depth, and not secondary. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:08:34, 18 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dajana L


Hello!

I got the message that my article "Energetra" was declined. Can You please help me to improve it? Thank You!

All the best, Dajana L (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dajana L: You need to add multiple independent reliable in-depth sources. Three sources are directory entries, one is their own website. I am unsure what the contents of the book is. The article is a copy of sr:Енергетра, so if these sources existed, then they would have probably already been added there. It seems unlikely that this company is notably for English Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

01:55:23, 19 August 2019 review of submission by Brandnewflipflops


User:Brandnewflipflops/sandbox

Brandnewflipflops (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'm just wondering why my Quadeca submission was deleted. Maybe it's because he's not notable enough?

@Brandnewflipflops: it was declined (not deleted - it's still there) for not meeting musician notability - it needs to meet 1 or more of these criteria
As it's a biography of a living individual, it needs to have inline references, which support specific statements (the little blue numbers). Referencing for Beginners can help with that. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:57:23, 19 August 2019 review of submission by Ankurshva


I have updated the draft. How do I resubmit?

Ankurshva (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:01:38, 19 August 2019 review of draft by Bolaleh


I need your editors help to improve my article’s writing and also I am requesting to fixed the external sources (Websites) . Am here to provide any additional information you may need to complete my personal article.

Thank you

Suleiman Bolaleh

Bolaleh (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolaleh: Wikipedia does not publish personal articles. To have an article, a person must be shown to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria by having multiple in-depth sources. The article is not going to be accepted unless it has such sources, regardless of the writing quality. Please also make sure to disclose any conflict of interest. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:59:48, 19 August 2019 review of submission by Bynewsbyyou


Hi can you help me with publishing ?) Bynewsbyyou (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bynewsbyyou: - I can, but at the moment this won't be accepted to be an article. Biographies require several sources that are:in-depth, reliable, independent and are secondary (newspapers, books etc). Currently you only have 1 source and it's to another wikipedia article. Wikipedia can't source to itself (because we aren't reliable and we can end up with circular sourcing). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) An article needs multiple in-depth sources to be published. This looks like a person's profile page and it is highly unlikely that compatible sources exist to have an article. Without sources, we cannot publish the article, especially when it comes to biographies. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:45, 19 August 2019 review of draft by עידו כ.ש.


Hi, in the past few weeks, I’ve edited the draft of Aleph Farms based on the comments I saw. I want to avoid unnecessary waiting which in the end the draft will not be approved. Can somebody please may look over the draft and see what I need to change to assure acceptation? Also, is there any way to get the draft review quickly?

עידו כ.ש. (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@עידו כ.ש.: - I had just been going to give some advice, but the topic's interesting so I thought I'd review it.
I'm currently holding it at pending while I ask if you either work for Aleph or were hired by them to make the page. If so, it doesn't have to stop the draft being reviewed, but you need to add {{paid|employer=Aleph Farms|article=Aleph Farms}} to your en-wiki userpage very rapidly. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping fixed Nosebagbear (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't known that English Wikipedia has this template too... I've done it now עידו כ.ש. (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:20, 19 August 2019 review of submission by Frakes928


Frakes928 (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second request. General guidelines are not helping give better information. Please let me know what I can do to get this published. I have seen many pages with less information and backlinking on Wiki before. Not sure what else to do.

@Frakes928: - less backlinking is good! Backlinking isn't permitted outside an "external links" section. You need to use references - see Referencing for beginners Nosebagbear (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

Request on 08:56:22, 20 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by The Blessed Overcomer


Hello. I would like to know why my submission was rejected. Is there anything I need to correct before trying to submit again?


The Blessed Overcomer (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blessed Overcomer: - I don't know if you view something as being there, but to me it is a blank page (and no indication of otherwise in the history) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:53, 20 August 2019 review of submission by Benjamin Quintela Saldanha Aguiam


3enjamin.A (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


ok

thank you

12:49:55, 20 August 2019 review of submission by 185.85.154.232


185.85.154.232 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@185.85.154.232: - the reviewer was correct, you have no sources that aren't associated with the subject. You need reliable, independent, in-depth sources that are from secondary media (newspapers, books etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:54, 20 August 2019 review of submission by 192.176.203.10


Lots of sources provided with correct links and as much information filled as possible. 192.176.203.10 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:13:09, 20 August 2019 review of submission by Elifnurk


My submission was rejected by mistake as I have been informed on a live help chat. Now I have also edited the article based on the timeline. Can you please re-view the article and inform me? Hope everything is order now. Thanks Elifnurk (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elifnurk: - I've reviewed and accepted the article. If you can neaten up the credit list that would probably be helpful, as it's taking up a lot of space atm. The easiest method might be to find another film composer with a long set of credits and duplicate the formatting (make sure to clear out the old content!) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:37:09, 20 August 2019 review of draft by Marlynblues


The dutch internal link Spaanse doesnt work while the english version Spaanse works.

The dutch wiki page for spain: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanje

How can I get my dutch internal link to work

Marlynblues (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marlynblues. If you wish to write in Dutch and link to Dutch wiki pages, please write at http://nl.wikipedia.org. It is possible to link to other language versions of Wikipedia from en.wikipedia.org, but it would be a bad idea to link to Spaanse [nl] instead of to Spain. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


August 21

08:02:24, 21 August 2019 review of submission by Omer Canon


I want to ask how should I get this page published. From my side, this page is ready to be reviewed and published. Below is the link to my page.

Omer Canon (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need guidance in order to get this page published. This is finalized and ready to be reviewed and published. Please help me and let me know the process. Thanks

Omer Canon (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Omer Canon: Do you have a specific question? The draft is in the review queue now. Due to the volume of submissions and everyone being a volunteer, it can take months for drafts to be reviewed. However, I can point you to WP:SYNTH -- the article is basically an essay combining multiple topics, all of which are covered on Wikipedia in one form or another already. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz I selected this topic from the list of Most Wanted Articles... Though I do not have any particular question, I just want to know that is this topic acceptable or not? Thanks Omer Canon (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure why this page is linked to so many times. I looked at a couple histories of article linking to it and it looks like these links are extremely old and were never discussed. I think the "most wanted pages" can be deceptive like this. I'm pretty sure that an article like this wouldn't remain in this form due to multiple concerns. It could may be a list or an outline if all the relevant topics are added. But there is already an Outline of industrial organization. And, there are many categories (like Category:Production economics) and navboxes (like Template:Microeconomics). And, of course, each individual topic has an article. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Hellknowz Well... so what am I suppose to do now? Please guide me accordingly. Thanks for your prompt response.

Omer Canon (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omer Canon. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. You don't have to do anything else to make that happen. The backlog is 5 months, so it may not be reviewed until next year. If comments here, on the draft's talk page, and at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 15#Production, costs, and pricing foreshadow the review, it will be declined.
While you wait, you could work through the list of articles at Special:WhatLinksHere/Production, costs, and pricing, evaluate each red link to Production, costs, and pricing, and determine whether a link to an existing article would be better than one to what you've written. For example, in Management, would it make more sense to link the word production to production (economics) (using a piped link)? Through this exercise you might discover that the draft is not as wanted as the list suggests. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:55:19, 21 August 2019 review of draft by RhoderoPat


Is there anything or feedback related to the review of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GOMYCODE ? it took too long without notice and no idea about the progress?

RhoderoPat (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RhoderoPat. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for 1 month. The backlog is 5 months. Most businesses are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia article, see WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:44, 21 August 2019 review of submission by 67.251.198.90

I would like to start a page about my work as an actor and writer. I believe I cannot write it myself because it is autobiographical and a conflict of interest. May I merely start a page and allow other users to edit it? External links: www.imdb.com/name/nm1249604/?ref_=rvi_nm davidlavine.com 67.251.198.90 (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@67.251.198.90: The relevant read is at WP:AUTOBIO. You can disclose your conflict of interest and still edit it yourself. It's almost always not a good idea, but it's not forbidden, especially for drafts. There are very many drafts, so the odds that someone else will come to edit aren't any better than that someone else will create the article and edit that. And before you start, make sure you have multiple independent reliable in-depth sources to satisfy the notability sourcing criteria. There is some extra leeway given by actor-specific criteria. Without these, the article won't get accepted (and might even get speedily deleted because of COI and poor sourcing for a biography). This means no profile, credit or directory entries, personal websites or social media accounts, passing mentions such as articles for related topics, interviews without publication's commentary, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:26, 21 August 2019 review of submission by Maraviva

I'd like to request some more specific help with my draft. I am a current employee of the company that the article is about and I've done my best to avoid bias and conflict of interest. I have read the Wikipedia policies on this topic and I neutrally believe that the company deserves to have a presence on Wikipedia. As a new editor, I understand that I may be subject to more scrutiny as other editors attempt to assess how well I adhere to Wikipedia standards.

After submitting it for review for the first time, the draft was declined for not being adequately supported by reliable sources. I'd like to know which of the sources I've used are not considered reliable.

I'm more than willing to remove anything that isn't supported but I need to know what that is first.

Thanks!

Maraviva (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maraviva: - Technical.ly Delaware doesn't look particularly reliable - lots of focus on companies and an employers section generally indicates that it would be against their interests to be negative towards a company.
What would you say your 4 best sources are for proving notability, that is, they're: in-depth (on the company itself, not an owner or funding etc); reliable (reliable publications); independent (non-biased and not interviews) and secondary (newspapers, books etc)? Drop them on your talk page and I'll have a look at them and give you some feedback on if they're any good. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Thank you! I've posted to my talk page. I look forward to your response. Maraviva (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:28, 21 August 2019 review of draft by Jm2474


I need to make my page "less promotional" in order to post it. I am trying to post an article about MossRehab, a rehabilitation center in the greater Philadelphia area. I am unsure of what parts of my article are promotional and am requesting more clarity for what I should change. Thanks! Jm2474 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jm2474: As the reviewer said, one of the biggest immediate issues is the "Core Services" section -- it is wholly not appropriate because it is unsourced. At best, a source could support a couple sentences about the services. In general, services is not encyclopedic content. Then there are various small issues. We don't include addresses. Content based on primary (center's website) should be minimal to none. A lot of places need more neutral language, but this is really hard to give general advice about.
However, the reviewer also noted that the article may not pass Wikipedia's notability threshold with multiple in-depth sources focused on the subject. I quickly looked through the sources and only a couple appear to talk about the subject and I am not sure if it's substantial enough. Most sources are passing mentions or focused on related topics and not the center itself. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:21, 21 August 2019 review of draft by Nsctrl


Article about Uri Refaeli has been moved to Draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsctrl) due to not having enough sources and citations as written to remain published.

The article was written with cooperation of Uri Refaeli and affiliated parties. Could you advise please if this fulfills requirements for "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE&redirect=yes) and if not how can this article be improved considering that it is supervised by and based on life events of living person? Thank you :)

Nsctrl (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsctrl: Self-published sources can be used for some basic facts for article content, but not to show notability. By self-published sources we also mean something that we can verify -- an article, a blog, social media post, book, whatever. But use of such sources is kept to the minimum. You need to add multiple reliable independent in-depth sources to satisfy notability criteria for the draft to get published. We need independent sources, so we cannot use anything the subject has said directly or otherwise for that. It is highly discouraged for someone to write or help writing their own article, although not forbidden. Anyone with conflict of interest should also disclose it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


August 22

02:18:07, 22 August 2019 review of submission by 207.172.201.232


207.172.201.232 (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the few legitimate blockchain/smart contract development projects.

05:39:10, 22 August 2019 review of draft by Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill


Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my draft article by using wikepedia guidelines and given for submission. But no reply after several days. When will my draft be published?

05:40:46, 22 August 2019 review of draft by Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill


When will my draft be published?I have been waiting for several days.

Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Note: The draft was reviewed since the message was posted. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:56:12, 22 August 2019 review of draft by Batasananda


Batasananda (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:52, 22 August 2019 review of draft by Batasananda

10:08:15, 22 August 2019 review of submission by 41.203.73.124


41.203.73.124 (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Seyiace amg is a well known artist who really need wikipedia page because of disclaimers


Balogun Oluwaseyi Temitope (born February 7) better known by his stage name Seyi Ace is a Nigerian rapper, performer and songwriter. Seyi Ace is an Indigene of Ondo State but was raised and lives in Lagos. . He was signed to a Record Label (not mentioned) where he released he’s first few songs like Igboro. . Seyi Ace started commercial music in 2015 and has been releasing different jams ever since. . Seyi Ace has records like Weed and Dow which recorded over 100k streams on spotify. He released Waka On Stage in 2019 featuring Payper Boi produced by Seriki Poly . Seyi Ace has left he’s former Record Label and is currently with AMG (Ace Music Gang) where he released Record Label featuring Oladips and Davolee which was produced by Seriki Poly. . Seyi Ace has performed in different stages and shut down shows across Nigeria. He has performed alongside DMW signee Idowest and many others.

.

He was on University tour with Cowbell and performed to thousands of people at the Cowbell show. He performed at Obafemi Awolowo University and many others. . Some of the artists he has worked with includes Magneto, Oladips, Davolee, Seriki Poly, Paper Boi and many others. Unreleased records are yet to be produced too.

.

INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT OF SEYI ACE instagram.com/seyiace



https://usquotidian.com/2019/08/20/biography-of-seyi-ace-music-and-career/

13:00:16, 22 August 2019 review of draft by ASD0202


I want to know that should I submit this draft? Whether it will be published or required more content and references?

ASD0202 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ASD0202: The threshold for notability is having sources to satisfy specific criteria. Considering there are a lot of links in the article and it would take a full review, can you show us 3 sources that are 1) independent (not written by the subject or affiliated with them, no interviews), 2) in-depth (no passing mentions, brief notes, no related topics, no profiles or directory entries) and 3) reliable (published in reputable sources such as books, news outlets, no blogs or content farms, etc.)? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:23:31, 22 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by ShahSherinRenishbhai


My article is rejected in review stating there there is a lack of additional references and reliable secondary sources in the article. However, there are no more reliable sources that can be added to state the authenticity of the article. The information is acquired by primary research about the person on whom the article is! Also the relative links available online are also added in the references list. So, I seek guidance of what to do next to get my article published.

ShahSherinRenishbhai (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShahSherinRenishbhai: - some individuals (and subjects in general) just may not have enough secondary sources (yet) to demonstrate notability and warrant a wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia we aren't based off primary sources except for basic descriptive facets like demonstrating names etc Nosebagbear (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Re-review

I submitted a page on my employer at Draft:OANDA that was rejected by @Scope creep: for being “contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia” and because it “ Breaks Terms of Use.”

This feedback is confusing because I was transparent about my affiliation with OANDA and thought submitting company pages was allowed.

I was really hoping someone could give me honest, independent, objective feedback on whether OANDA qualifies for a page under the notability criteria based on the four citations provide.

AnnaBittner (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous post: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_August_15#19:12:27,_15_August_2019_review_of_submission_by_AnnaBittner. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reject-worthy foul here. Disclosures have been made, the draft has been improved, reliable sources are cited. ~Kvng (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have a director of marketing writing the article and then when it is rejected the marketing manager comes in adn makes a requests for a re-review. Three seperate people examined it and found it would likly fail NCORP. It is run of the mill brochure article that is here to advertise their business and all the coverage is press releases and blogs. Of the four refs there 1 is about an individual, 1 is name drop, 1 is promotional adverting and the other one is searching for another ceo. A very poor Wikipedia article. Is there not a rereview page?scope_creepTalk 00:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK but there is a plausible case for notability here and we don't forbid COI contributions if properly disclosed which they now are. The stated reasons for reject don't hold water for me. I can understand rejecting a crappy draft if no improvements were being made with each submission but it has been improved considerably based on feedback from reviewers. ~Kvng (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AnnaBittner, Kvng, and Scope creep: Hi I have moved this Draft:OANDA request to Re-review message from AfC talk page to AfC help desk. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the disclosures are now made, there doesn't seem to be a ToS/PAIDCOI breach. The USA Today source is fine, the Globe and Mail fails SigCov on OANDA itself. FinanceFeeds doesn't look independent. I couldn't make a clear decision on Finance Magnates. If it is judged independent then it would, just, meet the minimum requirements for WP:NCORP. I had a look for additional sources and found squat worthwhile, so it's somewhat contingent on that in my view. Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Finance Magnates is sufficient; it's not in-depth because it focuses on a single event even if the company is the context. Even if we consider it solely about the company, it's very brief. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: and @Hellknowz: I suspect Nosebagbear may have crossed some wires in which source he was referring to for each comment:

  • FinanceFeeds is the source whose independence would establish notability when combined with Globe and Mail

Do I have that right Nosebagbear? I don't mean to put words in your mouth - figured there was a mixup of which sources you were referring to. AnnaBittner (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnnaBittner and Hellknowz: - I was being somewhat confusing. I did actually feel it was financemagnates that was the possible, but on re-reading I agree with Hellknowz that it's not sufficiently about the company itself. I would say financefeeds list of involved CEOs (though not OANDA) makes it non-independent, but if someone can dispute that it would be sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My sourcing findings were similar. Borderline. We're basically having an AfD discussion here which means this subject does not clearly fail WP:NCORP. A (brave) reviewer could not be legitimately faulted for accepting. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1, indeed, I remember a discussion early in my AfC reviewing days as to what probability everyone was using as their passmark "80% change of passing AfD" etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Regarding the involved CEOs you mentioned for FinanceFeeds, they are all listed under "Contributing Editors". The article in question is written by "a professional journalist ... with 23 years of industry experience in the high technology sector"[1] who works for the publication. OANDA has no connection to FinanceFeeds; in fact, they recently wrote a piece about OANDA that was fairly negative in tone. Not trying to be pushy or anything but seemed like relevant context. AnnaBittner (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do seem to be pushy as that is twice now you have mentioned it. Most of the coverage is run of the mill from the Globe and Mail and that is only newspaper that is covering it in depth. The rest are blogs, MarketPulse for e.g. and since this is deemed an Afd discussion even though its not, it wouldn't pass WP:SIGCOV, never mind WP:NCORP. There is no coverage for it and what is there is the usual run of the mill business news, I couldn't identify a single decent secondary source or WP:THREE secondary sources. scope_creepTalk 18:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

05:58:18, 23 August 2019 review of submission by Torsew

Now that the "ToyMakerz" page has been published, I'd like to complete the series information with an episode list. Torsew (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Torsew: I have resubmitted the draft after leaving a comment on the approval of Draft:ToyMakerz. @AngusWOOF: for your notice. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:06:29, 23 August 2019 review of draft by 78.142.182.181


Hi, I am writing because the article in question was made on 14:51, 14 May 2019‎ and is still in pending review and hasn't been reviewed yet. Is there anything we can do to speed up this proceess? 78.142.182.181 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:42, 23 August 2019 review of draft by Biologyfishman


Biologyfishman (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I am trying to write my first wikipedia article. Its been rejected twice.

The reason provided is a copy-and-paste 'reads like an advert' with no substantive advice on how to improve the article. As a professional editor, I find this frustrating and disrespectful. I am trying to make a contribution because I frankly feel that this personality whom I have personally met. He has a ton of TV shows and books and a huge following, and I've followed him from day 1 on his bus ride to antarctica, there are a lot of articles written about him. I believe he is much more notable than many of the other Andrew Evans' on wikipedia, yet there is nothing here on probably the best known one. I am concerned about the apparent request to eliminate primary sources all together from the article.

I respectfully request some constructive input on how to change this article to meet your requirements.

thank you,

Brian

@Biologyfishman: This same question has also been asked at the Teahouse. We ask editors to please not post the same question in multiple locations as this wastes the time of volunteers. Hugsyrup 11:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice the double discussion, but I left the comments below regardless and left a note at the TH. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Biologyfishman: Hi Brian. We have thousands of article drafts and very few volunteer reviewers so please excuse the process when the templated responses inevitably end up being impersonal. I assure you that your article has received more attention than most. A lot of writers find that Wikipedia article writing is quite different to journalistic or academic writing in many obvious, but also many subtle ways. It's really hard to explain how exactly, but the best description (I can think of) is that this is an encyclopedia foremost based on sources and the writing is as neutral as possible with no flourishes. This naturally stems from us only using reliable and predominantly secondary sources and avoiding any original research, synthesis of material, etc. For example, these phrasings/expressions would not be appropriate:
  • "developed a taste for"
  • "landed his first book deal"
  • "when social media was in its infancy"
  • "After this epic journey"
  • "encountered a melanistic king penguin"
  • "maintaining an avid following on social media"
  • "grates against the label"
  • etc.
And yes, primary sources are not something we use for anything but the most basic facts. At best, we can use a person's interview, but we avoid content based solely on person's own words/work. Every article should be based on verifiable sources and person's own words cannot be verified (with very few exceptions, such as experts in certain field talking about those fields). This is just a fundamental Wikipedia policy. Similarly, "notable" means notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines, which is not necessarily how someone might interpret the word (e.g. popular, known, deserving of article, etc.). Here it means having at least multiple independent reliable in-depth sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hellknowz for providing some constructive feedback, I was getting very frustrated. I will give it another shot, but I have been working on this for months now, and yours is the first actual help I've gotten. Biologyfishman (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources provided are Q&A interviews, so it is difficult to figure what articles are secondary sources independent of the subject. Then there are videos that are released by National Geographic that show Evans as host. Those are primaries as well and should be replaced by secondary news sources such as San Diego Magazine https://www.sandiegomagazine.com/San-Diego-Magazine/July-2015/National-Geographic-Channels-Worlds-Smart-Cities-San-Diego/ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:52, 23 August 2019 review of draft by Marina Vashchenko


Dear Roy Smith,


Thank you for reviewing the article!


I have checked the WP:NCORP and would like to ask for your assistance to identify things that can help with my article.


I’d like to mention a few things that, in my opinion, show the notability of the modules described in the article:


1. Based on the statistics on GitHub, the widgets are used by 39,038 people and starred by 4,838: https://github.com/valor-software/ngx-bootstrap

2. The specifics of usage has been widely discussed on Stackoverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/ngx-bootstrap

3. I posted a couple of articles about implementing ngx-bootstrap by third-party people:

https://stevenschwenke.de/whatToUseNgbootstrapNgxbootstrapManuallyAddingBootstrap

https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/steps-to-add-bootstrap-4/

https://www.techiediaries.com/angular-bootstrap-ui/

4. The creators of ngx-bootstrap have been invited by ngHouston for a public speech regarding the usage of modules with the latest Angular renderer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUhCgzs8jR8

5. The widgets are published on npmjs.com (a highly used source of JavaScript development tools)

6. Ngx-bootstrap is open-source software so the possibility of receiving income is minimal. The aim of mentioning already popular widgets in Wikipedia is having them described in additional authoritative source.


Having checked similar articles from the Category:Free software programmed in JavaScript like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakanda_(software) and considering the preceding facts, the article matches the “has been noticed by people outside of the organization” criteria from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)


In order for the article not to look like an ad, I suggest the following:

  1. Removing the developer of the widgets (Valor Software) from the article body.
  2. Instead of https://valor-software.com/ngx-bootstrap/ link as a website in the infobox, place link to the GitHub repository.


Do you think this will help?


Thank you,

Marina Vashchenko


Marina Vashchenko (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marina Vashchenko: Hi! Notability on Wikipedia means that these criteria are observed -- to have multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. Each source has to satisfy all those points. We don't use measures such as popularity, GitHub metrics, discussion/forum stats, or any other non-source coverage based stuff.
The quote you cited from WP:NCORP is missing arguably the most important part "independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization". This means no repositories or package managers, affiliated sites and discussions, etc. The promotional nature is because the article uses primary/non-independent sources and we cannot use these to establish notability and can only use to source the most basic facts.
Guide/tutorial-like sources are independent, but are not very good for sourcing. They could be acceptable under some conditions, but these ones don't look to be in-depth in this case as they are purely step-by-step installation guides with no real commentary about the software. What we want is more like reviews to see what real-world impact there is rather than purely technical details. (pinging @RoySmith:) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:37, 23 August 2019 review of draft by Manchesterunited1234


This article is not existable in other wikipedia languages, and it is the 3rd most viewed-French youtube video.

Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Manchesterunited1234: - is there a particular reason you posted here? It's not currently scheduled for review. Though before you do that this draft needs 2 or more sources. Reviews of the song from reliable sources are best suited. See Referencing for Beginners for a how-to guide. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:58:05, 23 August 2019 review of submission by Maria Sitkina

Please consider the corrections made for further publication of the article. A list of 10 sources is provided in the References section. Maria Sitkina (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maria Sitkina: looking at the changes [2] made since the rejection of the article, it seems that no new references were added; indeed, it looks like the draft's content has been cut back significantly. As such, I am inclined to let the rejection stand as the previous reviewer's points have not been addressed. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

05:14:43, 24 August 2019 review of submission by MeSGR


I got the message that my article is rejected. May i know the reason and can you please assist me for the same because the article which i was writing its about one of the famous hospital in siliguri, West Bengal, India MeSGR (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently my article got rejected please guide me for the same. MeSGR (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this article Siliguri Greater Lions Eye Hospital that is in your sandbox. scope_creepTalk 13:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:29, 24 August 2019 review of submission by Ortanjy


Ortanjy (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Belli Creative Studio serves in Turkmenistan. But the Studio has completed some international projects too. You can see their works on its website: belli.studio/work

Some companies will search for Belli Studio, and it will be helpful for them if the information exists on Wikipedia. So, I am asking you to review my submit, add accept it.

Wikipedia has no interest in being "helpful" to the company. I rejected your draft because the topic is not notable and for future reference Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Ortanjy: - the issue is that Wikipedia must have reliable, independent, secondary sources. Wikipedia isn't reliable, so we can't cite ourselves. Your own website is obviously going to be positive about the studio, so isn't suitable either. You need to find reliable 3rd party sources that have talked about your studio. If they don't exist, then this draft can't become an article. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an open-and-shut case of WP:NOTADVERTISING/NOTADVOCACY, and so the rejection of the article for failing WP:NOT is well-founded. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:31, 24 August 2019 review of draft by Bluelongsnake


Hello. I would like to publish an entry for "Play Fair Code". Play Fair Code is an Austrian organization which has organized training events for 15000+ in several European countries. The target audience is mostly athletes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bluelongsnake/sandbox

I do know an employee of Play Fair Code (but do not get anything in return for trying to create the article).

Am I mistaken in thinking that Play Fair Code should have a Wikipedia entry? It has IMO supraregional importance.

The data for the initial page is mostly taken from data found on their webpage (but it's not "wrong").

So my question is probably: Is there a chance to create an entry for Play Fair Code? What should I do (to make it happen)?

Bluelongsnake (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluelongsnake. You are mistaken. It's unlikely that an acceptable draft can be written about them. The bulk of any article should come from arms length sources. It isn't a question of whether the information is true. It's that Wikipedia doesn't much care what an organization says about itself, it's mainly interested in what other people say about it.
Proving notability, which is not the same as importance, requires citing independent, reliable sources which contain significant coverage of the organization. Three of the draft's five sources are the organization itself, so not independent. One is a brief quote from the organization in a press release, and the last is a photo caption from a related organization, neither of which constitute significant coverage. You could throw away everything you've done and start over from scratch, but searches of Google News and Google Books found only one paragraph of significant coverage in an independent reliable source,[3] which isn't nearly enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:19, 24 August 2019 review of submission by 106.206.77.237


106.206.77.237 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why always my article not been accepted??

The topic has been rejected as not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Do not remove AfC reviews and comments. They will be removed when the draft is deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:22:29, 24 August 2019 review of submission by Americanretail

I am truly trying to become a wiki writer to get a job writing about the life of others, and im doing these to build my skills im very new but i dont understand why this has been rejected now. if its because i didn't include a picture, it wouldn't let me but a picture is in the source from entrepreneurscentury reference Americanretail (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanretail: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't just accept random articles about people. You have to demonstrate that the person has been covered in-depth by multiple reliable independent sources. That is why the article was rejected. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources would you recommend to stop rejections?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=912326333"