Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 November 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 18 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 20 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


November 19[edit]

04:20:26, 19 November 2019 review of submission by 45.64.11.91[edit]


45.64.11.91 (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are WP:NOT an advertising platform or place to promote your business. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:29:41, 19 November 2019 review of submission by Irovvaul[edit]

Hi All, first of all, I am sorry for trying to create the page again and again. I am new to wikipedia and don't know all the policies. When we first created the page, it was deleted and we realized that we can't have our page live without independent press coverage. Recently, we got covered in some of the top-notch publications and we thought to give it a try one more time. Our intention was not to spam wikipedia, please forgive us for our mistakes and please give us a fresh start and please review our draft afresh. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience caused to you all due to our ignorance. Irovvaul (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Irovaul: Thank you for your question. You are referring to yourself as "we", which would be a violation of WP:SOCK. Also, if you have a connection with the subject (which you imply) you must declare that on your userpage per WP:COI. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Irovvaul:

12:38:03, 19 November 2019 review of submission by Maheshchulet2011[edit]

What are the reasons to reject my article so that I can work on them Maheshchulet2011 (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshchulet2011, For one, its written like an ad. Wikipedia presents its subjects neutrally and without promotion or bias, using formal language at all times. Additionally, there are not enough sources to show that this is notable. At least 3 sources that are reliable and independent and have significant coverage of the subject is needed. Think news articles, coverage in magazines, that sort of thing. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:05:56, 19 November 2019 review of draft by 4mckeowns[edit]


I have added references and links that validate that the pageant is real and relevant to those living in County Cork (Ireland's largest County). The event takes place every year and involves hundreds of people so I don't know what more to do to make this article qualify as being of public interest Thanks 4mckeowns (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4mckeowns, You should read referencing for beginners to see how to properly format and use references, as the existing layout is insuffucient. The article also needs more prose. In terms of sources, you need to find sources that cover the contest itself, not just its contestants. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:09, 19 November 2019 review of draft by Mlajum[edit]


The article is a biography of Kenneth Kimuli. He is popularly known as Pablo. Is it okay if I change the subject of the article to Kenneth Kimuli(Pablo)? Secondly, if one had put up their pictures on social media before and would prefer the picture to be put up on Wikipedia, does deleting the picture from the social media, e.g facebook, and using it on Wikipedia violate any copyrights?

Thanks

Mlajum (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:18, 19 November 2019 review of submission by MMcC321[edit]


Hi there,

I was wondering if you could explain how the article may not be sufficient for a Wikipedia page of its own? I'm at a bit of a loss as to how I can amend it.

Thank you MMcC321 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MMcC321, The company fails WP:NCORP and seems to be a run of the WP:MILL business. There are millions of businesses, we can't cover them all, and thus have to have a minimum standard. That standard is notability. That means usually at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. The current sources do not do that. It is likely that this business is simply not notable, and no amount of improvement would make the article likely to pass. I suggest you find another area to edit on Wikipedia; I can suggest some WIkiProjects if you provide an area of interest! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:46, 19 November 2019 review of draft by Jwilson2032[edit]


Hello! I am attempting to make a Wikipedia page for Ankura. Despite almost 10 citations to relevant materials regarding the company's creation, investments, acquisitions, and work, the article has been rejected. Many similar companies (i.e. Analysis Group, Cornerstone Research, etc. ) have less or similar cited materials in their articles.

Thus I would like to request help with the following: 1) Which of the citations listed in the article do not meet relevant criteria for reliability? I have reviewed the sections of Wikipedia's help page for reliability standards, but there is still some gray area on what can qualify. For instance, I have included a Bloomberg profile (having seen those used on several other articles!), but if that is not reliable I would still like to use the other source provided (an interview of the individual in question). 2) Given the nature of the article, I have added a few sources to some of the cited sections. Should I keep citations to one for each factoid, or are additional citations that demonstrate reliability better. 3) How many additional sources meeting the above criteria should be included? I did not want to over inundate the article page at first but if even more information is needed for approval then so be it. 3b) In the same way, are there sources I have listed that are considered not reliable that should be redacted all together? If so I am happy to remove them.

I appreciate any and all feedback on this manner. I am driven to make this happen!

Jwilson2032 (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwilson2032: Per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG there must be several (generally at least 2-3) independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. You can use other sources that meet this criteria to verify statements in the article, but not for asserting notability. A general rule of thumb is that you need a reference to prove every fact/assertion/claim you make in the article. However, a concern I have with this draft is that it really sounds like an advertisement for the company, instead of an encyclopedia article. Before it is accepted it should be cleaned up to sound less promotional. I hope this helped. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:36, 19 November 2019 review of submission by Electra Roberts[edit]

Hello, I created this page for Yiannis Papadopoulos it was declined 7 months ago. Since then I renewed all the sources and i updated the page quite a few times. Can someone please help me with this? I believe the article is in great standing, it's been seven months, at least please give me feedback regarding the page and if there's anything I can do to make it even better. This guy definitely deserves a Wiki page, he's won so many awards/ competition, he's touring around the world, and he's recognised and respected in the guitar community. Thank you for your time. Your help is greatly appreciated. Electra Roberts (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three months, not seven, since you submitted your draft. Please be patient, drafts are reviewed in no particular order. JTP (talkcontribs) 18:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:25:01, 19 November 2019 review of draft[edit]

Greetings. At a request from Whpq, I would like some help determining if my edits to the draft above are on the tright track. The original creator of the draft is Degacrowe9, but I made a few improvements to it. So, am I doing okay so far? Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 19:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for any administrative action here, so I've closed the {{admin help}} template. Yunshui  08:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui, So... I'm on the right path then? Thanks, Zanygenius(talk to me!)(email me!) 17:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:48, 19 November 2019 review of draft by TJRobertson[edit]


I created this draft for a master planned community here in Nevada, Skye Canyon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skye_Canyon,_Nevada

It seemed like the community warranted a Wikipedia article, since other master planned communities of similar size and significance also have articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Highlands,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin,_Nevada). In fact, Summerlin has 3 articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin_South,_Nevada, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_City_Summerlin,_Nevada).

My draft has been declined many times, and is still not approved for the following reasons:

- This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

- 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.

However, when reviewing the pages of the other master planned communities, their sources don't meet this criteria any better than those on my draft. Skye Canyon is a huge, prominent, albeit new community here in Nevada (6,500 homes). How else can I show that this is a legitimate, noteworthy entity?

Any help is much appreciated. Thank you!

TJRobertson (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TJRobertson, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on WIkipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I looked at the articles you posted, and I have marked three for deletion, and found the remaining one to be problematic. None would have passed the AfC process.
You user pages says you do SEO for Vegas companies. If you have been paid in any way for your edits on Skye Canyon, you must disclose that by following the guide at WP:PAID.
To the article: you must show that the subject passes the WP:GNG. That means at least 3 reliable and independent sources that give the subject significant coverage. Currently, you have zero such sources. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:41:15, 19 November 2019 review of draft by Shibby182[edit]


To whom it may concern,

I created this Wikipedia page approximately 8 Week ago and was on a 8 Week waiting list which today has jumped to 4 months. I was wondering if there was an explanation for this or a priority system? An explanation for the jump from 8 Weeks to 4 Months is all I'm seeking unless you would like to review the Wikipedia Article itself.

Thanks, Brandon C.T. Lee


Shibby182 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shibby182, Howdy hello! When you submitted, the average review time was 8 weeks. But that time has been revised, as we are getting an influx of drafts and have rather few reviewers. Please be patient, and your draft should be taken care of soon. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]