Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 27 << Jan | February | Mar >> March 1 >
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.


February 28

[edit]

00:58:08, 28 February 2021 review of submission by Ksk8m

[edit]


All credits are accurate and a reputable source. They have been verified by check stubs and upcoming celebrity blogs. Ksk8m (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ksk8m IMDB is not considered a reliable source here as it is user-editable. If this person is in the credits of the films they worked on, the film itself is sufficient as a source, but you offer no other independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Mr. Mardula. This is why your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. You seem to assert that he is notable because he worked with notable people; notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:18:26, 28 February 2021 review of submission by Manik733

[edit]


Manik733 (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manik733 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources say about you. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess 331dot meant to link to WP:RS Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:27, 28 February 2021 review of submission by SharpSeaHorse

[edit]

Can someone please help me with this page, it got rejected as being promotional, there are no endorsements in it. It was intended to be informational, Thanks in advance SharpSeaHorse (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SharpSeaHorse On Wikipedia, there is no difference between "informational" and "promotional". Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please see Your First Article for more information. Your draft offered no reliable sources at all and just told about the subject.
If you are associated with the subject, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:30:27, 28 February 2021 review of draft by JulianB34

[edit]


Hello, thanks for take time to read me. After editing my first articles im waiting for submission. i wanted be sure that my sources are good JulianB34 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JulianB34, your draft has been meanwhile reviewed and declined, please read the comments of the reviewer and after improving you are free to resubmit for review. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:52, 28 February 2021 review of submission by Alabama73

[edit]

I do not understand why the amends to this page have been disqualified. Mika Simmons founded the Lady Garden Foundation that is a charity that has created a treatment for Ovarian Cancer which she lost her Mother to. And most recently she has been asked to work with the Government to close the Gender Health Gap. Her most recent film had 5 nominations and 1 win. Please can you tell us what the problem is here? Alabama73 (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Simmonds fails the criteria at WP:NACTOR I have nominated the article for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:18, 28 February 2021 review of draft by 171.98.76.84

[edit]


My submission has been declined multiple times for 'submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia...'. Draft has been change 3 times and all link reference from independent, reliable and published sources. Can someone clarify what read like advertisement and how to improving draft? Thank you 171.98.76.84 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an advertisement because it does nothing other than tell of the existence of the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offered seem to be announcements of routine business transactions, which do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you work for this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:06, 28 February 2021 review of draft by Kkmk mani

[edit]


Kkmk mani (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly advise on correct publishing of the article, I have not comprehended your remarks, Dr. Michael Koutsilieris is a distinguished scientist and the article is based on his biographical information and scientific accomplisments.I cant understand how it can be charactirised like and advirtsment. How should I proceed?

I've responded to you at the Teahouse, please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:37, 28 February 2021 review of submission by Gaoyoude

[edit]

Hello, I've been a registered Wikipedia user since 2010 with 96 live edits/0 deleted. I recently created my first article as an Autoconfirmed user. Within several minutes of publishing the page, another user, User:Lettler, moved the article to Draft space and then Afc. After some consideration, minor reworking of the article and investigation of User:Lettler, I would challenge the qualifications and motivation of Lettler to have interfered with my article creation. Since I would like to become more active in creating, reviewing and editing articles, I would appreciate a third-party review of this case. While I certainly welcome improvements to the article from the Wikipedia community, I'm quite sure that as it stands, the article meets the criteria for publication. I would like to move it to article space and would appreciate your review of this case. Thanks! Gaoyoude (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaoyoude: You make it sound like some sort of sinister conspiracy. As far as I can tell from looking at the version of the draft before it was moved, there is a lack of adequate sourcing consistent with our reliable sourcing guidelines and our General Notability Guideline. Of the sources that can be accessed on the internet this would be the only one that might qualify as reliable, although I am not an expert on what physics publications are considered reliable. I think most people who patrol newly created articles would have moved it to draft space as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your taking the time to explain, didn't mean to come off as overly paranoid! I don't entirely understand/agree with your view of sourcing, will get back to you soon with my take when time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaoyoude (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaoyoude, you might find the nutshell explanation in WP:42 a digestible summary Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:32, 28 February 2021 review of draft by Elron J

[edit]


Hello, and thank you for your time. Could you help me understand why my recent Wiki edit was declined. Any direction would be greatly appreciated.

Elron J (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined because the 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. Please note that press releases are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:47, 28 February 2021 review of submission by 174.255.129.84

[edit]


174.255.129.84 (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you Wikipedia team for addressing room for improvement! :)[reply]

23:03:22, 28 February 2021 review of submission by Developer Suleyman Ekici

[edit]


Developer Suleyman Ekici (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Developer Suleyman Ekici: You haven't asked a specific question, and on at least three other occasions people involved with this draft have failed to ask specific questions about this article.[1][2][3] So what do you want to know? Not every album released necessitates an encyclopedia article for the rest of time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_February_28&oldid=1010561758"