Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 10 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 12 >
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.


January 11

[edit]

00:01:29, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Esmaeili.nooshin

[edit]

I am not sure what i need to do for this page to be accepted. We have already submitted a copyright release of our website to Wikipedia and we just want to have a Wikipedia page for our ACSF group. yes the texts are from our website and i am not sure what the problem is and how it can solved? I have aded reference to the website almost everywhere in the text isn't this enough? i appreciate if you let me know what i can do to get this page published. we need this page to be published by end of next week. I really appreciate your help. Thanks


Esmaeili.nooshin (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esmaeili.nooshin Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to state about an organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization.
If you represent the organization, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Esmaeili.nooshin I looked for independent media or scholarly coverage of the organization and could only find this brief mention [[1]]. Without coverage to demonstrate notability, the article won't be accepted. All the sourcing there now is controlled by the organization such as its own home page. See WP:RS. Also, you're better off starting with a very short summary of the group without all the flowing language about its mission and detailed calendar of past events, unless they were notable enough to get media coverage. That also hurts the article's chances of ever being approved. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:58:04, 11 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ToruNitadori

[edit]


I have no idea to be accepted. I added the primary reference "The Echigo Yoita Uchihamono (Cutlery)" website at last publish request. However the reviewer declined it because it needs multiple independent secondary sources. Actually I am a member of this product's union(Echigo Yoita Uchihamono). You can get enough information from the website, so I think the secondary sources is not necessary. And it is defficult to get additional information from other website because there is few English website, which have not enough information. Is it Okey to reffer an japanese website?

Best regards. Sorry for terrible english.

ToruNitadori (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToruNitadori: if english is not your first language, you may want to contribute to Wkipedia in your native language. As for the draft:

04:16:40, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Skitz1allen

[edit]


Skitz1allen (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitz1allen: There aren't enough sources to demonstrate notability. I see one media source and that's it. You'll need to identify and integrate info from several articles in independent third party sources to demonstrate notability before your draft will be accepted. Also, please see WP:COI if you are the chef. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:24:37, 11 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Geolog10

[edit]


I was told that my submission was older than 6 months and it was to be removed. It was. So I rewrote the article on Makeda Cheatom, fixed the earlier problems, and submitted the new version. I got back a reply that I should edit the old version. I don't understand what I should do.


Geolog10 (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geolog10: please work on the newer version, which appears to be User:Geolog10/sandbox. @SK2242: for your notice. That being said, I do not know why @Timtrent: told you to do a complete rewrite - it would take me around 5 minutes to fix the references up to look like standard and remove the duplication, and 15 minutes if I were to move them to the first occureence (which is more often used on Wikipedia). Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:38:52, 11 January 2021 review of submission by SambhavBaid95

[edit]


SambhavBaid95 (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(removed article copy) Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SambhavBaid95: It looks like this is an attempt to write an rticle about yourelf. While autobiographys aren't forbidden, they are strongely discouraged. This draft lacks reliable sources. Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:09, 11 January 2021 review of submission by MdAsifIqbalBD

[edit]


The article lacked notability, that part has been fixed as the references were added. Also, being the market leader of Ecommerce in Bangladesh, Evaly wiki page should be published as soon as possible.

MdAsifIqbalBD (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MdAsifIqbalBD: I would remove everything that isn't sourced with independent media coverage, and also tone down the promotional language. It's easier to get a shorter, well sourced and well written article approved, and you can add more detailed information if the company gets more media coverage. But if you are connected to the company, please see WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:02:50, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Tomersl

[edit]

Can't understand what is wrong. Is it a secret?

Tomersl (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomers1 No, the reason for the decline was given on your draft at the top. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:25, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Jademaisey

[edit]


I am waiting for a review of my article on the European Pillar of Social Rights. Is there any way I can find out how long this will take? It has been over one month already.

Jademaisey (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jademaisey: No, unfortunally not. Reviewing drafts takes a lot of time and effort, and reviewers do that in their free time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:00, 11 January 2021 review of submission by ShafiShabab32

[edit]


ShafiShabab32 (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ShafiShabab32 As above "Wikipedia isn't social media, it's not a place for telling the world about yourself, your draft has zero reliable independent sources, and was rejected because you are clearly not notable in Wikipedia terms, like most of us." Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:49, 11 January 2021 review of submission by RameshRana12

[edit]

Because this is a news media in Nepal, I am creating a encylopedic page for one of the most read online in Nepal RameshRana12 (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:41, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Posuiki

[edit]


Hi, Happy New Year. I'm new. I want to delete the content of a current sandbox. The reason is that the article I wrote doesn't meet Wikipedia notability criteria. So I just want to delete it. How then do I delete the content to maintain the integrity of my user sandbox? Posuiki (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks[reply]

Posuiki (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posuiki You may just clear all the content from your sandbox, especially if you intend to use it for other purposes later. If you don't intend to use it again, you can request it be speedy deleted by putting the following, {{db-user}} on the page. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:54, 11 January 2021 review of submission by MurphCooper

[edit]

Hi there! Thanks for helping me get my first page published. I would love some clarification as to why this subject is not notable enough, please! The reference article submitted refers to the subject more than as just a 'mention' in my opinion. So was the page declined simply because one reference article does not suffice? If more, similar articles were submitted for reference would it help justify that the subject is notable? And would that mean that many smaller mentions across multiple articles, can equate to one single detailed article, when it comes to qualifying for notability?

How do I know if it was that the quality of the source wasn't sufficient?

When subjectivity is involved (as I believe it is for these things), it's very hard to know what was missing when no real feedback is given! I appreciate everyone has little time, am just pointing this out.

Thanks for any help. MurphCooper (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MurphCooper You were given feedback by the reviewer on the draft itself. You have a draft that consists of two sentences and one source. A Wikipedia article must be sourced to multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage, and the article must summarize what those sources say. Please read Your First Article for more information.
If you work for Broadwick Live, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for your help. It was unclear to me whether that feedback was an automated response or not. I see now that it isn't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurphCooper (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:10, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Barouy13

[edit]

The submission was rejected as it is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Can someone explain why this is and how I can make it sufficiently notable for inclusion?

Barouy13 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barouy13 It appears that the company does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the company. The sources you offered are only announcements of routine business transactions, which are not significant coverage and do not establish notability. There is nothing that you can do to confer notability on the company through editing; it depends on the sources. If appropriate sources do not exist, the company would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every company does, even within the same field.
If you work for this company, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:46:28, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Kirsaan.jatt

[edit]


In response to notability re: sources, I have added references to The Telegraph, The Times, The FT, Drapers, The Mirror and other British media. Happy to discuss and see where the line lies, but I think Thind falls on the side of notability. Kirsaan.jatt (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsaan.jatt The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. The sources you have offered are not significant coverage of the subject, coverage that goes beyond a brief mention and talks about the subject in depth. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:35, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Ahassannezhad

[edit]


Hello, This article Draft:ESam has been declined. How can I modify it in terms of wording and tone?

Ahassannezhad (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Ahassannezhad#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:43:45, 11 January 2021 review of draft by John-editing

[edit]


Hi — I requested a name-change move of Novosbed to GoodMorning.com (see draft here), but it has not been addressed. Any tips on how to get feedback from other users on the best approach for updating this article? Here's the request that was made on January 6th: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Novosbed) John-editing (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved that per request as there is no opposition. Note that I did not copy the rest of the draft, as I consider "Products" section promotional. MarioJump83! 05:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:51, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Vamsi20

[edit]



Could anyone review my draft here? It’s been like that for 21 days (3 weeks) and still not re-reviewed. I’ve added sources and fixed the errors, but nobody is still reviewing it. Could anybody do it? Vamsi20 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:54, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Eokeefe1987

[edit]


My submission has been rejected based on a past rejection from 2006, it looks like it is someone who has tried to create an article by the same name but they aren't the same person. It makes all the rejection points invalid and tricky to rectify.

Eokeefe1987 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eokeefe1987. If that is the case, then feel free to submit again. On a quick glance of your article, however, I suspect it will be declined again because (1) notability isn't well established and (2) the sources aren't reliable. There are higher standards of referencing applied to biographies of living persons. As regards (1), a general rule I apply to my own writing is to express in the first line what makes the subject notable. For example, "David J. Adams is an Australian scientist and academic who is Distinguished Professor of Medicine (if this is what he is) at the University of Woollongong." And then add a few citations. For your reference, the notability threshold will be crossed if you meet the requirements of either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. All the best. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eyebeller, just tagging you in case you'd like to weigh in, since you did the review. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I didn't realise that it's not the same person. I declined it on the fact that it fails notability guidelines which was a main reason for the AfD so I just linked the AfD. But yes, I would decline it again in the current state. Eyebeller 10:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:55, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Ermarky

[edit]


Ermarky (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:37:40, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Martha mwansa

[edit]


I need to submit my page article Martha mwansa (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_January_11&oldid=1145626899"