Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 16 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 18 >
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.


March 17[edit]

04:35:08, 17 March 2021 review of submission by EditorofWorldAffairs[edit]

I am requesting assistance because I am still being told that my article is blatant advertising but I'm not advertising anything! I have followed WP five pillars and I also went off of similar Wikipedia articles already accepted and published such as World Affairs Council of Dallas/Ft-Worth, World Affairs Council of America, World Affairs Council of Arizona. EditorofWorldAffairs (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EditorofWorldAffairs Note that advertising does not just mean trying to sell something or soliciting customers/attention; on Wikipedia, merely telling about something is considered promotional. Wikipedia is not interested in what any organization wants to say about itself, only in what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Some of the articles you mention are themselves problematic- I doubt each individual chapter of your organization merits its own Wikipedia article. Please see other stuff exists; each draft is judged on its own merits.
You must review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies and make the required formal declaration. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:22:24, 17 March 2021 review of submission by DrX Tavarak Choudhary[edit]


DrX Tavarak Choudhary (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a social media platform. --Kinu t/c 05:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:38:03, 17 March 2021 review of submission by DigitalArtist8[edit]


I am requesting assistance because I can't see the button "Submit for review". Please review the article Draft:Parblo Thank you DigitalArtist8 (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalArtist8 Simply click the blue "resubmit" button at the top of your draft, in the last decline notice. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:28:19, 17 March 2021 review of submission by Sørhaug[edit]

I submitted this article after adding more references, but apparently it is still not supported by reliable sources. The references in the article are from the Norwegian Football Federation, VG, Nettavisen and Aftenposten. I don't see how they are not reliable. VG, Nettavisen and Aftenposten are three of the biggest newspapers in Norway. Each of the four matches are also supported by match reports from the Norwegian Football Federation. Which of these references are not reliable? Sørhaug (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2020 Eliteserien Promotion/Relegation play-offs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) / courtesy ping for @Kashmorwiki: CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sørhaug, I used a translator and the sources are indeed giving enough significant coverage to the subject. But I still have some concerns with its relibality as it feels more like a fan blog. Thats why I declined it. Dont worry I will discuss your concerns with a more experienced reviewer and will definetly find a solution. Please wait and dont resubmit now . I will update you you soon Kichu🐘 Need any help? 13:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:43:41, 17 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Green416[edit]


I have revised this article numerous times and included recognized reliable sources. How exactly can I style and fix this article to be adjusted for Wikipedia, I wish someone would show me the proper formatting - ON Nature magazine is a long-standing magazine with an extensive valuable and informative journalistic history and show be included as a Wikipedia topic.

Green416 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at length on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:39, 17 March 2021 review of submission by Mealplan12[edit]

Mealplan Shop is canadian registered federal corporation. We are in our initial stage of inception with aim to enable food businesses (small,medium) to leverage online market and pivote their already established customer base towards subscription based meal plans. posting this page on wiki, would enable and educate other to start subscription based meal plan business and make living. Mealplan12 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mealplan12 What you describe is a promotional purpose and not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no interest in helping your company grow its customer base. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:23, 17 March 2021 review of submission by Content4All[edit]


Content4All (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a follow-up question from the answer provided to me in January as follows; Hi Content4All. There is nothing you can change about the draft that will result in its approval and publication, because the topic is not notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC) That is, unless more coverage of the topic is found. Zoozaz1 talk 03:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC) No such coverage exists, but of course the usual caveats apply. Walton's Five and Dime wasn't notable in 1945. Twenty-five years and several names later it became notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

My question now, if Dutch Country General Store is not notable, and as you say it could be after many years, I do know they are becoming more notable so ther are additional sources I might be able to add that I did not have back in October when I originally submitted this article, so can I go ahead and update the article with additions and resubmit?

Thank you! Content4All (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Content4All[reply]

Content4All, since you do not link to the draft I have not checked if it has been rejected or declined.
If rejected then you will need to make a fresh draft with the extra information that you have. Top avoid giving yourself work for work's sake, check the references: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain . Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
We don't want more references we require excellent references.
If declined then you may work in it further and submit it again. The comment about the references still applies
Do, please, link to drafts you want answers on Fiddle Faddle 08:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the draft name to the Lafc template above for them. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:51, 17 March 2021 review of submission by Parisnaka[edit]


hello i was trying to publish a article about an uprising entrepreneur and it was declined , why?

Parisnaka (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parisnaka, it would be helpful if you would mention the name of your article/draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parisnaka, the reason it has been pushed back to you for further work is in the big pink box on the draft. Please confirm that you have read this and then ask any specific questions you may have. Fiddle Faddle 08:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added link above to the user draft I assume they were asking about. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:44, 17 March 2021 review of draft by Pkraiker[edit]


I'm trying to understand how to provide satisfactory references for a new and developing application.

Pkraiker (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added to the list of 2nd party reference, now 15 in total. I feel like a magazine will have to write an article about this before anyone will approve it. When I compare this to other entries listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Remote_Music_Performance_Software I honestly feel this is at least as complete as many of the entries. I'll use Lola (software) as an example.

Pkraiker If this application is "new and developing" it almost certainly does not merit an article at this time. The fact that you are adding lots of references might sound good, but those references only cite specific points as to what the app does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how that topic meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activity, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Yes, magazines or other sources will need to choose on their own to write significantly about the app in order for it to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_March_17&oldid=1013717739"