Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 20 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 22 >
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.


September 21[edit]

10:15:04, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Meimaar.93[edit]

Hello dear Graeme Bartlett, I would like to create the UArchitects page in the right format. would you please guide me about the errors? so I can correct them? thank you in advance Meimaar.93 (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Meimaar.93: Address the concerns raised at your user talk page before you do ANYTHING else. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:25:33, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Deepikaaswani[edit]


Hi there! I'm newer to editing wikipedia pages and want to make sure I am doing the best I can with the most correct information. I saw the ability to create the Kaha Pte page. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help improve the submission. Thank you Deepikaaswani (talk

@Deepikaaswani: This is an investment brochure masquerading as an encylopaedia article. What is your connexion to Kaha? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:46:27, 21 September 2021 review of submission by ByzArtAlb[edit]

Hi guys! This is my first attempt to publish information on Wikipedia I am a member of the choir that im writing about I have a reference of the information i am writing too.

What is the main point the has penalized me from accepting the article?

Thank you for your time guys! ByzArtAlb (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ByzArtAlb: The lack of references is absolutely fatal. One reference is never going to be enough to support a Wikipedia article. In addition, because you're part of the group, you have a conflict of interest with regards to it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:47, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Tfalfano[edit]

The page contained sources to the company's website regarding the product. Is that not considered a reliable source? They are inventors of the product and have the only publishable information regarding the product. The product is not in any periodicals (to my knowledge). Ty.

Tfalfano (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid what the company says about itself isn't a reliable source. Only what others, unconnected with the company, say about it. Compare Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If no reliable sources have discussed the company, then the company is not (at present) notable according to Wikipedia's definition, so it can't have an article yet. Bishonen | tålk 14:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: , thank you for taking the time to respond to me, and you have you have helped understand why the Company's website is not a reliable source. One of my references was to a court document that established that the company did in fact exist between two certain dates. Also, I will continue to look for third party periodicals that mention the control suite. Would the court document be enough to establish that the company did in fact exist? Thank you.

Tfalfano (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Tfalfano, I think you have to sign on the same line, i. e. not start a new line for your sig, for the ping to work. It's very fussy.) Court documents are frankly not much use; they can establish existence, but, as primary sources, they can't be used to establish notability. It's kind of pointless to establish that the company exists/existed, because existence isn't enough for it to have a Wikipedia article; it must also be notable according to our definition. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is the specific guideline for the notability of companies. I think you'll find it helpful. Bishonen | tålk 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

14:34:55, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Understood12[edit]

To an experienced editor:

I need help removing any informal tone or promotionalism of my draft for Kaynemaile. It is a material that was developed by the Lord of the Rings art department (which is interesting in and of itself), and has since been used widely in the architecture and design community. It also has many trusted 3rd party sources and news articles about it published.

I have stripped my submission down to the bare bones, made many rounds of edits to try and respond to its submission failures, but can't seem to get it across the line. do you have any specific advice on copy that still doesn't seem neutral or other recommendations? Any edits are welcome. Thank you. Understood12 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:57, 21 September 2021 review of submission by 108.53.163.35[edit]


108.53.163.35 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i have no idea what more information you need. He has an imdb page and google search panel. He clearly has some notoriety.

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. Google panels just collate information and are meaningless in terms of establishing notability(not "notoriety" which can have a negative connotation). A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:01, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Sethclampett[edit]


I don't understand why this article has been rejected for lack of relevance. Per the request of an earlier reviewer, I removed much of the content because it wasn't based on enough third-part sources, and spent time bringing in enough sources from independent newspapers and publications. The company in question has been written about by many publications outside of local media, and they're an important player in research and business in the consumer compliance space (Richard Cordray - former head of the CFPB - has spoken at their conference, and partnered with them on content on multiple occasions).

I've documented 9 sources, and have more that I have removed per your request. In addition, the content of my article is very similar to the content of this company page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremlin_Social

I don't understand how that gets to be published for relevance, but this article is not published. Much of the content in that article is simply documentation of leadership changes.

I am happy to make additional changes, but this rejection feels very arbitrary considering the existing content that is actually published on Wikipedia.

Please advise further as to what specifically makes this content irrelevant.

Sethclampett (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sethclampett: We don't judge an article based on the existence of similar but tangentially-related topics; for all you know that article is in dire need of fixes. This is an investment brochure masquerading as an article; what is your connexion to PerformLine? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:04, 21 September 2021 review of draft by Elshad Iman (Elşad İman)[edit]

Please support editing the article and participate in the placement of the article on the main page.

Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elshad Iman (Elşad İman): We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Any biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong, in-depth third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. This also reads more like a resume or cirriculum vitae, which we don't accept under any circumstances. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:50, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Klimgeran[edit]


Klimgeran (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klimgeran (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes to the text of the English Wikipedia about NEM. Wikipedia about NEM is available in many languages, previously there was also an English wiki NEM. (Redacted)

@Klimgeran: No sources, no article, no debate. Are you SURE you want to continue editing in a topic area under sanctions? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:45:06, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Andrebi46[edit]

Hello, I would like to request a re-review, because the notability of the person is growing (it can be easily verified online, and all the relevant information is written in this article). The page will be helpful for the students, professors, researchers and entire academic community.

Also, my content was copy-pasted on Wikitia. Can I ask why? and what does it mean?

Please tell me if I can do more for this page.

A million thanks for your attention !


Andrebi46 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrebi46: Wikitia is a mirror; ignore it. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Any biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong, in-depth third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. Literally the only sources meeting that description are the Google Scholar links, and while those can help for notability they don't do a whit for the biographical claims. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:42:42, 21 September 2021 review of draft by ChemCost.An[edit]


I tried to submit an article in wikipedia which talks about a new infinity paradox. The wikipedia does not accept it because it need more references. This article is completely new so why wikipedia does not accept it, is completely new. I have put it in my article all the references which it need it. ChemCost.An (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:ChemCost.An/sandbox
@ChemCost.An: If it's completely new then we cannot have it. We are an encyclopaedia; sources are an absolute requirement and we do not engage in synthesis of sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:48:58, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Indiansocialwork[edit]

I have now added a third-party website as evidence for the FRSA status and publication link for the subject mentioned in this article. May I please request a re-review, please? Indiansocialwork (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indiansocialwork The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, that demonstrates notability. Please review the advice given by reviewers. If you truly have new information that was not seen by the reviewer that rejected the draft, you will need to appeal to them directly. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:44, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Kim at Partner ESI[edit]

Hello, I would like to know why the article was rejected twice for the same reason (reading like an advertisement), when the page for Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. is very similarly written. If there is a specific part in the article that reads like an advertisement, can you please explain which part? I'm not sure what else to change. Thank you. Kim at Partner ESI (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim at Partner ESI Please read other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to pitch in and help us manage the six million plus articles here, please identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.
The draft is advertising because it just tells about your 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 Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company.
I see that you declared a conflict of interest, if you are an employee you must make the stricter paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that the best articles to use as a model are those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_September_21&oldid=1046693075"