Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 4 << Mar | April | May >> April 6 >
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.


April 5

[edit]

01:52:49, 5 April 2022 review of submission by ICHx

[edit]


There also exist a news article on the topic(https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/21/quite_ok_image_format/).

The entry is the only missing page under 'Graphics file format'. Thank you for reviewing the decision.

ICHx (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:29:45, 5 April 2022 review of submission by Valentinc9

[edit]

Hello, I used references from Yahoo, Bloomberg, and local media outlets. The draft still got declined. Also, a scholarly article mentions the group. I'm not paid, but I mentioned that I might be paid in the future. I've received: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. How? I've seen a lot of pages with lesser information and sources. I think this is just ill will at this moment. Valentinc9 (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentinc9 There is no "ill will" here. Please read other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us- this does not mean more can be added. In addition, the submission process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and is not required of everyone(only new and unregistered users) so there are numerous ways to get something past us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help out, you can identify inappropriate articles that you see for possible action.
The sources for your draft are almost exclusively press releases and announcements of routine business activities(such as opening a company facility). Wikipedia is not interested in the routine activities of a company. Any article about a company 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. As your draft does not do this, and the prospect of that happening seems low, the reviewer rejected your draft, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:56:19, 5 April 2022 review of submission by Alphaed

[edit]

I trimmed the draft as possible. But posting is blocked. How i can submit an article for moderation? Alphaed (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alphaed The draft was rejected, meaning that resubmission is not possible. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does(such as the "solutions" it offers). Wikipedia articles about companies 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. If there is new information that the last reviewer did not consider, you must appeal to them directly. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alphaed, I previously rejected because you resubmitted without any attempt at improvement. While you have attempted some improvement, issues remain. 1) Please clarify your relationship with the subject per WP:COI and WP:PAID. 2) The article still has a completely unsourced section about services. 3) Sourcing still remains problematic, leaning heavily primary and passing mentions, If you want a another bite of the apple, please clean up these issues and identify WP:THREE independent secondary sources which discuss the subject and place them on the talk page of the draft.Slywriter (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:51:45, 5 April 2022 review of submission by LeoN4rdB0naks

[edit]


LeoN4rdB0naks (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LeoN4rdB0naks You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media for you to tell the world that you like going to UMass games. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a re-review because I have added a reference to the person the page is about. LeoN4rdB0naks (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LeoN4rdB0naks For additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. You seem to be writing about yourself; if so, please read the autobiography policy as to why this is highly discouraged. If you are not Mr. Banakos, you will need to change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
YouTube and Twitter are not reliable sources. As I said, Wikipedia is not a form of social media; it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources state about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Not every person merits a Wikipedia article. I don't think the fact that you attend UMass games is written about in independent reliable sources unless it is significant in some way. The draft was rejected, as I said, and won't be considered any more. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Social media-websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking, Wikipedia shares contend for social networking, does it not? LeoN4rdB0naks (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been some disappointing customer service. 1* LeoN4rdB0naks (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not, Wikipedia does NOT share content for social networking. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And we are not customer service.Slywriter (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LeoN4rdB0naks: That is because we are not a business and do not have "customers" as such. We are an encyclopaedia project, and our job here is to help users who are legitimately here to help build it, not those who only see it as a substitute for whatever social media platform. We have zero control over what content Facebook, Twitter, et al scrape from us, and in fact we receive a lot of complaints from users because this content tends to very quickly become outdated due to subsequent edits to the original article. We have zero tolerance for people editing Wikipedia simply to game a checkmark; the only reason that Facebook, Twitter, et al even have that as an option is for older people whose career largely predates the Internet writ large.
There is a very, very wide gulf between "creating and sharing content" and "social networking" - I create and share content every day outside of Wikipedia, but never to a mass audience. To assume that the two are the same is fallacious, and speaks more to your misunderstanding of Wikipedia than our (frankly minimal at worst) misunderstanding of social media. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:28:37, 5 April 2022 review of submission by Shehrozs

[edit]


Hello,

I've completed a draft today for Bango plc and have added various references to coverage from neutral sources. I'm aware company material like blogs and press releases are not admissible, but feel the other coverage constitutes more than passing mentions. Would just like to notify in case other reviews are performed. Please inform me if the page can be approved in light of this, or whether additional material needs to be added.

Many thanks,

Shehrozs

Shehrozs (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shehrozs Wikipedia is not a place to document the existence of a company and tell what it does and/or who its customers are. Those are routine business activities that does not establish notability. A Wikipedia article about a company 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. Please read Your First Article. If you were to submit the draft as it is now, it would be declined again. What do others say is significant about the company(on their own, not based on materials it has been fed by the company? Is it dominant in its field? Has it created innovative business techniques? Influenced social policy or society? Just existing is insufficient for a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:23, 5 April 2022 review of submission by Rahamathullaitprof

[edit]


Rahamathullaitprof (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahamathullaitprof: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:45, 5 April 2022 review of submission by Cryptoluva

[edit]


Genuinely confused what the issue is here? I Cited almost everything I included in the article fully, should I redo it without any of the information thats not cited in some random PR publication that got its actual information from the website of the platform? This rule makes no sense. Cryptoluva (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptoluva You have chosen to edit in a contentious area to start your editing "career", which will invariably result in you hitting many pitfalls along the way. This subject area has special rules, which I will inform you about on your user talk page. You appear to have a conflict of interest, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. A Wikipedia article is not for merely telling about a company and what it does or offers. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company(not based on materials it has been fed by the company) showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Mere existence is insufficient for this- others wholly unconnected with the company must have significant written about the importance of this company to establish notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can add to this a bit more beyond 331dot's on point assessment. This was also purely an advertisement as it only ever told the reader about the greatness of this product and all the wonderful features. It did not even attempt to explain the product in a neutral tone. If you decide you are going to continue to edit about this subject you will have to drop any form of promotion and stick to the facts as laid out by independent reliable sources. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:55, 5 April 2022 review of submission by DarylStories YT

[edit]


DarylStories YT (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Why did my article get declined?[reply]

It wasn't declined it was rejected the topic (you) is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:48, 5 April 2022 review of submission by JM at Remitly

[edit]

Hello! I'm a Remitly employee who recently had a proposed AfC draft for the company declined. The reason given was that the copy reads too much like an advertisement. I was wondering if someone might be able to point out which parts of it come across as dishonest or promotional? The draft is independently sourced and I tried to make sure it didn't hype up the company's accomplishments so much as neutrally describe Remitly and its technology. But I'm totally open to constructive criticism and want to understand what I could have done better. Thank you! JM at Remitly (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JM at Remitly The whole thing is promotional. You don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. A Wikipedia article about a company must not merely document the existence of the company and describe its offerings. It must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage, and not based on materials from the company, have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Most of your sources seem to document routine business activities, which does not establish notability. Please read Your First Article.
The best indicator of notability is when an independent editor on their own takes note of a company in independent sources and chooses on their own to write about it. Trying to force the issue often does not end the way the company wants. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your taking the time to review my draft. One thing I would push back on is that, with the exception of one financial figure sourced from an SEC filing, I have not used any material from Remitly itself. Everything else in that draft comes from independent media coverage, which broadly characterizes Remitly as a sizable, publicly traded company that has been successful within its niche. If you can give me any specifics on my draft, as far as sources or phrasing that I should avoid, that would be helpful. If you believe that the company doesn't clear notability standards, then I respect your decision, I'm just looking for help understanding how to improve the draft. Again, thanks for taking the time to review and explain. JM at Remitly (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:55, 5 April 2022 review of submission by Martinboyer

[edit]


Martinboyer (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:39, 5 April 2022 review of submission by Yosedelabianca

[edit]


Yosedelabianca (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Why is this article considered advertising, when others in the same category (and linked in its content) aren't? I won't resubmit, but there doesn't seem to be a coherent policy on this regard.

Yosedelabianca Please read other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, please identify these other similar articles you have seen so we can take action. If you want to use other articles as an example or model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:51:13, 5 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by ChefBear01

[edit]


I am looking to create a separate article that purely focuses on the comic series, I am unsure how to proceed to ensure it is as comprehensive as possible and could not expand the page due to not having a lot of experience creating articles on this topic (see talk page).ChefBear01 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


23:48:40, 5 April 2022 review of submission by 2603:8001:6143:9E:6041:512D:47F:762C

[edit]


2603:8001:6143:9E:6041:512D:47F:762C (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, the draft was declined because of our policies against articles about events in the future (see WP:CRYSTAL). As the reviewer who declined the draft said, we shouldn't have any articles about these topics until some reliable information has been published, such as the hosting city. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_April_5&oldid=1082169251"