Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 July 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 25 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 27 >
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.


July 26[edit]

03:39:24, 26 July 2022 review of submission by AlphaWolf294[edit]

Put simply, draft denied due to company not being notable enough. I am contesting denial because in that case, one would have to become a deletionist and remove half of the companies under the relevant page. I am okay with a no, but want to shoot my shot. AlphaWolf294 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaWolf294: please refer to the WP:GNG notability standard, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. The draft currently cites no such sources, hence the failure to demonstrate notability, and consequently the decision to decline, is pretty clear-cut. If you can find and add such sources, you're welcome to resubmit — although I should add that you would also need to significantly redraft this so that it offers some sort of encyclopaedic value, not just promotional content.
As for your "one would have to become a deletionist and remove half of the companies" point, see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. As for Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, most of the category companies are almost unheard of (besides the obvious ones, and the few you'll know if you have anything to do with the space). One of them didn't even have its main source anymore because of how many years it has been, and a simple Google search couldn't find anything else on it. What are the requirements for notability in this instance, since the range is clearly between household name, google ranking, and a press release. AlphaWolf294 (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are >6.5 million articles on Wikipedia, and many got in before the notability standards started being enforced. A quick Google search doesn't turn up any independent coverage of this company. The sources there now are a BBB entry, a LinkedIn page, and a user submitted corporate directory. By that measure, every single one of the estimated 31.7 million businesses could make an argument that they should be on Wikipedia. Your best bet is to read WP:NCORP to see what the new notability threshold is. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:54:04, 26 July 2022 review of submission by Senyar[edit]

Hello Dears, this draft has been edited multiple times based on recommendations made by users who declined this article, we can't see a clear reason to decline this article again. please advice as this took more than 5 months now. the figure which this article is about, is a well known person in Arab region. all sources and proofs submitted. Thank you Senyar (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Senyar: this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Doesn't matter how "well known" the person in question is, they still need to satisfy the requirements for notability, and the information must be sufficiently supported by references to reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Senyar: To echo what DG said above, I took a quick look at the sources and don't see in-depth profiles of the subject, and also don't see evidence that the subject's body of work meets the notability standards for creative professionals. See WP:NDIRECTOR for the guidelines. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:07, 26 July 2022 review of submission by JD at Syngenta Group[edit]

Following a requested move of Syngenta to Syngenta Group, consensus was to have a separate article of section written about the Syngenta Group. I've provided a draft in my user space, and seeked further consensus on separating pages. In May, the Draft:Syngenta Group was declined, as it was marked a copy of the Syngenta page, which isn't the case.

Since then, everything seems to be in limbo. I'm worried I've messed up the whole thing, and wasn't able to discuss this further with users involved, particularly KoA and Robert McClenon. So I am here asking for some help. I'd appreciate if someone could look at the pages/drafts and decide if I should withdraw the AfC proposal. Sorry if I did anything wrong with this submission.

As I am editing on behalf of the company, please be aware of my COI. Thanks in advance for your help. JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

information Note:: Draft falls under discretionary sanctions (specifically, genetically-modified organisms and agricultural chemistry). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JD at Syngenta Group: My opinion is that the new group isn't functionally different enough for a fork. Everything from Syngenta's history could go in the history section, Syngenta (2000-2020), and the rest of the history for the Draft:Syngenta Group could go into a subsequent history section Syngenta Group (2020-present), after some editing to get the events to fit. It would be long, but would preserve more of the original entity's history, which dates back to 2000. Then we could move (rename) the current Syngenta article to Syngenta Group. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:43:34, 26 July 2022 review of submission by MilesAxlerod862[edit]


MilesAxlerod862 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesAxlerod862:
a) You need to ask an actual question, which you haven't.
b) Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered any further.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:29, 26 July 2022 review of draft by Orange Sorbet[edit]


We're trying to get a page published and it's been rejected again. We've added more text, links and references so hopefully this will allow you to release this for us.

We're a little confused as another Welsh Choir, Morriston Orpheus Choir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morriston_Orpheus_Choir) has only one external reference, the other 4 go to its own website.

We just want to get this right so thanks for your help.

Orange Sorbet (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Orange Sorbet:
Firstly, I have to ask who is the "we" you keep referring to? Wikipedia accounts are strictly for the use of one individual.
Secondly, why do you say this draft has been declined (note: not rejected) "again" — it seems to me it has only been declined once?
Anyway, to answer your question, with the additional sources you've added, this may (or may not) meet the notability criteria. However, if I were to review this myself, I would still decline it for insufficient referencing, as most of the content is unsupported by citations, so there is no way of knowing where the information is coming from.
As for the article on the Morriston Orpheus Choir (the so-called OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), that has been there for many years, and may predate the current notability guidelines. You are quite right, it doesn't have sufficient sources to establish notability, and I have tagged it accordingly. You are of course welcome to take it to AfD, should you so wish.
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: The deletion history says an earlier version of this article was indeed deleted in March 2010. @Orange Sorbet: I think the sources are close to showing notability, but there needs to be more to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. I did a simple Google search and couldn't find any more independent coverage besides concert announcements. Can you find sources for the mostly unsourced history section? Possibly any books about the group that I might have missed? Sources in Welsh are acceptable as well. Worst case scenario, you could add a few properly sourced sentences to the group's entry at Dunvant#Sport and leisure, with a redirect. But also please read WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:50, 26 July 2022 review of submission by FSurmi[edit]


FSurmi (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FSurmi:
a) You need to ask an actual question, which you haven't.
b) Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered any further.
c) I also note that you haven't responded to the COI queries on your user talk page. Please do so now.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:04, 26 July 2022 review of submission by 2409:4041:8E1E:658E:0:0:2389:B705[edit]


2409:4041:8E1E:658E:0:0:2389:B705 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note: article has been rejected. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:39, 26 July 2022 review of submission by Wpcpey[edit]

I want to recover the article and add many sources, but the administrator refuses my question. I don't know why a TV programme that ended broadcast for 15 years still has a very strict requirements now. It seems it is extreme easy to delete the article, but very challenging to create it again. Wpcpey (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: WP:Deletion review § Market Watch (closed)
 Courtesy link: WP:Articles for deletion/Market Watch
Stop this. Continuing to agitate for this is liable to get you blocked. The AfD and DRV have run their course, and that is why it was rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previous delete don't provide any source so it deleted by administrator. Meanwhile, the redirect is useless. So in what way you will accept the article recover again? So you mean this article is forbidden to be available in Wikipedia anymore? It is nonsense. Wpcpey (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wpcpey We will not accept an article on the subject due to the current lack of reliable sources. Justiyaya 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are from the official website and video. Why it is still not reliable ? --Wpcpey (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wpcpey: I'm sorry if this is frustrating, but you have to understand that Wikipedia bases its article notability assessments on what other independent sources write about a subject. It's not enough to just have existed, and any sources that are controlled by the entity are not useful to show notability. It would be as if I started a web site about myself and said that I should be on Wikipedia because of it. Market Watch doesn't seem to have enough coverage in sources to pass this strict notability threshold. Perhaps consider adding a descriptive sentence or two to the Market Watch entry in CNBC#Weekly, weekend and other programming, where the sourcing requirements are not so high? And change the redirect to that section. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as you have been told multiple times, we need independent, reliable sources. You have not provided them. No one has refused your question, but consensus does not agree with you. While you can proceed with @TechnoTalk's suggestion of adding a sentence, I really suggest finding something besides former TV shows to edit as you're not able to edit in line with notability guidelines. Star Mississippi 22:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is very difficult to add a descriptive sentence or two to the Market Watch entry in CNBC#Weekly, weekend and other programming since all the programmes have the individual article. Besides, Market Watch also have three different versions, broadcast in Europe, Asia and Japan. So it is a complicated case, which is different to other TV programmes. The notability guidelines also accept primary sources.--Wpcpey (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wpcpey Primary sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
use of the primary sources here is WP:PRIMARY #3 - stating a fact about what they believe Wpcpey (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wpcpey Yes, but that does not make the subject notable. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is still notable, since it can still briefly mention the TV programme.--Wpcpey (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wpcpey You may have whatever opinion you wish, but that doesn't change anything about the good comments you have been given. You will need to drop this and move on. This is bordering on WP:IDHT. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:48, 26 July 2022 review of submission by 196.67.2.145[edit]


196.67.2.145 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to recover the article 196.67.2.145 (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to "recover"; the draft has been rejected, not deleted.
At the same time, it has been rejected, and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @196.67.2.145: The article text is there for you to copy and save to a text file. I made some minor improvements and tried to find more sources, but was unsuccessful in finding enough to change the result. The article has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. The organization is certainly performing a worthy service to help the animals, but the sourcing doesn't show that the organization is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:33:10, 26 July 2022 review of draft by Delaneysteve[edit]


Yeah, right. So my submission about the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Marathon has been declined again. This time siting not reliable sourcing. Did the reviewers actually look at what was submitted? This is the third or fourth rejection. At no time did the reviewers actually specifically point to a problem with the piece, it was all generalities. There is seemingly no option for engaging with reviewers to see what they actually mean and find fault with.

And worse, when I compare what I have drafted to existing information about other provincial and city marathons, it is not out of line at all, and is better supported by references. So what gives?

Basically, I am through with this BS. And I am through with supporting wikipedia. It increasingly seems to me that this is an ego enterprise populated by folks who otherwise can't influence anything.

Delaneysteve (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain did an excellent job explaining the issues. It looks like you haven't provided independent sources discussing the race in detail. In order to demonstrate enough notability to warrant an article reliable sources with no connection to the subject have to provide significant coverage. That doesn't appear to be the case with this race. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delaneysteve, Existence is not notability. You have shown the race exists, now the question is, does anyone unconnected with the race care that it happens? Slywriter (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_July_26&oldid=1101633383"