Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 22 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 24 >
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.


October 23

[edit]

03:40:08, 23 October 2022 review of submission by Downinit9

[edit]

On previous decline the reviewing editor said "Probable notability yet editor keeps attempting to submit article that reads promotionally without modifying. Recommend flat out rejection on next attempt not written neutrally." I went ahead removed anything that was promotional and yet article was declined again. Also, want to let you know the first 2 declines were due to company not having enough coverage and I was advised here in help forum to change the page to be about the products not about the company, since there are plenty of coverage about the products, but much less about the company. So I went ahead and switched up the page to be about the products and resubmitted. There are plenty of product coverage and indepth reviews. Just check the references already provided.

Also per WP:PRODUCT: "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right."
If it still sounds promotional, please be more specific so I can revise it.

Downinit9 (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I see that no one has yet responded to my request.You were the one that suggested that if I change the company page to a product page that it may then qualify. Could you please review it now? Downinit9 (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have refocused the draft, but it doesn't summarize significant coverage of the footwear, it does little more than say it exists. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty coverage around the products that would be considered significant. Numerous publications have also called it the best walking shoes.
Please check wired, utah.edu, ABC 4 News in Utah also did a feature on TV which should establish notability, because huge network has talked and featured them on TV see abc4.com/ 1 and abc4.com/ 2. There are also many other articles in Google, which I have not bother to add, as these here should be enough to establish notability.
Additional source analysis is here Draft talk:KURU Footwear
and I just found: https://geardiary.com/2008/12/15/review-kuru-footwear/ Downinit9 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:19:02, 23 October 2022 review of draft by Mulairi

[edit]


Hello! i was creating a article about a cyber security specialist in Bulgaria i think he meets the wikipedia guidelines but i could not maybe present it like that and my article was moved to draftspace! if anyone could help regarding this. Mulairisuggest/consult 06:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mulairi: I can't tell you exactly why it was moved to drafts, but looking at the referencing I'm guessing it might be because apparently lack of notability. For an 'ethical hacker', the only way (that I know of) to demonstrate notability is via the WP:GNG route, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. This means, among other things, that anything written by the person themselves does not count. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the citiations provided were actually official and by looking into them it seems that it perfectly meets the wiki guidelines i am open for suggestions if you have them Mulairisuggest/consult 09:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mulairi: I've no idea what "citiations provided were actually official" means.
Considering that none — as in, not one — of the sources meets the WP:GNG standard, on what basis are you asserting this "perfectly meets the wiki guidelines"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:24:42, 23 October 2022 review of draft by Mulairi

[edit]


i think this article meets wiki guidlines and is ready to be published if any administrator or reviewer is open to review the article it could be a great help and provide some info on how to improve the article Mulairisuggest/consult 09:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft deleted, user indeffed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:56:48, 23 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahidsiraj

[edit]


I am updating the pervious deleted article about Stefan Leipold, because the pervious person added all wrong details and wrong references about Stefan Leipold. now the article is updated


Mahidsiraj (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahidsiraj: not that you ask a question, but just to say that this draft has been rejected and won't be considered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:09, 23 October 2022 review of draft by TransGobbledygook

[edit]

I first submitted the page for review during the summer, it got declined in August (2022); the reviewer back then said that the sources are reliable and independent, but weren't that much in-depth. Since then, I've added a couple of sources and polished the draft. I appreciate the help of my peers here to guide me, especially regarding the notability: I am not in a rush, and I'll keep working on the draft, but I need help.


TransGobbledygook (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TransGobbledygook: it's not clear what you're asking. In any case, the draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:49:58, 23 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Nostalgia Zone

[edit]


Hi, I’m confused by how notable it is because this page should have existed a while and besides it’s a bit of a copy of the List of tenants in 5 World Trade Center, so I do not understand the reason that it had to be rejected.

Hope we can sort this out, Nostalgia Zone

Nostalgia Zone (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgia Zone Please read other stuff exists. Looking at the other tenants lists, I'm not sure any of them meet the notability criteria in order to merit standalone articles. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly tell your reasoning. I have a idea to possibly fix this, how about there’s a single page dedicated to all the tenants of the original World Trade Center. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nostalgia Zone Wikipedia is not a memorial site (click here). David10244 (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the companies that occupied those buildings. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:16:14, 23 October 2022 review of draft by Mscj101

[edit]


Greetings, Thank you for your prompt review of my recent submission. As the original author and source of this article I am requesting more clarity on which aspect of my article submission warrants further citation(s). I have worked to provide valid resources, however any additional information or direction is greatly appreciated.

Please advise.

Mscj101 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mscj101: some of the sources cited are not considered reliable, and some of the content is not referenced at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:41:22, 23 October 2022 review of draft by Grimm au

[edit]


First time article creator here. I am compiling an article that currently has very little documented information at all in the public domain. It regards the history to Rossin bicycles, and while there is a lot of information in the community of owners next to nothing is documented and little is verifiable. It's going to take some time to gather. I believe there is only one person alive who has details of the Rossin company. All of the others are deceased. Wikipedia presents the opportunity to draw the information out, so that we might approach for validation. Some will be difficult to verify other than by the recording of various models, examination and documentation of each and this is going to take some time before there is sufficient information to submit a compliant draft.

Can you advise if this is a suitable use if Wikipedia, to permit a global accumulation of information in the draft document so that research might proceed.

Grimm au (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grimm au: sources don't have to be online, and they don't have to be in English, but they do have to be published and publicly available for verification. If you cannot cite such sources, then it will not be possible to create an article. Wikipedia summarises what other reliable sources have said; it is by definition never the first source of information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing and many thanks for your reply.
Herein the dilemma, there are no sources. If there were, the project would be unnecessary. It is starting to sound as if this project is not suitable for Wikipedia unfortunately. Grimm au (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Grimm au: I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the right place for this project. Might one of these websites be an alternative? --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it seems this is exactly the case. Thanks for offering the list of alternatives. I'll check it out. Grimm au (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_October_23&oldid=1118924685"