Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 June 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 19 << May | June | Jul >> June 21 >
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.


June 20

[edit]

00:36, 20 June 2023 review of submission by Arthurf333

[edit]

Can you please explain why was this article was turned down when this totally qualifies? The reason given for decline says:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics).

As far as my understanding goes, this is not true -

Criteria for musicians and ensembles... 2.) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. - THIS PERSON HAS HAD THREE ALBUMS ON BILLBOARD CHARTS - it says this is the first paragraph

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2]

There are many references totally about Pauline. Here are two from Newspaper Publications (reference #17 I just added)

reference #13 https://www.thereminder.com/dining/movieguide/musical-musings-pauline-frechette/

THIS IS AN ONLINE VERSION OF AN ACTUAL PRINT NEWSPAPER - The articles is a review of Pauline's work

reference #17 (new) https://oldtowncrier.com/2017/11/27/a-quiet-walk-in-the-snow-christmas-version/ THIS IS AN ONLINE VERSION OF A PRINT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE - this article is also a review of Pauline work and totally about her. 

Arthurf333 (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Arthurf333, please do not WP:SHOUT by using all caps. The draft is declined not rejected, meaning you can make improvements and resubmit it for resubmit for review. I note The Reminder takes submissions from the public and the linked article says "Special to Reminder Publishing". Special from who? Ron Powers? I do not see him listed as part of their staff so it is unclear. Oh, so now I see it is the same article he wrote for Old Town Crier so it a duplicate. Ok, so that is one source but I do not see anything on their site about their editorial practices so seems like at best a weak source. Some of the other sources used are blogs and forums, which are not reliable and Stere Stickman are for promotional purposes so not reliable. Others do not have in-depth coverage about her or are simply announcements with no by-line suggesting they are press releases or the like. What the draft needs are better sources, if they exist, then you can resubmit the article. Also be mindful of the reviewer's note about close paraphrasing. S0091 (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is helpful. What I don't understand though is that Pauline has had three Billboard charting albums. Shouldn't that be enough by itself to qualify? Arthurf333 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthurf333 see WP:Charts as generally that requires making the overall Top 100 etc., not the Top 100 of such-and-such genre. Also that is only an indicator a musician might meet WP:GNG, not guarantee they do (WP:NMUSIC states may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria., emphasis mine on may). Ultimately they need to meet GNG. S0091 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your references help clarify a lot. I know what to work on now. Arthurf333 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:30, 20 June 2023 review of submission by Digital Transformation HCI

[edit]

Hi, Could you please guide me on what I need to fix. The intention of creating this page is to act as the point of information regarding the institution.

Thanks Digital Transformation HCI (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your page was rejected, and won't be reconsidered. Wikipedia is not a site to promote various organisations, and organisations that meet WP:GNG must be written in a neutral manner. Gorden 2211 (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 20 June 2023 review of submission by NASAR OM

[edit]

I need assistance support to my personal Bio NASAR OM (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your bio was deleted as unambiguous promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:23, 20 June 2023 review of submission by Joshramirezus

[edit]

Sorry, this is the first article I've created and the second time I've edited it following the instructions of the last editor who reviewed it. But, after my last edit, a new editor send me the same instructions again, after having made the changes. It's OK if you don't want to publish this article, but I don't understand how I will have to create the next new articles I would like to contribute to Wikipedia. In this case, I have simply followed the structure of other articles from similar companies on Wikipedia such as Nextiva, Ringcentral or Vonage, but you tell me it's no good. Does that mean I can't look at existing articles to create new articles? Would you let me know an specific reason for the article's rejection? Thanks a lot in advance Joshramirezus (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshramirezus Please see other stuff exists. It is not usually a good idea to use any random article as a model or example, as these could be problematic and you would be unaware of this as a new user. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been evaluated by the community.
Your draft does a nice job of summarizing the routine business activities of the company- that's exactly what we are not looking for. An 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. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling what the company does, or merely mentioning the company, and goes into detail about what the source sees as significant/important/influential about the company, not what the company sees as signficant about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 20 June 2023 review of submission by Ankita Blingglobal

[edit]

I want to publish this article hence seeking an assistance on submitting and publishing this article Ankita Blingglobal (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have done this backwards; you wrote a text with only one source. You should first gather independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this man and then summarize them.
If you work for, represent, or are otherwise associated with this man, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankita Blingglobal: a single source, once cited, is nowhere near enough to support the draft contents or to demonstrate notability. To stand any chance of being accepted, you need to improve the referencing considerably, as per the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi really appreciate you for helping me. can you please guide me through this. Ankita Blingglobal (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Wikipedia:Notability (people) policy. To sum up:
- Reliable Sources: Your article should rely on strong, reliable sources. These sources should be independent of the subject (not self-published or from the subject's own website) and published by reputable institutions. Primary sources can be used for basic facts, but they should be supplemented with strong secondary sources that offer analysis or interpretation.
- Significant Coverage: Your subject should be discussed in detail in the sources you find. A brief mention is not usually enough to establish notability. The sources should provide in-depth information about the subject, going beyond basic facts or promotional material.
- Multiple Sources:You should find at least three strong, reliable sources that discuss your subject. If all of your information comes from a single source, it may not be enough to demonstrate that the subject is notable.
Currently your draft only has one source and it does not mention Sandeep Modi at all as far as I can see. You therefore need to find at least three reliable sources that discuss in detail and in depth Sandeep. Please note, interviews can only be used to reference straight-forward facts.
Hope that helps. Qcne (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:36, 20 June 2023 review of submission by William Harald Cox

[edit]

what should I change in my article so that Wiki can post my article? William Harald Cox (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@William Harald Cox: that's a tricky question.
On one hand, you should reference the draft correctly, and provide evidence that the subject is notable, as detailed in the decline notice.
On the other hand, if this is you writing about yourself, then arguably you shouldn't be doing this in the first place, and therefore you shouldn't be editing it at all (see WP:AUTOBIO for why that is). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post a list of their accomplishments, please see the autobiography policy. It is not forbidden to write about yourself, but it is highly discouraged. To be successful in writing about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you. Please read Your First Article as well as Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 20 June 2023 review of submission by M.parvage

[edit]

This submission may not appear to read more like an advertisement. But If it is, I am requesting help to improve it, as the information are from authentic sources. M.parvage (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M.parvage: what is your question? The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M.parvage (ec) The lead of the article says this store is pioneering, but it doesn't say how. The rest of the article summarizes the routine activities of the company and some unremarkable industry awards(by "unremarkable" I mean that the awards do not have articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). If this store does something pioneering according to independent reliable sources, this draft should primarily describe what that is. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneering to use technologies, as described later about the usage of IOT. AND in term of awards, brand related Bangladeshi well known awards are given to this brand/company. M.parvage (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M.parvage The draft says "The company uses big data and the Internet of things (IoT) to track inventory, manage supply chains, and provide personalized recommendations to customers"; Most big companies do this today, this doesn't say how it is significant or pioneering that this company does so. In any event, the aspects I discuss above should be reduced or removed. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Now understand. Changing accordingly. M.parvage (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 20 June 2023 review of submission by Q-conner

[edit]

some help Q-conner (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Q-conner: you don't specify what help you want, but just to say that this draft has now been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Q-conner I have left advice for you on your talk page under the section 'paid editing'. I hope you find it helpful, because what you have currently drafted is wholly inadequate for an encyclopaedia entry about a historic house. It just reads like an advert for a nice hotel. We don't accept that sort of content. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:05, 20 June 2023 review of submission by Readerx nk

[edit]

On how to further populate this page according to your guidelines 

 Readerx nk (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Readerx nk. As this draft has been rejected it will not be considered further - there is nothing you can do. This singer does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. Qcne (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 20 June 2023 review of submission by Mileslong123

[edit]

Still waiting for a review Hello, i know i'm expected to wait for a review or re-review, the guideline seems to be about 4 months. However, i have now been waiting about that and just wondered realistically how long i should wait. The article is at: Draft:Symbiant Company It was originally declined for not showing enough evidence of why the company should be listed, so i added further references and information and re-submitted. Any help or feedback would be appreciated. Mileslong123 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mileslong123 I've fixed your post; you had a sentence where the name of the draft should have gone; I've also removed the url which is unnecessary(simply place the target page title in double brackets as I've done).
There is no way to guarantee a speedy review. A review can take 4 months or more. There is a very limited number of reviewers to review thousands of drafts, and they work in no particular order. Please continue to be patient.
I noticed that you claimed the logo as your own work. If you created the logo, that you uploaded it to Wikipedia means that others can copy it and sell it/use it and you or the company would not be entitled to any money from such sale/use. Wikipedia's license allows for reuse of content for any purpose(including commercial) with attribution. Logos are typically uploaded under fair use rules. Fair use images cannot be in drafts, and cannot be uploaded to Commons- they must be uploaded to this Wikipedia locally. I wouldn't worry about the logo right now- images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources.
I also gather that you work for this company, if so, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. You should also read about conflict of interest and if your boss instructs you to edit Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also lastly add that Wikipedia is not a place to "list" anything. This isn't a database of things that exist, it is a curated encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability- like the definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am retired, i do not work for this company. I have no conflict of interest. Mileslong123 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be retired but you do absolutely have a conflict of interest which you need to disclose on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure how me working for Worldpay is a conflict of interest. I had dealings with Symbiant many years ago but nothing much for the past 20 years and like i said I am now retired. Anyway i have put this on my page now. Thank you for your feedback. Mileslong123 (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mileslong123. Looking at the article as it stands, it has two issues. Firstly, and the easiest to fix, is the language used is not quite from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It reads more like a piece from an advertising brochure or the "About us" section on the company website. Wikipedia articles should only summarise what independent third party sources say about the subject.
This leads onto the second problem, which is there is a lack of sources with significant coverage. For example, source 6 is not suitable as it is written by the CEO, which does not make it an Wikipedia:Independent sources. Have a read of the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) policy.
I think you might have done this article Wikipedia:BACKWARD, by writing the article first then trying to find sources.
Hope that helps. Qcne (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne this is really helpful, thank you. My first draft was rejected because it didn't have enough references so I searched for more information online and tried to build the page around what I found. Mileslong123 (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Try and find some sources that are fully independent (i.e. aren't just interviews with the CEO- these are just marketing pieces like source 1 / 10). Source 7 is the kind of thing your after, but it only really mentions Worldpay not Symbiant. Try and find at least three reliable, comprehensive, independent sources like that one, detailing Symbiant. If you don't find sources like that it might simply be the case the company doesn't meet those notability requirements. Not every company in the world gets an article, unfortunately! Wikipedia is not a directory of every company. Finally, just a note that your article has not been "rejected", only "declined". If it is rejected then it will not be considered further, but as it's only been declined you still have a chance. Qcne (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you again, re the Source 7, Symbiant is mentioned. "WorldPay was established as an online multi-currency payment system in 1997 by Nick Ogden, who partnered with National Westminster Bank to provide the financial systems and Andrew Birch of Symbiant to provide the end user payment gateway" Is this not useful? Mileslong123 (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be Wikipedia:Significant coverage. You can cite that source for basic facts (such as the year of founding and the CEO), but as its just a passing mention it wouldn't count towards the significant coverage test, unfortunately. Qcne (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seems like i might be flogging a dead horse here. I just thought because they were instrumental in the founding of e-commerce in the UK and a significant part of the formation of what became a major financial institution, It would be worthy of an entry. Mileslong123 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find some independent sources that go over how they were influential in founding e-commerce in the UK, then that would probably work. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that only summarises what third party sources state about a topic, so even though you believe they were significant we need to see that verified via sources. Sorry, it can be quite a difficult hurdle to overcome! Qcne (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 20 June 2023 review of submission by Teenage

[edit]

I don't find the right link to respond to reviewer comments and back up my arguments:

- "Sources 1-2, 4-5 are not independent": OK, but for open sources projects it the main proof of existence and popularity (for instance you could compare "stars", "forked" and "watched" counters with other tools reference by wikipedia, e.g.: https://github.com/apache/jmeter), it also be considered as an independent source since github represent the whole raw actual software. Other similar tools (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_JMeter#References) don't have any independent references.

- "6 is a blog": OK, but 99% of open source IT literature is blog :(

- "3 and 7 are not significant coverage": 3 is a deep 1.3k+ words review of the product done by a competitor Teenage (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a list of everything that exists: it is an encyclopaedia which consists of articles that summarize what independent reliable sources have published about a subject - that is all. If sufficient independent reliable sources have not been published, then there is literally nothing which can go in an article, and the article will not be accepted. see WP:AMOUNT.
Essentially nothing on github is a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition, for the same reason that iMDB and Wikipedia are not reliable sources: because it is effectively entirely user-generated, and not subject to editorial control and fact checking. ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, softwares are not objects or people, and for open source ones their "self" and proof of existence are on public repositories such as github. These repositories are not listings or references as imdb or wikipedia, they are THE reliable source since "they are" the whole object/subject.
They also provides reliable metrics about project "fame", so a well renowned project could be differentiated from a private one or a scam. Once again you could easily compare these indicators with those of other similar tools already referenced into wikipedia.
As for references quality, please check all the other tools listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_server_benchmarking, the references I provide are similar or superiors to theses pages (But most of these do not respect the wikipedia standards).
Anyway, I'll try to improve my page and keep searching for more references Teenage (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're misunderstanding what Wikipedia is requesting here. The "self" and proof of existence are primary sources – see WP:PST for why these cannot be used to support notability. You're going to have to find multiple independent, non-self-published, reliable secondary sources (two or three) that discuss the topic for it to meet the general notability guideline. The reliability part is probably going to be the hard one here – make sure you're working with Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:55, 20 June 2023 review of submission by Mohsin Khan Shaik

[edit]

CAN YOU GIVE THE ADVICES TO GET IT PUBLISH AND ALL REQUIREMENT FOR THE NEXT ARTICLE 

Mohsin Khan Shaik (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohsin Khan Shaik Sorry, Wikipedia isn't Linkedin. We don't publish articles on ordinary people doing ordinary things. -- asilvering (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_June_20&oldid=1161938976"