Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 18 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 20 >
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 19[edit]

01:17, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Drcool 25[edit]

Can you help review the article parts which are considered promotional parts of the article and edit to remove whichever is unnecessary. I am still new and would need guidance on writing Drcool 25 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drcool, your draft is overtly promotional and his been rejected for that reason. Promotional editing is forbidden on Wikipedia, and your draft will not be reconsidered, since it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Early on in your draft, you say that this business exists to make the world a more beautiful place. This overtly promotional sentence is followed by many other overtly promotional marketing sentences. That style of writing is not permitted on Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:42, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Aishu.m[edit]

All rejections of this draft have been for not citing reliable sources. Need assistance in understanding which sources are considered reliable and which are not. Aishu.m (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aishu.m: it's a combination of some sources used (eg. YouTube) not being reliable, and some of the content not being referenced at all. However, that's not the only reason why this has been declined (not 'rejected') multiple times; it's also that the sources have been insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind pointing to which content were not referenced?
Also, the cited sources are interviews provided by the subject to recognised publications/magazines. Are these considered reliable? I'm trying to understand why they are considered insufficient. Aishu.m (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews may be reliable, but they are not independent. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for the explanation. This really puts things into a better perspective. Aishu.m (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 19 October 2023 review of submission by NadellaMou[edit]

My article is declined due to the reason which is missing the neutral point of view and seems like a promotion. But my article is subject of public service application which is helping citizens. This is a worthy application which needs entry in Wikipedia it's a prestigious application of a State in India. The information I sourced from various news papers which I attached as references. Pls help me in publishing my article  NadellaMou (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NadellaMou: the app may well be "worthy", but that doesn't give you a licence to write about it in a promotional manner. "Innovative", "dynamic", "progressive", "harnessing the power", are all peacock expressions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest[edit]

What can I do to improve this article? I feel it has enough third person sources to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: this draft hasn't been submitted for review yet, you'll get feedback once you submit it and it has been reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:42, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest[edit]

What can I do to improve this article? I feel it has enough third person sources to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: this draft hasn't been submitted for review yet, you'll get feedback once you submit it and it has been reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Dwanyewest[edit]

What can I do to improve this article? I feel it has enough third person sources to justify an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: the reviewer left you a comment with their decline, have you considered that? Good sources are important, but they're not quite the be-all and end-all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I had a quick look at the sources, and FWIW they probably are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Can't say conclusively, as I couldn't access the EDV ones (paywall), but looked okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 19 October 2023 review of submission by 91.141.48.4[edit]

Hi - this draft article was rejected on account of the sources, but I belieive they meet Wikipedia's guidelines. RE: Apple Award, surely the best source for this is Apple Inc itself? Other sources in the article include Techcrunch, Forbes magazine and Entrepreneur (magazine), all of which are regarded as reliable sources in the business world and meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. So I am trying to understand why these sources are not considered sufficient by the editor? Thank you 91.141.48.4 (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that a draft may be resubmitted.
The sources themselves are not the issue, but their content. The draft largely summarizes the routine business activities of the company,(like raising funds) which does not establish notability. One unremarkable award is mentioned; awards do not usually establish notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Any article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as significant/important/influential about the company. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article- even in the same field- it depends on the sources.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID, as well as conflict of interest. Disclosing is easier to do with an account, but even if you don't wish to create an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Syler.mi4[edit]

Please suggest more sources Syler.mi4 (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Syler.mi4 the article has been rejected, there is nothing further you can do. Qcne (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Gitte bei Medienservice UHH Bio[edit]

I submitted an article revised according to your requirements, which was named as the new version "2" by you. Now this has been rejected because apparently the first one still exists and the new one is considered a duplicate. What can I do so that this new version is checked and released? Gitte bei Medienservice UHH Bio (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created the second draft- you should just edit the original draft. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 19 October 2023 review of submission by MariaMorris1[edit]

I initially created this page to give information about Daniel Ashville Louisy. Since then others have added to it and we have added credible links and the basic information required by Wikipedia.

I would like some help in what parts specifically I need to change as I am now worried about adding or removing any parts that will be needed for this article.

Thank you MariaMorris1 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MariaMorris1 Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and disclose your connection with Mr. Louisy. You must have one since you took a picture of him and he posed for you.
Wikipedia articles(not "pages") are not for merely providing information, but should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You describe his activities and background, but you do not tell what sources consider to be important/significant/influential about him. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok I will do more research on what to write that establishes better reliable sources as the articles I found on him seemed to be very reliable due to how popular the sources are but I will try to amend it and republish for review.
I only have seen Daniels show and social media and that picture is from his own website. MariaMorris1 (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Danceguru1212[edit]

Submission has been declined twice for my article despite providing several credible references. I am unclear on what specifically needs to be done to improve the article. Can someone help me with this please? Danceguru1212 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the external links within the text need to be removed.
In one part, you say she has "received acclaim" but do not describe what the acclaim is. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the suggested changes. Is there anything else that I need to do to improve my chances for approval? Danceguru1212 (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the suggested changes. Is there anything else that I need to do to improve my chances for approval? Danceguru1212 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Sadid Lailuma[edit]

Hello Sir, Madam,

I just submitted my first Wikipedia page, but it is rejected. could you please give me advice on what should i do? Thanks Lailuma Sadid Sadid Lailuma (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadid Lailuma: writing your username is clearly not a viable article draft. What were you trying to do? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 19 October 2023 review of submission by BhikhariInformer[edit]

In this article I have attached citations from The Times of India, Ei Samay Sangbadpatra, The Economic Times, The Telegraph (India), Anandabazar Patrika and also Youtube. All of these are usually the citations present for many other Bengali films and are considered to be reliable sources in many of the Bengali films, which have their Wikipedia pages based on the citations from these news websites. My draft has been denied on the basis of not being supported by reliable sources for verification. The film is already released with positive reviews from all critics. Hence, I don't understand why has this draft been denied. Do I need to submit it a few days later? Can you please tell me the reason. Can you also enlighten me on what can I do and what kind of other citations are required to verify this film, which are usually not present in the other Bengali film pages.

Thank you BhikhariInformer BhikhariInformer (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BhikhariInformer: it's not enough for the publications to be reliable and independent (and it's debatable whether the Times of India is that, esp. when it comes to entertainment and business reporting), they must also provide significant coverage of the subject. Given that the film was only released today, the sources are pre-release publicity, which usually does not establish notability. (I offer this as a general comment, I haven't looked at the sources cited in this draft in any detail.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info about Times of India. Then I will submit after a few days. BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BhikhariInformer: rather than "after a few days", you should wait until there are sources which demonstrate notability by WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, however long that may take. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks BhikhariInformer (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Articles published before a film's release almost never meet those criteria. Wait until some articles are published that do meet the criteria. This might take months or even years, but that is not an issue in Wikipedia, since there is no deadline. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 19 October 2023 review of submission by 195.43.130.152[edit]

Hi, why as it been rejected? He's an icon in advertising, the most influential man that formed most of the most influential creative minds in advertise in the world. An incredible professor that became a dad of hundreds of kids to which he gave the opportunity to build a second life to themselves. You could say that most of the ads out in the world today has been influenced by him. He recently passed away and the ad world across the globe is crying him. Could you please help me open up a profile for him? He NEEDS a wikipedia page. Thank you, a would very much appreciate your help. Please look him up on Google if you don't believe me. 195.43.130.152 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there is no draft for Tony Cullingham, and secondly there are no profiles, only articles on people who pass the guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in the universe "NEEDS" a Wikipedia page, because that statement assumes that a Wikipedia article is in some way for the benefit of its subject. It is not, except incidentally. Please see PROUD for how wrong that idea can be, in some cases. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 19 October 2023 review of submission by ChoudharySamrat[edit]

Kindly check the article I have one new reference for notability ChoudharySamrat (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added new reference to the article ChoudharySamrat (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Sidharthsnair[edit]

But these are the only sources I could find on the page Draft:HERONICS_Series Sidharthsnair (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the draft was rejected, and as such will not be considered further. The sources are just not there at this time. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 19 October 2023 review of submission by ChoudharySamrat[edit]

kindly refer to the other source I have mentioned in the references section please help if I'm missing something ChoudharySamrat (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChoudharySamrat As the draft has been rejected, you will now need to appeal directly to the rejecting review and try and show this person passes the WP:NPEOPLE notability criteria. Qcne (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked the Wikipedia:Notability (Academic) and it does passes the criteria for notability in point number 6 of WP:NACADEMIC as the person has a role of Vice-Chancellor of the Institute ChoudharySamrat (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChoudharySamrat I am not sure if he does pass #6, as I am not sure if ICFAI University, Tripura counts as a "major institution". I see you have re-submitted it, though, this paragraph is written in an inappropriate way: "Dr. Biplab Halder is a distinguished individual who has served as a National Advisory Committee Member in a notable capacity. His contributions and expertise have made a significant impact in his field". Please re-phrase to conform with WP:NPOV. Qcne (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Zahwa Jameel[edit]

Hey there editors.

This is my first time trying to publish an article. Please help me out and show me where I'm going wrong. I tried my best and still got rejection Zahwa Jameel (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something and what it does. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. "Significant coverage" is that which goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the subject- it doesn't just document its existence, tell what it does, or briefly mention it. Please read Your First Article.
You also used highly promotional language("the driving force"; "professional journey", etc.) which needs to be removed. If you are associated with this subject(paid or unpaid), that needs to be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should add links to other Wikipedia articles and because there are so many programming languages in the list I would recommend putting them in a paragraph form. You should also have at least one reference per paragraph. KingTheD (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Soroudh[edit]

Hello, I have prepared more than 35 reliable sources throughout the internet for my article from different websites. I avoid personal websites or organizations. I only use reliable newspapers and news agencies like the Guardian, the Tehran Times, and others like that. However, my translation of a Persian article has been rejected due to a lack of reliable sources. I have seen articles on Wikipedia about people who had less than 1 source and that source is the person's private website. Could you please help me or give me any hints? Thanks Soroudh (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soroudh Please see other stuff exists. Wikipedia has many inappropriate articles that have gotten past us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, you can identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help.
Note that what is acceptable on the Persian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, as the two projects are separate.
It's not a lack of sources that is the problem, but the ones provided do not seem to be reliable. I would suggest asking the reviewer directly for clarification. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 19 October 2023 review of submission by Avenging soldier[edit]

Hello, what is the reason why you did not allow my article to be published? Do you not have a problem that innocent people's lives are taken? Avenging soldier (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avenging soldier Wikipedia is not to be used to host your personal essays. Please carefully read What Wikipedia is Not. Qcne (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_19&oldid=1181814106"