Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 24 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 26 >
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 25

[edit]

07:22, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Sayerhsdilip

[edit]

Why my article submission was declined I need your assistance to understand the reason behind declining my article submission. So that i can revise the article and re-share for review. Sayerhsdilip (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerhsdilip I fixed your request to include a link to your draft as intended.
First, if you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please read WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.
Wikipedia is not a place to tell about a company and what it does. 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. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling what the company does and goes into detail about what is significant/important/influential about the company as the source sees it(not as the company itself might see it). Your draft does not do this, it merely describes the offerings of the company with promotional language("one stop shop"; "convenient and seamless", etc.). Much of the draft is also unsourced. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:29, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Musitafa Kalyowa

[edit]

Can I resubmit this article for review? Kalyowa Musita (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has been rejected and will not be considered further- no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an association with this person, it needs to be disclosed, please see your user talk page for more information. If you are employed by or otherwise compensated by this person, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 25 October 2023 review of submission by VPNMage

[edit]

Why is topic contrary to purpose of Wikipedia? There are lots of Wikipedia pages for VPN companies. I made some changes but now don't know how to submit article for revision again. VPNMage (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VPNMage your article has been rejected and will not be considered further. It's only purpose is to advertise and promote the VPN, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should delete this article too: NordVPN. It is much more focused on advertising. VPNMage (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. It provides a summary of what independent reliable sources say about the company- not merely documenting its activities. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that not every company merits a Wikipedia article- even in the same field. Competitors meriting articles does not automatically mean that your company does too. See WP:OSE.
I fixed your disclosure for proper display(you had coding in place to suppress it). 331dot (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. I will try to create similar article as NordVPN. Now I know what to look at.
Thank you. VPNMage (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VPNMage if you feel you can write a draft that passes the WP:NORG requirements and is written in a way that is compatible with WP:NPOV, ping me on my user talk page and I will have another look. Qcne (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is that you set aside everything you know about your company, all materials it puts out, and the mere reporting of its activities, and only summarize what independent sources choose to say about your company. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 25 October 2023 review of submission by DC1973

[edit]

My proposed article for author Darren Charlton has been declined. I have now cited coverage of the author's book deal in Bookseller magazine. Peviously, I cited reviews of the author's works in both The Times and The Guardian and where works have been shortlisted for prominent literary awards such as the Costa Book Awards. Can you please advise if this will be enough to qualify for acceptance and if not , what more could be provided so that it may be? Thank you. DC1973 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DC1973: you have resubmitted the draft, so you will receive an assessment when a reviewer gets around to checking it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Ricazevedo

[edit]

Hi, my name is Ricardo. I have been trying to post a new article on Wikipedia about the scientific biography of a researcher in my field, Dr Carlos Rogerio Figueiredo, and have faced issues.

I was required to revise my submission to be impartial and written in a formal tone of Wikipedia. I then completely revised the article and resubmitted it. However, I was informed that my submission appears to be an advertisement, which is not the case and doesn't make sense.

The article merely describes Dr Figueiredo's career and scientific tracking record, and the interpretation of "advertisement" is subjective, as describing any biography could also be a form of disseminating that person's career and life achievements.

Therefore, I was wondering if you could help me address the specific parts in the text that are causing the problem so I could move forward with this article submission.

I would really appreciate your assistance.

Kind regards

Ricardo Ricazevedo (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricazevedo First you must disclose your connection to this person, since you took a picture of him and he posed for you. See WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You did a great job documenting this person's activities, but that's not what we are looking for. We want a summary of what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about this person- how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In response to valuable feedback, I've revised my Wikipedia article by reducing excessive detail and emphasizing key milestones. I've also added credible references for the biographical sections, while maintaining well-sourced statements about research. To ensure neutrality, I've either removed potentially promotional phrases or ensured they're adequately referenced. These amendments reflect a commitment to upholding Wikipedia's high standards, and I deeply appreciate the community guidance. Ricazevedo (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you must disclose your connection to this person. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 25 October 2023 review of submission by EKHrvatska

[edit]

Dear help, I do not know how to ad references in EN version of the text when they are not existent in Wikipedia arena. I added official references from the official European Commission Representation in Croatia. User EKHrvatska Thank you for your swift treply. EKHrvatska (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EKHrvatska: see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using inline citations and footnotes.
You also need to show that the organisation is notable. Currently the references are all to its own website, which is a non-independent primary source.
Finally, you appear to have a relationship with the subject. I've posted a message on your talk page with advice on handing this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, understood. I would like to know how to do it (actually what to report under the CoI, the page is long and takes so much time to read). If I add couple of links like:
https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/u-zagrebu-proslavljeno-10-godina-od-ulaska-u-eu-plenkovic-hrvati-mogu-biti-ponosni/2475874.aspx
U Kući Europe Hrvati mogu doznati sve o pravima građana EU - Poslovni dnevnik
Otvorena Kuća Europe u Zagrebu | europski-fondovi.eu (archive.org)
Još jedna ceremonija: Otvorili Kuću Europe u centru Zagreba - Net.hr
and
Kuća Europe u Zagrebu – Wikipedija (wikipedia.org) Hopefully it will be OK? EKHrvatska (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EKHrvatska: I couldn't tell you without looking at those sources in detail whether or not they establish notability per WP:GNG, but I can tell you that the last one, the Croatian Wikipedia article, does not count.
I'll reply to your COI question on your user page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the four below listed are Croatian news portals.
https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/u-zagrebu-proslavljeno-10-godina-od-ulaska-u-eu-plenkovic-hrvati-mogu-biti-ponosni/2475874.aspx
U Kući Europe Hrvati mogu doznati sve o pravima građana EU - Poslovni dnevnik
Otvorena Kuća Europe u Zagrebu | europski-fondovi.eu (archive.org)
Još jedna ceremonija: Otvorili Kuću Europe u centru Zagreba - Net.hr
EKHrvatska (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 25 October 2023 review of submission by 180.188.243.126

[edit]

why my article is rejected 180.188.243.126 (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a website to compare services. Qcne (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Stephenjkrajewski

[edit]

Hi you have rejected Nomad eSIM for the following:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject I think that these are all met - two articles that go in-depth on the use Nomad, from the NYT and WSJ (reliable), secondary (very much so they review the app without any connection to us) and certainly independent. What needs to happen to get approval? Thank you. 

Stephenjkrajewski (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephenjkrajewski: I haven't read the NYT and WSJ articles, but even if they do meet the WP:GNG standard, two isn't enough, need at least one more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the the issue is the number of references not the references we've given. I will see if we have a third of that type. I will get back to you - thank you for your help. Stephen Stephenjkrajewski (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephenjkrajewski: like I said, I've not checked these sources as they're behind a pay wall, only assumed based on what you say that they meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to cover the topic in-depth, yours certainly don't, some don't even mention the subject others are just listings. Passing the criteria at WP:NCORP is NOT easy and you are nowhere near passing it. Theroadislong (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - if the article we're creating is about the simple of factual existence of an mobile application and it is used by thousands of people every month (which can be verified) and exists on the two major app stores and has been reviewed by actual users, why then is the bar so high in terms of reference? It would help if you had an example of a wiki reference of a mobile app that has been verified so we can match what they have done. Stephenjkrajewski (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of things exist, but we don't have articles about them, the simple factual existence of a mobile application is not a reason to have an article about it? Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephenjkrajewski: number of users is a meaningless metric as far as notability is concerned, as is where one might buy this app. The only thing that matters here is the sources, and whether they satisfy WP:GNG.
As for comparing with other articles, that is pretty futile, unless those articles have been rated as good, as otherwise you may simply replicate whatever problems they have. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing FYI: NYT articles are readable if you turn of JavaScript support for the site. The same trick does not work for the WSJ. KylieTastic (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Nayeem150

[edit]

I want to make Nayeem150 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayeem150 Nope, your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nayeem150: this draft (such as it is) has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further.
For future reference, please see WP:YFA and WP:REFB for advice on article creation and referencing, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:00, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Emilydenver

[edit]

I can't find reliable sources for the page as the news published is by articles. What do I do? Emilydenver (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Emilydenver: I've no idea what you mean by "the news published is by articles". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tone is not appropriate " thirst for knowledge and personal growth" "her heart remained dedicated" " revered institution" "a pivotal career move" 'a remarkable milestone" please re-write in a dry neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Plato.franco

[edit]

What can I do to make my sources better to make sure next time I submit this article it passes? Plato.franco (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Plato.franco: a key purpose of referencing is to tell the reader where the information came from, so that in can be verified. For example in the 'Biographical Information' section there is only one source cited, which doesn't seem to say anything about which high school she went to (irrelevant) or that her family moved to Sweden (ditto). So if those details don't come from that source, where do they come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 25 October 2023 review of submission by Mikivikipeditor

[edit]

The topic is was refused for not meeting notability criteria, yet it has been covered by multiple(5 in sources, i can find more if needed) diferent, independent, reliable sources, which matches the general notability guideline. Mikivikipeditor (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mikivikipeditor Balkan Physical Union is a primary source and not independent so not helpful for establishing notability nor are routine announcements about the event. For example, this source is a routine announcement. Take a look at the notability guidelines for events which is the relevant notability guideline. S0091 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 25 October 2023 review of submission by 103.206.205.213

[edit]

I am trying to get an article about GRV Media approved purely as the company is referenced in the article about its flagship website HITC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITC). However it is constantly rejected due to not having independent references and the use of press releases etc. Is there any specific minimum article length? I have added references to the gov.uk website showing the legitimacy of the GRV Media limited company (which also lists the founders as mentioned in this article). The company has recently surpassed 100m page views per month across its portfolio of websites making it one of the UK's largest independent publishers. What else can I do to prove the legitimacy of the article and content therein?

Thank you 

103.206.205.213 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP. Wikipedia is is not a directory so existing is not enough. Did you read through all the links in the decline notices that outline the notability criteria? The number of views is meaningless so are any sources that emanate from the company such a press releases and routine announcements like acquistions are considered trivial coverage. This is all outlined if you follow the links and read through the material. S0091 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Understood - I thought the press release would be valid as it wasn't emanated by GRV Media themselves. But rather a 3rd party independent and established publisher. Ok. Let me put together some better citations and sources before I resubmit again. Thanks for the feedback 103.206.205.213 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A press release is by definition "emanated by" the company in question. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing third-party with independence. The content within a source needs to be intellectually independent. Meaning even if a press release is published by WSJ, Financial Times, etc. all they are doing is regurgitating what the company says about itself so not an independent source. However, if they provide their own independent analysis, research, etc. not solely based on what the company says, then that may be used but it needs to be in-depth. S0091 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_25&oldid=1182721500"