Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 9 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 11 >
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 10

[edit]

00:07, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Frankincense Diala

[edit]

Please what do I do? Frankincense Diala (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankincense Diala: This draft has been rejected due to disregard of the prior reviewers' comments and critiques, and it will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it declined? There was enough citation to prove it's notable. So now what should I do? Frankincense Diala (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jéské Couriano, I blocked the user: too many COI/UPE suspicions here, and too much IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:04, 10 July 2024 review of submission by CBrookUM

[edit]

Can someone please let me know any specific items that led to this article being declined? Anything specific we can address? The reason I see it was declined is fairly general - lack of credible sources.

However, we have listed links to Washington's diary where he specifically mentions staying at the house multiple times, a letter he wrote to a friend stating his visit there, the NPS, a few Historical Societies, VF Park, a person with the PA Historical Society that did her Penn State thesis on the house, ArbNet, the official designator of Arboretums, Independence National Historical Park among many other sources. Curious how it took roughly 11 minutes from initial submission to review all of the sources.

Please let me know anything specific we need to provide, update or change.

Thank you CBrookUM (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CBrookUM Who is "we"? Only a single person should be operating and have access to your account. If you represent an organization associated with this historic structure, that needs to be formally declared, see conflict of interest. If you are editing as part of your job or otherwise get any form of compensation, the Terms of Use require that to be formally disclosed, see the paid editing policy.
Many passages of your draft are unsourced. What sources you do have seem to be primary(George Washington's diary, citations for it being designated a historic strutcure, etc.), any draft should mainly summarize independent reliable sources say about the structure. It may be notable(i.e. it wasn't declined for lack of notability) but it still needs sources. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:28, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Akaayu

[edit]

Why my Draft has been rejected Akaayu (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akaayu: your draft has been rejected, because after multiple reviews it still doesn't provide any evidence of notability per WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Prince kumar 2.0

[edit]

Can you help me Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince kumar 2.0: no. This draft has been rejected. If you could please stop creating – under any account – more drafts on this topic, that would be appreciated. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Sanya Wadhwani

[edit]

I submitted an article for review but it was declined. I was trying to add about a company in the encyclopedia that is helping students in grooming them for preparation for MAANG companies. Please guide me how to write the article and also highlight in the article where I made mistake. Sanya Wadhwani (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sanya Wadhwani. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. We are an encyclopaedia of notable topics. There is no evidence that Coding Blocks meets our notability criteria. Qcne (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanya Wadhwani your draft, Draft:Coding Blocks, was declined because it is written promotionally and that all sources are from the company's website. I've tagged it for speedy deletion for that reason. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Junurita

[edit]

I have found many sources to put in my article, why is my article considered to lack reliable sources? Junurita (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Junurita: you need to cite the actual sources, not Google. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Junurita (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 10 July 2024 review of submission by AngelynAsrisch

[edit]

hello sir

here is some more reference of this article

https://www.miragenews.com/research-inspires-journey-into-politics/ https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news-and-events/news/research-inspires-journey-into-politics https://crs.org.nz/the-crs-board https://cginz.org/Event?Action=View&Event_id=842 https://www.shirleyroadcentral.nz/community-boards/ https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-christchurch/results-linwood-central-heathcote-community-board-election-revealed https://www.ncwnz.org.nz/tags/ncwnzchch https://www.nzibt.ac.nz/profile/ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/431088/failed-ousting-exposes-party-political-influence-in-local-government-chairperson https://www.peopleschoice.co.nz/christchurch-community-board-candidates https://multiculturaltimes.news/profiles/2019/9/22/sunita-gautam-candidate-for-linwood-central-heathcote-community-board-central-ward https://www.neighbourly.co.nz/public/christchurch/edgeware/message/61335528 https://policy.nz/2022/waipapa-papanui-innes-central-community-board-central-subdivision/candidates/sunita-gautam https://venuefinder.nz/wedding-profile/sunita-gautam-celebrant/73566 https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/05/PCBCC_20240509_AGN_9126_AT.HTM AngelynAsrisch (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelynAsrisch: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Please don't post your sources here, we've no need of them here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AngelynAsrisch I have responded on your talk page. Qcne (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:41, 10 July 2024 review of submission by ArtsSquareWiki

[edit]

Hi everyone,

After my submission for this translated article was denied because it wasn't backed by enough reliable sources (it relied too much on the organization's references), I have been working on improving it. I have now gathered and incorporated information from reliable articles and documents from various sources around the web to rewrite the article.

I hope the revisions are now satisfactory. Could someone please review the article before I resubmit it for approval?

Thank you very much for your assistance.

All the best, ArtsSquareWiki (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtsSquareWiki: we don't provide on-demand reviews or 'pre-reviews' here at the help desk. If you feel you've sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reason(s), resubmit the draft, and you'll get feedback when a reviewer picks it up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks ArtsSquareWiki (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 10 July 2024 review of submission by CaptainTavish

[edit]

Hi, this was my first attempt at a Wikipedia Page.

I mistakenly focused more on the notable works of the company rather than the company itself. I've since edited the page to include more about the company including an external reference to a piece about the company itself, rather than just the news articles about their notable pieces. I've added a comment in reply to the reviewer that I've addressed their issues. I've resubmitted for review.

My question is, does this now join the back of the queue and sit there, waiting another couple of months or more before it gets picked up by someone else to review?

If I've not done enough and need to edit it again, this could become a long process. Is there anyway to get feedback as to if I've done enough?

Thanks. CaptainTavish (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainTavish: I haven't looked at the draft yet, but just to answer your question about back of the queue, there is no queue. There is instead a pool. In other words, drafts go in, and reviewers pick what they want, when they want, in no particular order. So yours may get reviewed as I'm typing this, or you may have to wait a few months, or anything in between; there's no way of telling. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. As it happens, that is what happened. While I was typing the question someone has taking a look at the draft. Ironically, having been told to talk about the notability of the company more, the latest feedback was that it was now too promotional... Hopefully I've addressed this now. Thanks. CaptainTavish (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason why it is promotional is that it is largely what the company wants to say about itself (eg the section on Community Engagement cites one source which is largely quoting the founders, and another which only mentions the company. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you that is helpful. I'd thought that it was ok, because only the factual aspects of the event were mentioned on the wiki page. I have found an alternative source which doesn't include any quotes from the business owner. CaptainTavish (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Avi Gazit

[edit]

Hello, the draft rejected because the resources I have presented in the draft - I quote - "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

To my humble understanding the official website of India' Prime Minister is quite a reliable for the article, isn't it? Also, the YouTube link present India' PM himself meet Hiroko Takayama.

An explanation what i am doing wrong or what additional resources are need to make this draft appropraite for publication will be much appreciated, thank you very much. Avi Gazit (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi Gazit: the Indian PM's website and YouTube channel are primary sources, whereas we need to see secondary ones. Also, two sources (which are actually just one source) wouldn't be enough to establish notability in any case; we need 3+.
And articles on living people (WP:BLP) require inline citations to support pretty much every material statement, whereas you've only listed these sources at the end without citing them anywhere. Thus the entire draft remains unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your prompt and kind reply. Could you please refer me to a guide for adding an article, so I could understand what exactly are these secondary sources and else needed to stand the standard? Thank you again. Avi Gazit (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avi Gazit: in most cases, notability is established according to the general notability guideline WP:GNG. This requires sources to be, among other things, secondary, which typically means newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc. (although the issue is more nuanced than that; media channels may also provide primary or tertiary content, even if they usually are secondary).
In addition to GNG, there are also some special notability guidelines, and in this case the ones for artists (WP:ARTIST) or academics (WP:NACADEMIC) could conceivably apply. These both have specific criteria, one or more of which needs to be met, backed up with reliable evidence. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Following are some major newspapers (in digital) in Japan. Will adding those to draft as additional resources will enable the article to be properly posted/published in Wikipedia?
1) https://www.sankei.com/article/20230605-KZSIMXYLOZNBDFGMUATA4UQUTQ/
2) https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR6N7J9JR6LPITB017.html
3) https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/local/hiroshima/news/20230609-OYTNT50068/
4) https://mainichi.jp/articles/20230613/k00/00m/040/171000c
Last is a major newspaper in several prefectures in Hiroshima area:
https://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/articles/-/312596 Avi Gazit (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of adding the links, you need to rewrite your draft to summarize what the sources say. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Sushil Dobhal

[edit]

Hello sir, why my article submission was declined, please post my article. Sushil Dobhal (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It tells you at the top of the draft The submission appears to be written in Hindi. This is the English language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Woodgrain1

[edit]

Hi, I created this page to be informative about a social networking service. It is similar to other articles already on Wikipedia, however it was rejected due to notability. Can you give a more specific reason on why or how I can fix this to have the page published? Thanks Woodgrain1 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Writing an article starts with finding independent reliable sources which discuss the subject in depth. If there aren't any, then the subject cannot meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and not article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woodgrain1, your draft is entirely lacking references to reliable published sources that are both completely independent of Image Eagle and that devote significant coverage to Image Eagle. Without references to such sources, it is simply impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about this topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The service was launched this month (according to the draft), meaning that WP:Too soon may be in effect at this point. Wait till significant third-party writeups come in over the next several months or more--provided it really takes off (even within its niche). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Damjana12

[edit]

Hello, Recently I created my first wiki page which got declined first and since then I've implemented some recommended changes. I would value it a lot if you could please have a look into it and let me know if you see anything that would need more work and improvement so I can make sure the page gets published when it has a second review. This is the link to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Kotter

Thank you in advance for your guidance and support, what a great community of people I'm learning a lot from all of you.

Best wishes, Damjana Damjana12 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Damjana12: you also asked this at the Teahouse; please don't ask in several places, as it duplicates efforts.
You need to respond to the conflict-of-interest (COI) questions Hoary posed, which has also been queried on your talk page.
We don't really provide pre-reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, so you'll get feedback when a reviewer picks it up. But after a quick scan I'd say it looks like there's a good chance this person may be notable (h-index of 46 isn't to be sniffed at), but the draft is written in a vaguely promotional manner, and there is unreferenced information which needs supporting (eg. what source provides his DOB, or his educational background?), so those might be areas to still work on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance. I apologise for any inconvenience caused by posting in multiple places; I understand the importance of not duplicating efforts. I will focus on addressing the conflict-of-interest (COI) questions Hoary raised on my talk page and the Teahouse.
Regarding the draft, I appreciate your quick scan and feedback. I'll make sure to revise the draft to avoid any promotional language and will add reliable sources for all unreferenced information, including the subject's date of birth and educational background. I'll also be patient and wait for the official review of the resubmitted draft.
Thanks again for your help! Damjana12 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:52, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Aidantonebase

[edit]

Hello, a little while back I submitted a page draft for this company (in full disclosure I do work here, I have taken every action I know of of disclosing this on my page and keeping the language of the page as neutral as possible).

The post got rejected due to a few reasons, including some language which I can see to be a bit promotional. I've got a question regarding frequency/type of references:

My post was taken down because not every single sentence came with a reference, including each bullet in a very long list. Another point was that there were non secondary sources, even though the article hit the minimum of 5 reputable secondary sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. What is the guideline behind these aspects? Here are two pages I'm also curious about:

Both of these pages have a few reliable sources based on the Wikipedia guidelines, but they also resort to using company information publicly available, as well as leaving out references when it becomes redunant (see the bulleted list on the Masterclass page). I based my page entirely off of Masterclasses page since we are in the same industry, but the points I was knocked down for seem to also be violated by MasterClass's and Spotify's page. I asked the individual who approved the rejection of my post but haven't heard back in a month.

If someone could clarify why these two companies are allowed to have their pages formatted the way they are and tonebase is not, that would be super helpful and save me from submitting another invalid draft to AoC. Tonebase is a very well established company with plenty of reputable media coverage in line with the Wikipedia policy, so I'm willing to be flexible to adhere to any rule set forth. Thank you! Aidantonebase (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aidantonebase You have some common misunderstandings about Wikipedia. First, Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves, their offerings, and what they consider to be their own history. Wikipedia articles about companies summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the company or routine information(like financial reports) and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about a company- not what it sees as important about itself. That one company in an industry may merit an article does not automatically mean others in the industry do as well. The vast majority of companies do not merit Wikipedia articles. This may include some that actually have them, and just haven't been removed yet- this is why it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, see other stuff exists. It's best to use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Companies do not maintain the articles about them here, and they do not own them or exclusively dictate what appears there. Ideally, articles are written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. If you have evidence that Spotify or MasterClass employees are maintaining their articles without the Terms of Use required disclosures(the one you made), I can tell you how to provide that evidence(do not provide it here, publicly).
Regarding your draft itself, it was deleted as thoroughly promotional, in seeing it(I can view deleted articles as an admin) I must agree. You need to set aside everything you know about your company, all materials it puts out, and only summarize what others have chosen on their own to say about your company. (no interviews/press releases). My advice is that you go on about the business of your company as if you had never heard of Wikipedia and allow an article to organically develop in the usual way through independent editors taking note of coverage of your company. That's the best indicator of notability. Companies trying to force the issue themselves aren't often successful. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_10&oldid=1234770473"