Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 4 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 6 >
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.


March 5[edit]

00:47, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Salfanto[edit]

I need assistance improving this article Salfanto (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@salfanto: in what way? ltbdl (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main feedback I got was: "Article is a mess and is unfit to be reviewed." I need help cleaning it up and better organizing it Salfanto (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...in what way? ltbdl (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a start, get rid of all the unreliable sources like Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.
Writing an article begins with finding sources which meet all the criteria explained in golden rule; then writing a summary of what those independent sources say. 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) 17:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Hana Shinohara[edit]

move my draft:colors telugu to articles colors telugu Hana Shinohara (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hana Shinohara: it will be moved to the main article space if/when it is accepted, but at the moment it is still far from an acceptable state.
You had also removed the AfC template which puts it into the pool of drafts pending reviews; I've restored this. Please don't mess with the templates, thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Mahi6317[edit]

I want to know what could be the reason for the rejection of Wikipedia? Mahi6317 (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahi6317: presumably you mean Draft:Siyamak eliasi, in which case the reason I declined (not 'rejected', which is terminal) it because the referencing is insufficient and there no evidence that the subject is notable. Just like it says in the decline notice on top of the draft (those grey boxes inside the large pink one). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can be meant by insufficient content? Mahi6317 (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahi6317: I didn't say "insufficient content", I said insufficient referencing: most of the content in unreferenced, and most if not all of the sources are inappropriate (social media, Spotify, Apple Music). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean there should be no social media? Mahi6317 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, social media is generally not acceptable. We want to know what independent reliable sources say, not what the subject says about itself. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:15, 5 March 2024 review of submission by PeculiarUser[edit]

Page has been flagged for Quick Deletion, under the terms that the person is not notable enough. There are plenty of sources online citing that this individual is well-awarded, and recognized by various reputable organizations such as the World Bank and the United Nations, and that the page should be kept as a draft for further contributions to properly credit and cite this information. PeculiarUser (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PeculiarUser: this help desk isn't the place to dispute speedy deletion requests. That said, the request has now been declined. The draft remains rejected, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PeculiarUser, any draft containing promotional baloney like author, poet, and social entrepreneur working at the intersection of creativity, displacement, and youth empowerment is almost guaranteed to be rejected. That's overtly promotional social media jargon, not neutral encyclopedia writing. Who would possibly talk that way, except to promote someone online? Cullen328 (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Marco Novecento33[edit]

I have written the article based on a reliable source (since it is the official document on the DOC appellation of the wine I am writing about) - what can I do to have the page approved and te article created? Marco Novecento33 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article must summarize multiple independent reliable sources. Only one source is insufficient. It appears you have gone about this backwards; you should first gather sources and then summarize them, not write the text and then look for sources to support it. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the draft is unsourced; and the official document is a primary source, and should be used only to verify a small amount of uncontroversial factual information. The bulk of the material in any article should come from secondary sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:08, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Clonesen[edit]

I've been trying to write this wikipedia article from a notable company in the Portuguese eco system of audio software developers but keep having the article being reject because it "looks like an advertisement". I've found the initial draft which was very vague and tried to add all the sources I could find to establish notability, including more than 4 different sources, independent of the subject, as required per the guidelines. I would like to know what else is wrong about the article so I can do the necessary adjustments. Can you please provide me some assistance? Clonesen (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have too many sources, most of them are announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability(as Wikipedia defines a notable company). You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this company- coverage that goes beyond merely telling of their activities and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about this company, not what it sees as important about itself. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. References [1] [2] [3] [17] [18] [19] [21] are general wide, reliable sources, completely subject independent which mark the company notability, specially in the context of Portuguese and the fact that there is only one other company doing what this company is doing.
Which references do you think are irrelevant, can you please be specific about it?
Which paragraphs "look like an advertisement" and are not written from a neutral point of view?
Which paragraphs are irrelevant from the point of view of wikipedia guidelines?
Thank you once again for your collaboration and help. This is my first collaboration to wikipedia and I'm still learning. Clonesen (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are
  1. an interview with the founder of the company, not an independent source
  2. a brief piece based on an interview with the CEO, not significant coverage
  3. mostly tells of the products the company is developing
  4. a recording of an interview with the founder
  5. seems to just document UNESCO's involvement, doesn't even mention the company
  6. seems to just document the existence of the company
  7. seems to have no mention of this company
  8. a product review, not about the company itself
  9. another product review
  10. a place to obtain a product
  11. video from the company
  12. product review
  13. product review
  14. no mention of the company from what I can see
  15. same source as previous
  16. same as #8(see WP:REFB for information on using a reference more than once)
  17. walled but seems to be a product review
I could keep going but it really looks like none of the sources you have are appropriate for establishing notability. This will need to be radically rewritten to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this company, as I mentioned above. I see the term "startup" used a lot to refer to this company- "startups" rarely merit articles- a company must be established and recognized in its field to draw the coverage needed to merit it an article. It may be too soon for an article. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I wrote the first draft, which did seem like an advertisement, I investigated a lot about other similar companies' Wikipedia entries such as: Native Instruments, Arturia, Teenage Engineering, among others.
Most of these article references seem to be of the same types: interviews with the founders in websites independent of the subject and product reviews in non-subject-independent websites. What is the difference in these pages that make them compliant?
How can someone refer to bits of history if it weren't for stories told by key figures in interviews? I think that's the main purpose of interview references.
Some brief comments about your comments on the references:
1 - A interview with the founder by a portuguese newspaper. The source is subject independent.
2 - A whole article about what the company was doing. The source is subject independent.
3 - A relevant financial news source in Portugal. The source is subject independent
4 - I would agree this one could be removed, but still relevant to get pieces of the history and therefore not completely irrelevant.
5 - The idea is to show that Imaginando is a company located in a creative city of UNESCO, something that was mentioned in this paragraph. If it is not relevant, it can be removed.
6 - This states that the company makes part of this internal network of media arts hub, in the city of Braga
7 - I would agree that this could be removed.
8/9 - The early history before the company foundation is being told. Not relevant? It can be removed.
10 - Not a product download page. It's just to give relevance to the fact that he was a contributor to this project, as mentioned. Not relevant? It can be removed.
11 - The video is actually from The Qt Company and shows the founder of Imaginando giving a presentation in a conference of The Qt Company, telling the story of how and why he used Qt to build the technical foundation. This is ultra relevant to the previous paragraph.
12/13 - A reference from the subject dependent media outlet showing that the product got out (this is something that seems to be very common in many wikipedia company pages and one of the reasons I learn so much while reading wikipedia articles).
14/15 - Agree it can be irrelevant
16 - It is not a product, it's a media art piece.
17 - Walled for not registered users but it is a printed news paper and it is a story about the company with focus on their Harpa Laser media art piece.
Regarding 16 and 17, Jean-Michel Jarre made a Laser Harp, in his wikipedia page it says:
"The stadium was almost full when the concert began, but as Beijing's buses stopped running at about 10 o'clock, about half the audience left before it finished." with a reference to -> https://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/22/arts/china-is-exposed-to-laser-rock.html?scp=13&sq=jean%20michel%20jarre&st=cse
How is it different?
The company is 10 years old and has released multiple products used in professional environments and widely covered by media. The term startup is these days used very commonly for companies that have since become very successful and relevant, and therefore deserving of an article.
"Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered."
I believe that numerous sources do exist, especially when comparing with existing Wikipedia entries of comparable companies. With that in mind, I don't fully see how it is to soon for an article.
I will start performing the changes based on your feedback. If you have any further comment, please advise.
Thank you very much. Regards Clonesen (talk) 15:15, 5 March 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. It doesn't matter whether it is published by the subject or quoted in a newspaper: if the words come from the company, Wikipedia isn't interested in them.
As for other articles: Wikipedia has thousands and thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles, most of which were added long ago before we were as careful about standards. Ideally they would all be improved or deleted; but this being a volunteer project, that doens't happen very often. New drafts submitted are assessed against our policies and standards, not against other articles. If you find similarly poor articles, you are very welcome to improve them, or nominate them for deletion if their subject is not in fact notable as Wikipedia uses the phrase. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 5 March 2024 review of submission by 83.97.35.24[edit]

Hi, has this article reached notability now? I have included several interviews with the subject. 83.97.35.24 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews do not contribute to notability, as by definition an interview is not an independent source. As this draft has been rejected, it won't be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 5 March 2024 review of submission by John snow05[edit]

19 sources posted and linked but can’t see them John snow05 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

huh? ltbdl (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You only have two sources. Perhaps you forgot to click Publish which would have saved the new text to the draft. I have rejected the draft and it usually will not be considered further, but if you do find 19 sources and add them, let me know. Qcne (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John snow05, please do not create a new request for each new reply. It would be much appreciated if you could simply add your reply in this same section. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dupe ltbdl (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

16:40, 5 March 2024 review of submission by John snow05[edit]

Help John snow05 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32:54, 5 March 2024 review of submission by 182.191.139.113[edit]


182.191.139.113 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked a question and haven't linked to a draft. If your question is about the article you mention, you should discuss it at Talk:Institute for Legacy of Polish National Thought, not here. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't ask a question, but this article was published three years ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 5 March 2024 review of submission by Isaiahmh0712[edit]

I don't know how to put a biography on Wikipedia. Isaiahmh0712 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiahmh0712 You edited your user page and submitted it a an article draft, but your user page is not article space, but a place for the named person to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor or user. Creating an autobiographical article in article space is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, can you tell me how things work around here? Isaiahmh0712 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would direct you to the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you, I will use the user tutorial now, goodbye Isaiahmh0712 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_March_5&oldid=1213069962"