Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 December 21
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 20 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 22 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
December 21
[edit]04:14:13, 21 December 2015 review of submission by Hkak
[edit]
Hkak (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC) how do i play the games
- You don't. There aren't any games here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Maproom (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
08:37:19, 21 December 2015 review of submission by TakeMeTo
[edit]Hello, (I realize online forums are essentially a playground for anonymous abuse. I hope this page isn't one of those.) I just submitted a draft for my friend's start up company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Seratis There is no controversial content or absurd claims. The page does not look like a sales pitch, I took specific care to make sure of that. I provided 4 reference, including the company's website. The CEO of the company is involved with many non-profits including the United Nations. She is a well known and well respected individual and I have also provided a link to her wiki page. I don't want to dispute your process or the execution of your process, but I want to question the intent of your process. If you only care about major media coverage and major references, then you will only have pages about Coca-Cola or Tom Cruise. The whole point of wikipedia is democracy of information. If your policy is skewed towards only recognizing "mainstream", then you have already failed the basic democratic principle of wikipedia.
I am not angry with the moderator who decided to decline my posting, because he/she was merely acting based on the principles and guidelines created by the wiki organization. I am questioning the guidelines themselves. Ultimately, you are a private (non-profit) organization and you are in your right to accept/reject what you want. I can only request you to reconsider my article, while keeping in mind that not everyone is a major pharmaceutical company or a sports star.
Thank you
TakeMeTo (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi TakeMeTo, the independent sources you've cited are simply routine directory listings, passing mentions. We need at least two independent sources that discuss the subject (which is the company itself; not the founder, CEO, product or any other related or unrelated thing) in significant detail - at least a paragraph or two of substantial information about the company. Please take a good hard look at the notability standard for companies. I'm afraid you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia - it's not a democracy and we only cover topics that are already known in the world. Our mission is not to provide a vehicle for making unknown topics known. There are millions of companies in the world - the overwhelming majority of them will never be known outside of their local area or industry sub-sector - thus they will never qualify for an article here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of arbitrary information. It's also not our fault that the mainstream media cares more about the hairstyles of movie stars than about medical research. However the medical sector does in fact have its own "mainstream media" in the form of reputable scientific journals and magazines - have you searched widely enough for information about this company? In its current form the draft could possibly be merged into the article about Divya Dhar where it might rate a brief paragraph or two. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Iphone69babY (talk · contribs)
i have added all the information about the artist page with sources please help me to complete the wikipedia page for prajyot mahajan. Iphone69babY (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
12:44:43, 21 December 2015 review of submission by KarenJudyFrost
[edit]- KarenJudyFrost (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
I am trying to create a page about Oncopeptides, a company that is developing a new drug for multiple myeloma. The drug is in phase 2 clinical trials and results so far are really interesting. I was rejected and told I did not have enough independent references. I have since updated with 13 references, all but one is external. I think I resent the page for review again but am not sure and cannot see that I resubmitted when I log in. Please can you let me know how to check or if I haven't already, please let me know which button I did not press to get the update reassessed. Thank you Best regards Karen
KarenJudyFrost (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi KarenJudyFrost - the problem with your independent sources are that they are not about the company. I think if you rewrite the draft to be about the drug, rather than the company, it might have a better chance of getting accepted. Most of your draft content is about the drug and not the company anyway. Draft:Oncopeptides is correctly submitted for review but in its current state cannot be accepted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
19:35:37, 21 December 2015 review of submission by Beautiful4541
[edit]
Hello,
I created an article page for the Rainforest clothing company and it was declined. The reason stated was that the article read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry and needs to be read from a neutral point of view. My question is how and/or what should I change about the article so that it would be better written to follow these standards for submission acceptance?
Beautiful4541 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Beautiful4541 - Robert McClenon's example in his response in your draft is a perfect example. Throughout your article, you use terms like "an upscale luxury fashion apparel brand", "can be found in high-end retailers", "based on the premise that astute customers would appreciate fine quality", and "grown to become the premier resource for fine outerwear". All of these are highly subjective, promotional phrases. Don't sell us a product, tell us about the company. Almost the entire article, as it is currently written, is a promotional brochure. It also has at least two other issues. First, the tone (other than the promotional aspect), is also less formal than warranted in an encyclopedia article. Don't use people's first names, for example. Second, your sourcing needs improvement. The only two links you have are not valid for notability purposes. Of the other three not enough info is given: What is WWD? Is it a wrestling site? When you use news or magazine articles, write the entire name of the magazine, cite authors, give titles and page numbers. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 19:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
20:03:52, 21 December 2015 review of submission by Jasel.Cantu
[edit]- Jasel.Cantu (talk · contribs)
{}}
My article was deleted, I made some edits include citing only third party sources and including neutral basic information. I would appreciate more feedback on what I can do to help my article.
Gaby (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Jasel.Cantu: Hello, welcome to the Help Desk. Your draft has not been deleted; it is still available at Draft:Nebraska Latino American Commission! You are welcome to keep working on it and submit it for review when you are satisfied. (You can submit it by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft.) The two sources you have are a good start; can you find more information about the Commission? The article is very short right now. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 02:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
20:33:35, 21 December 2015 review of submission by Kriziadlp
[edit]
Hi there. I just re-submitted the article "Falk Preussner." It should be on Draft. Can you please advise if this article and the image meets Wikipedia guidelines for publishing? I would hate for it to be deleted and/or salted. I am willing to make any necessary adjustments to make sure this does not happen. Thank you! Kriziadlp (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Kriziadlp (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Kriziadlp: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. It seems like a lot of the references you've cited are press releases, which aren't independent of the subject and thus don't help demonstrate if the draft is suitable for inclusion. Also, most of the sources don't mention Preussner in any detail (or at all). Please find and add a variety of reliable, independent (third-party) sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 02:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
20:46:55, 21 December 2015 review of submission by Kaetalist
[edit]
The reason that a review is requested is for 3 reasons.
1) Time has moved on and there is many more references to this topic than previously. A book has been written and a number of prier groups are using the term Lifeism.
2) I am a first time user of Wiki, I don't really know how to structure the entry correctly, but this is now known fact, it need to be in the encyclopedia, so I would be grateful for some help, or to buddy up with a local expert in London to get this right.
3) There are other terms that Wiki has asked me to define eg Environomics and I need to learn how Wiki works to do this properly.
Regards Kaetalist
- @Kaetalist: Hello, and welcome to the Help Desk. If you would like to resubmit the draft for review, all you need to do is add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. A reviewer will then be along in the coming days or weeks to give you their feedback. Just looking at the draft briefly, it seems that a lot of the content is original research and is unsupported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. More reliable, independent sources explicitly discussing lifeism will be required. Also, see WP:REFB to learn how to add convenient footnote-style references to your draft. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 02:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- The draft needs a lot of work. It doesn't start by clearly stating what "Lifeism" is – this can probably be fixed. Its references are all supplied in a non-standard way – this could also be fixed. But most worrying, it has no acceptable references – most of them are not to independent sources, and the other one does not mention Lifeism. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Haririhariri (talk · contribs)
hello- my entry has been rejected multiple times. are you able to give me some pointers? thank you!
Haririhariri (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Haririhariri: Have you seen the comments left on the draft at Draft:Hariri & Hariri Architecture? Those give some helpful places to start. In short, the references need some cleanup and the language must be rewritten in parts to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Also, please ensure that you have a variety of reliable, independent sources that discuss the company in significant detail. Finally, please read Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 02:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)