Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 November 22
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < November 21 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 23 > |
| 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. |
November 22
[edit]05:47:43, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Vise Electronics
[edit]
Hello!
I have just created Wikipedia page on 21 Nov 2016 and submitted for review.Now I got draft mail stating that article got rejected and wanted to know the reason behind the rejection. So that again I can create article and will not commit the mistake. Please help me out of this.
Thanks,
Vise Electronics (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Vise Electronics. The reason is explained in the message that was left on your talk page. Joe Roe (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
User now blocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
07:46:55, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Senthilsgsm
[edit]- Senthilsgsm (talk · contribs)
Let me know the reason why my page creation on this topic has been declined? Let me correct the mistakes. I have a lot of topics to create and I have the data related to them. Guide me where I struck so that I can continue my creations without error! Senthilsgsm (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Senthilsgm. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined is the reviewer who looked at it. That person is identified at the top of the draft, where you'll also find a button for the reviewer's Talk page. Before posting this, I took a look at your draft and found that I agree with the reviewer. Not only have you not demonstrated notability, your draft is almost completely unsourced. You need to tell the reader where you got each bit of information about the subject and, until you do, it will not be possible to determine whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notion of "notability". I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
09:20:27, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Yallanish
[edit]
My article has been waiting for review for over four weeks and I am just wondering why it hasn't been reviewed yet? Is there anything else I need to do for this to happen?
Yallanish (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Yallanish, the draft was reviewed and accepted yesterday, congratulations! So, what's next? I'd suggest you sign up to the Agriculture WikiProject, there you will find discussion and guidance on articles and topics that need improvement. It's a subject area that doesn't get the attention it deserves, given the very highly significant role of agriculture throughout history, and even pre-history. So a new editor with an interest in the topic is always welcome. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
16:36:54, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Santosh Pradhan
[edit]- Santosh Pradhan (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
santosh pradhan 143 16:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
16:36:54, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Santosh Pradhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santosh Pradhan (talk • contribs)
- Hello, Santosh. Do you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- The draft may have been User:Santosh Pradhan/sandbox. It doesn't appear to be a draft encyclopedic article but a test edit. What are you trying to write about? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
22:42:33, 22 November 2016 review of submission by Armstr30
[edit]
Hi - I recently submitted an article for approval. The article describes a company that I started last year, that does volunteer and paid work. I made no attempt to hide my conflict of interest - in the article I fully disclosed my ties to the company. Also I wrote the article in an unbiased way - simply facts about the company (no sales pitch). The company does exist in the real world, and is of interest to some people. Clearly there are wikipedia pages devoted to other companies. Why not mine? Do I have to wait for someone else to write this article? Seems a bit daft.
Thanks, Josh (armstr30) Armstr30 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Josh. Your submission has already been deleted, so I am unable to comment on how it might have been improved. The best general advice is to point you to WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which discusses the pitfalls of writing about yourself (or your company) and offers some alternatives that might be useful. I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
22:56:33, 22 November 2016 review of submission by A03v03
[edit]My article submission to articles of creation was rejected for reading more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. I was wondering if this could be elaborated as I believe the article is written in a neutral point of view with every citation being from an independent, reliable and published source. There are 4 separate article sources and the contents only references information available in those articles. Let me know what could be done to improve the article or do differently.
Thanks.
A03v03 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, A03v03. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined is the reviewer who looked at it. That person is identified at the top of the draft, where you'll also find a button for the reviewer's Talk page. Before posting this, I took a look at your submission and found that I agree with the reviewer's opinion. Note that the term "advertisement" is not always used to denote material that is overtly promotional (although that is a very common reason why the term gets used). In your case, I agree that the language is neutrally worded. However, the article itself is little more than a listing of the subject's products/services. This, too, can be viewed as "advertising" and I believe that this is what the reviewer meant. Nonetheless, the best person to talk to will be that reviewer. I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi A03v03, I also agree, an article about a company should primarily be about the history of the company, not a "current products catalog". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)