Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 21 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 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.


January 22

[edit]

03:27:47, 22 January 2017 review of submission by Joydip.B

[edit]


Hi, i am writing an article about a company which is more than 20 years old & popular in Indian heavy equipment segment, this is my first article, the article is facing notability issue, however i made certain changes after the comment i received form the reviewers, please suggest how to improve & how to make the article live.

Joydip.B (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joydip. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. If you don't already know, you should be aware that your draft has been nominated for deletion. These nominations typically run for seven days before being decided and you are free to add your opinions to the discussion. That discussion is taken place at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tractors India Pvt Ltd. I took a look at your submission and found (as did the reviewers) that many of your sources are either the company itself or re-published press releases. However, I cannot honestly say that I clicked through all twenty-nine of the references, so I might have missed something. In a few minutes, I'll open up a discussion section on the Talk page of your draft. After I do that, feel free to make a case for keeping your draft. To do so, please identify three references in the article that are from sources that are independent of the company, that are not re-published press releases, and that give substantive coverage to the company (i.e., not simply routine business announcements). I'll keep that Talk page on my watch list and, after you've identified those sources, I'll be happy to comment on them. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joydip.B (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Thanks NewYorkActuary, please check the suitability of these references, 1st & 2nd are mainstream financial research media in India, 3rd reference is International Mining journal, 4th one is Caterpillar Inc. website.[reply]

http://www.hdfcsec.com/Research/ResearchDetails.aspx?report_id=3008734, http://www.icra.in/Files/Reports/Rationale/Goodearth%20Minetech%20-R-20062016.pdf http://im-mining.com/2014/03/28/tractors-india-gets-part-of-the-expanded-cat-mining-distribution-business-from-caterpillar/ http://www.caterpillar.com/en/news/caterpillarNews/h/cat-dealer-tractors-india-private-limited.html

Joydip.B (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Hi references i used are from main stream newspapers & magazines in India (The Hindu, DNA India, Business Standard, The Telegraph, India Today, and Economic Times), Few references are from mainstream financial research institutes (BP Wealth Management, HDFC Securities, ICRA), Few references are from Caterpillar inc. website, Company information from https://www.zaubacorp.com/company/TRACTORS-INDIA-PRIVATE-LIMITED/U29150WB1995PTC072501 TIPL is very popular in Indian earth moving equipment segment, probably i used references in a wrong way, please suggest which reference to use & which not to use[reply]

05:27:40, 22 January 2017 review of submission by Jbhays11019

[edit]



I just wanted to know what the purpose of the sandbox is. And what's the difference between sandbox and talk page? Jbhays11019 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jb. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Questions such as these are best asked at our Teahouse. But as long as you're here, I'll be happy to point you to two pages that describe these two very different things -- for sandboxes, see WP:ABOUTSAND and for Talk pages, see WP:TP. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:31:32, 22 January 2017 review of submission by Joiecalio

[edit]


Thank for your time/help. I have edited my submission but wanted to clarify the feedback given before i resubmit. Did you want me to remove the links to Facebook and twitter in the links section? Not a problem if so but wanted to be sure that is what you were referring to. Thanks

Hello, Joie. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I took a look at your submission but found it difficult to assess the quality of your sources, in large part because you have presented them all in the form of "bare URL's". The {{cite web}} template is something that you ought to use, because it will assist you in ensuring that all essential bibliographic information is provided to the user and also because it will automatically produce an easier-to-read formatting of that information. But from what I could see, you face two major problems with your draft. First, many of your references are to user-generated sites such as IMDB and Discogs (and, perhaps, some others). User-generated sites are not considered reliable here on Wikipedia and any material that is being supported by them is prone to removal. But the larger problem is that much of your submission covers the same ground already covered in the Wikipedia articles on the subject's bands (dada and 7Horse). There is no reason to duplicate that material here and, without it, I don't see how you can justify a stand-alone article. You might want to take a look at the final paragraph of our guidance at WP:MUSICBIO, which essentially tells us that members of bands do not "inherit" notability from their bands. Unless you can demonstrate that the subject is notable for reasons independent of his membership in Dada, it will be difficult to get this submission accepted for publication.
I note that your user name is the same as the subject of your submission. Wikipedia policy discourages anyone from writing an autobiography. For more detail, see WP:AUTO. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:08:47, 22 January 2017 review of submission by Tanubg

[edit]


Tanubg (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tanubg/sandbox

I saw that request to put up my article was rejected. I went out & looked of other Brands have put up their pages. I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi

Enchanteur is a Brand. True it is not advertised as much as Pepsi, but it exists, Just like Pepsi & that is a Fact.

The article had no exaggerations. Can you please reconsider putting this up?

Thanks & regards Tanuja

Hello, Tanuja. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. It is not going to be enough to simply say that the product exists and that the article has no exaggerations. Even if you provided enough references to show that these two things were true, it still would not be enough to justify having an article on Wikipedia. You need to demonstrate that the product has received substantial coverage from sources that are reliable and that are independent of the product (or its producer). You have not yet done this. Indeed, you have not yet provided any sources whatsoever. In its current state, your submission is unlikely to be accepted for publication. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:05, 22 January 2017 review of submission by Copeboox

[edit]

Three reviewers of the draft page "Draw SVG" have rejected this article as part of the AfC process. They have all put up fallacious arguments, pointing me to WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:Advertisement, WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing among other rejection reasons. The reviewers are Onel5969, SwisterTwister, and Jcc. I have asked for detailed explanations to help redraft the article and have been rebutted by their claims that the article is a business listing (it is not a business; it is software, and it is not my software - I am not self-promoting any commercial business), that it contains irrelevant references that are not "substantial" (the references are related to the article and are not irrelevant), and that the article was rejected because it contains material on the Other Stuff Exists page (it does not). I have tried to reason with all reviewers, who apparently are contradicting Wikipedia reviewer guidelines and cannot accept my reasoned, rational arguments. My article structure is based on a published page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkscape I am asking for an experienced reviewer with computer software knowledge, who can help to re-review the article, referring to the above page on Inkscape, which I am using as my guide. Thanks, Dave Copeboox (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Copeboox (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dave. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The three reviewers who looked at your submission are each very experienced. And all of them are expressing various concerns that they have with your submission. To me, the most basic concern is that you have not demonstrated that the software has been the subject of in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the software developer. (I presume this is the issue you are speaking about when you use the phrases "irrelevant" and "not substantial".) Your sources are either the developer himself, some guy named David on YouTube or a user's manual for the software. None of them meet the requirements that they be both reliable and independent of the subject. As for the reference to "Other Stuff", you might have misunderstood the concern. When we cite the "Other Stuff Exists" essay, we are just admitting that, on an encyclopedia containing more than 5 million articles, there are bound to be articles that do not meet our various standards and yet continue to appear, simply because no one has discovered them or has gotten around to doing anything about them. What those articles do not do is cause us to apply lower standards to other articles.
Wikipedia has a Software project staffed by editors who are knowledgeable about software topics. I encourage you to seek the opinions of the good folks there, on the Talk page of WP:WikiProject Software. Feel free to ask them to opine on your draft, or to ask for advice on locating sources that might meet our requirements for being reliable, independent and substantial (in terms of depth of coverage). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:16:39, 22 January 2017 review of submission by David hewick

[edit]


Is it possible to know if an Article for Creation is currently being reviewed or if no reviewer is available /interested?David hewick (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David hewick (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The answer is -- neither. As I type this, there are about 150 submissions that entered the queue before yours, so it's going to take a few more days before anyone will get to looking at it. I am unable to give a precise date, but it is almost certain that your submission will be looked at within a week. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NYADavid hewick (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:45, 22 January 2017 review of submission by 202.168.62.236

[edit]


I have included a link to an image in the infobox, however it is not appearing in the preview. Do all images presented in Wikipedia articles have to be uploaded? Or can I link to an image from another website? 202.168.62.236 (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Images used here must first be uploaded, either to Wikipedia Commons or to this Wikipedia. The procedure for doing so can be complex, and you might find WP:Uploading images to be a useful guide to the process. Note that, if an image is loaded to Wikipedia (not the Commons) under the "fair use" exception to the copyright restrictions, it cannot appear in the draft and, more importantly, it will be deleted precisely because it is not being used in an article. And so, unless the image is in the public domain, you'll need to hold off uploading the image until your draft has been accepted for publication. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:59:40, 22 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Umeshkar

[edit]


Team,I need to know how can I update my page Umeshkar article on Pandit umesh chandra kar as I want it to be accepted. I donot understand the changes required for the article to be accepted.


Umeshkar (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Umeshkar. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Your draft was deleted some two years ago, because you hadn't worked on it for more than six months before that. If you want to get it restored so that you can continue to work on it, you will have to follow the directions that already appear on your Talk page. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:41, 22 January 2017 review of submission by Don Martin 19

[edit]


I created a Wikipedia article called Charles Glenn Wallis. I have received a poor quality digital photograph of Mr. Wallis from the 1940 St. John's College Yearbook sent to me two days ago by Cara Sabolcik, Librarian, at St. John's College, Annapolis, Maryland, and I wonder if including the image into the Wikipedia article will break any copyright rules. The photograph seems to have been granted to St. John's College as a courtesy of Life Magazine and included on p.9 of the College's 1940 yearbook.

Don Martin 19 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Don Martin 19 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC){{SAFESUBST:Void|[reply]

Hello, Don. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Your question really ought to be asked at WP:Media copyright questions. I suspect that, because the subject is deceased, you can assert "fair use" of the photograph, assuming you can provide information on provenance and attribution. But the folks at the Media Copyright page will be able to give you a definitive answer. On a different point, I noticed that your article includes some use of the "ibid" notation in the references. This probably should have been caught before publishing the article, because its use violates our Manual of Style. See MOS:IBID for more detail (including how to address the problem). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2017_January_22&oldid=762325124"