Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 6 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 8 >
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.


September 7

[edit]

01:20:15, 7 September 2020 review of draft by Arashia1414

[edit]


Hello, I just wrote an article (I translated it from the equivalent English article on Wikipedia) and I want it to be published as the Persian page of the same subject (which is Krater). I think that my article has been published as an English article. I have no idea what to do to correct it. Thank you for your help. Arashia1414 (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arashia1414. It looks like you've figured out that the place to write Persian articles is not here, but on the Persian-language Wikipedia, specifically fa:کراتر. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:10:12, 7 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mandian

[edit]


article declined because of no secondary or reliable source. Just wondering if accountant statement can be provided for secondary source?


Mandian (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accountant statement? press releases are primary sources and not considered reliable. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:42:35, 7 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by F09200920

[edit]


Hello, My draft article was declined How should I modify this article ? Do I need to cite other reliable sources? Would Reuters /news report be considered a reliable source?

It would be very appreciated if you could let me know your advice on further improvement. F09200920 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


F09200920 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@F09200920::

09:12:51, 7 September 2020 review of submission by WikiPageMan

[edit]


Hello, I received a notification that the article needed some more work, so I've given it a go. This is my first time using Wikipedia, so I'd really appreciate some support when you have a moment. It would be handy for this charity to get published on Wikipedia

WikiPageMan (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPageMan Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a subject, and is not concerned with if the presence of an article helps the subject or not(it often does not). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you are associated with this charity, you will need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies and make some required declarations("paid editing" applies to unpaid volunteers or interns). 331dot (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for the quick reply. I added the "paid" to the talk section as requested, as I am volunteering my time to do this. I hope this can help get the article published

WikiPageMan (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is just blatant advertising and gives no indication that the topic passes WP:NCORP so it has been rejected, it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiPageMan (ec) Thank you for complying with the required policies, but it will not necessarily help the draft get into the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, but in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it with significant coverage (not brief mentions, press releases, staff interviews, the organization website, etc.). As I indicated, the rejection means the draft will not be reconsidered at this time. Feel free to show your superiors this message. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:32, 7 September 2020 review of submission by Reactor99

[edit]

Hi there, Please, can you understand in detail why our page was declined as it contents only information about the company as many other pages which Wikipedia has already? Reactor99 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reactor99 If by "our" you mean that you work for this company, you are required by the Terms of Use to make the paid editing declaration.
You draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is a blatant advertisement for your company, or more specifically it reads as a social media style page. Wikipedia is not social media, it is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself.
Please read other stuff exists; as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. This is why each article is judged on its own merits. If you are aware of other blatant advertisement articles, feel free to help us out and point them out. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:56, 7 September 2020 review of draft by Rjidindiana

[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Sir a similar draft with same name exists with no details. The draft I have created is of a well known Indian Television Actress. I want this article to be reviewed as people search about her.Thank you..

Rjidindiana (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And why should the existence of a Draft be considered a valid reason to accept another draft? Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:48, 7 September 2020 review of draft by Heavelye

[edit]


This is to report to you that I mistakenly submited a blank citation on Professor Nduka Nnamdi Ekere. The aricle was declined on 11 June 2020 as a result of lack of content. This has since been corrected. I hereby regret any inconvinience this might have caused. I am looking forward to have this citation included. Thank you. kaluoly (talk). 15:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please indicate here how this meets WP:NPERSON or otherwise have a look at Help:Wikitext so you be able to format your draft at least partially in a way somebody can read? Right now its a giant Wall of text that you can't realy examine. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:33:45, 7 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Nearlyevil665

[edit]


Draft article on Ray Cornbill declined by Padavalamkuttanpilla on grounds that subject doesn't meet notability criteria.

Ray Cornbill served as the head coach for the United States national rugby union team.

Per WP:NRU, A rugby union person is presumed notable if they have played for, coached, or administered: A "High Performance Union" at any time.

The United States national rugby union team is on the list of High Performance Unions.

The draft article has four solid references that confirm Ray Cornbill is former head coach, one of them from EPSN, which reads: New USA head coach Duncan Hall has named former USA head coach Ray Cornbill as his assistant joining Michael DeJong on the staff.

Looks like a clear-cut case of notability to me, but requesting assistance just in case I'm missing something.

Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:46, 7 September 2020 review of draft by 2A04:8400:C250:3301:B8B5:6AA:7D60:1710

[edit]


Dear editor,

Thank you very much for reviewing this item. However, I have some questions need your kind assistance.

First, I think I have edited this item with some published results from Nature, Science or American Chemical Society publishers for last version. However, it had been declined and the comments claimed that wiki does not need that so called pseudo references. Therefore, may I ask more exact question that, for the current item, what kind of reference can be say a "real" needed citing. Or which exact one has what kind of issue. I read so many other accepted chemists wiki items, references even also included their own research results, which means they are in the publication as the author. This reference can also be regarded as not neutral at all.

Second, I think what I edited item is nothing related with any bias point of view. Is it possible to show one detail example to explain, which part is not Wiki form?

Thanks your time reading.


2A04:8400:C250:3301:B8B5:6AA:7D60:1710 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:30:15, 7 September 2020 review of draft by Trangtrini

[edit]
please state at why my draft has been declined? Does that mean I have to remove all the media link within my document? Thanks

Trangtrini (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:38:17, 7 September 2020 review of draft by Edward Myer

[edit]


Hello, and thank you for your time. I need help understanding why the article I submitted was declined for inclusion in wikipedia. I included multiple reliable source references( Independent of the subject) to validate the subjects notablity. Those references included references to the subjects notable achievements and affiliation with other notable artist in Hip Hop music already include in Wikipedia. Was this article fairy reviewed or was it treated with malice because the subject is a Hip Hop artist. I know each article is subject to each reviewers subjective view, but hopefully not to their prejudice. Please indicate to me how I can fix this article so it can become included. I'm confused, according to wikipedia notability guidelines I did everything correctly, and the subject is notable.

Thank you for your time and diligence.


Edward Myer (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:39, 7 September 2020 review of submission by Calvinfoss

[edit]


I was told to pick the three best sources for demonstrating notability in the Article for Creation: Kurt Kerns (WP:THREE). I did not re-read all the sources that I had compiled before I picked three sources for review (I mostly picked them at random), and thus, the Article was Rejected because it seemed like the strongest sources did not demonstrate notability. I am requesting a re-review of the AfC because I have re-read the sources and am offering three different sources that indeed show that this AfC meets the WP:notability criteria. The sources are the following:

Ref 4. https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/01/15/focus36.html
Ref 10. https://stlouiscnr.com/v-three-studios-designs-new-facility-for-the-voice-of-the-navajo-nation/
Ref 21. https://aspiremetro.com/thirsty-planet-brewing-company-triples-operations-opening-new-facility/

These sources fulfill the criteria of the WP:AUTHOR criteria within the notability guidelines as Kurt Kerns is a notable architect, especially from his work with V Three Studios, and would be in the category of notable Creative professionals.

Thank you for your consideration!

Calvin Foss (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: @SmokeyJoe:. I may be able to loook into it when I'm at home Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I judged these three sources as failing the WP:GNG. I did not consider WP:AUTHOR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry to clarify, does this mean one of you will re-review the AfC: Kurt Kerns? I believe it currently says "Rejected." Any information would be great, and I appreciate the work that you guys are doing! Calvin Foss (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calvin Foss. I tagged it "REJECTED" because if I came upon it at AfD I would WP:!vote "delete". I consider that failing the WP:GNG to be a higher level judgement than meeting a notability subguideline, but others might disagree. Do you think the subject meets WP:AUTHOR? I suggest you lead the way and explain how the subject meets WP:AUTHOR at Draft talk:Kurt Kerns#Does the draft meet WP:AUTHOR?. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:07:45, 7 September 2020 review of draft by JNW21 885

[edit]


looking for help in understanding why my page hasn't been reviewed since July for submission approval? Thank you.

JNW21 885 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JNW21 885: Hi there, it's Wikipedia's page, not yours. The answer to your question is found at the bottom of the draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,351 pending submissions waiting for review." I note that all three reviewers in the past noted that the subject's notability had not been properly established. Have you read our General Notability Guideline? Since the last decline, the changes you made were: some cosmetic stuff; you swapped Newsbreak for a Yahoo press release (which would not qualify as "independent of the subject"); you added a Fox News piece by her, not about her, which wouldn't do anything to establish notability; the Yahoo News video is by her, not about her. You added a Medium.com interview, which is still dependent on the subject, i.e. not independent. This does nothing for establishing notability. I have no idea if Metropolitan magazine is a notable publication, but this too looks like an interview piece. The bottom line here, is that TV personalities may have PR companies that exist to get the subject more familiarity among the public, but these PR moves don't translate to notability. When the subject is notable, PR won't be necessary, and independent entities will write about her without provocation or participation. Please don't resubmit this article for community review until you can definitively establish that she meets our notability criteria, as these constant resubmissions just drain volunteer time. Further, if you have a conflict of interest, like knowing the subject or working for her, or being related to her, or being her, you shouldn't be editing this article anyway, for obvious ethical reasons, and because people with conflicts of interest have difficulty writing objectively about the subject they are conflicted with. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_September_7&oldid=985268215"