Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 13 << Mar | April | May >> April 15 >
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.


April 14

[edit]

00:37:45, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Rickeraser

[edit]


Rickeraser (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Berrely, I hope you are doing well.

I would like of you help, because we put all References, with diffent sources, but unfortunately was not accept. The page of the label on wikipedia was a reference to Sculptor but not linked with the Sculptor band.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Records

Sculptor is a relevant band with more than 60k on youtube, with a big label.

Can you help me with it?

All the best.

Pinging berrely, to whom this message was apparently directed. I note that most of the references (e.g. YouTube, the band's website) are not reliable. See WP:MUSICBIO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rickeraser. I rejected your draft as, after being declined 4 times, you still had not added references to show that the article is notable enough for Wikipedia. According to WP:MUSICBIO, you must meet at least 1 of the criteria listed for the article to be notable. As there is no evidence that the band meets any of the criteria, I went off the first criteria, which says that the band must've been:

the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

Looking at the sources, I could not find any fitting these criteria. 6 where self-published, one was from the label's website and others seemed to be from less-known magazines. I hope this helps you understand why I declined the draft. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 13:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:49:49, 14 April 2021 review of submission by AppuSunkad

[edit]


AppuSunkad (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, minimal effort to address concerns of multiple reviewers. It has now been rejected and will not be considered further. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:35, 14 April 2021 review of draft by 46.140.63.202

[edit]


I need help understanding what it not working. I have made all the changes being asked, and used sources not from the subject of the page (so external sources) yet it looks more like an ad rather than an actual page of a renouned swiss entrepreneur in Switzerland. Thanks for the help!!

46.140.63.202 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many things militate towards this being an advert. The references fail in so many ways. One is even a dead link.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
The over-prettiness of the article with multiple unnecessary pictures screams advert
Please explain why you have written about this person, and from your logged in account Fiddle Faddle 18:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:51, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Nicole0305

[edit]

What source is not reliable? Thank you. Nicole0305 (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole0305 IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. The Twitter account of this person does not contribute to notability, as that is based on what others say about them, not what they say about themselves. Announcements also do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:46, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Nlm94

[edit]


Hello - I have redrafted an article 3 times and finally it was rejected. However, I have improved the article much since the first review and it includes newspaper articles with significant coverage, not just passing mentions, and other verifiable sources not connected to the subject of the article. Also, I have seen other articles on similar subjects (grassroots football clubs of similar stature ion England) published on Wikipedia and I used these as a guide to create this article. However, this one with seemingly more notable/external references, has been rejected.

As mentioned above, sources I have used to verify the article subject and deem it to be notable are: 3 newspaper articles (2 of which are entirely about the subject), 2 online official league handbooks to cross reference club achievements, 1 podcast interview conducted by an external sports journalist with the founder of the football club, 2 database league tables to cross reference information in the article, and a few other website each with a paragraph of writing or so on the article subject, again to cross reference information in the article.

Please can there be a rereview of the submission? What can I do to improve the article further?

Thanks you Nlm94 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nlm94 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nlm94 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on the subject. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Is it possible to "recreate" the article? I believed the article to be well referenced but can collect more. Nlm94 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nlm94 The most well-referenced article can still not meet notability guidelines. The reviewer rejected it because they felt that the club does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization and that the chances of that happening were low. If you truly feel that the situation has changed since the draft was rejected, you will need to appeal to the reviewer directly.
I see that this is the only topic you have edited about. Do you have an association with this club? 331dot (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:00, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Giuseppe Ardolino

[edit]


Hello, I already submitted this draft and it has been declined. I would like to know in which section I need to improve in order to respect Wikipedia's guidelines and try to publish it. I already followed some feedback but the draft is considered not in line with a neutral approach, and I want to understand the reasons. I am available to make all necessary changes. Really thanks for your availability Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say on your user page that you "have set up to introduce the new page on Sadas company to explain its history, market, and clients" that is NOT what Wikipedia is for. Theroadislong (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:22, 14 April 2021 review of submission by 95.107.240.167

[edit]


95.107.240.167 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY is the applicable notability guideline here - This subject does not appear to meet the guideline. AviationFreak💬 15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:31, 14 April 2021 review of submission by 104.234.16.3

[edit]


104.234.16.3 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft has been rejected and thus will not be considered further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:50, 14 April 2021 review of submission by SKPatel7991

[edit]

Hi Wikipedia Team. I need advice on how to improve our article for the article to be accepted. I have provided reliable sources. What do I need to change or adjust so that I can make the necessary changes for acceptance. Thank you. SKPatel7991 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SKPatel7991 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Who is "our"? Only a single person should be operating your account. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I received a response back from my earlier question. I am replying back to the question for SKPatel7991 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Who is "our"? Only a single person should be operating your account. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I am the only one maintaining the account. Is there anything I can do further to accept my article? Thank you. SKPatel7991 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SKPatel7991 Please edit this existing section to reply, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in the full desktop version, even in a browser on a phone or tablet. You may make a natural reply as if you are addressing me, no need to say you are replying to my comment.
Please clarify your use of the term "our". As I said, your draft was rejected, meaning that it won't be considered further. No amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further clarification. I accidentally used the word "our" since I often use "our" in my own social media content writing. It was just a habit of my own writing.

SKPatel7991 How did you come to edit about this person? 331dot (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This person's a client. I will review the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure with this person to ensure we follow the proper requirements for Wikipedia. Let me know if there's any other information I need to review for the requirements. Thank you.

SKPatel7991 So "our" refers to you and your client. You should have said that initially, but it doesn't matter now. If he is paying you for the specific purpose of creating an article about him, my suggestion would be that you return his money because it isn't going to happen soon. Aside from paid editing you should review conflict of interest. You will need to make the required declarations for any other clients you represent. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:33, 14 April 2021 review of draft by Hamidsaahir

[edit]


I am requesting clarification on why the article for Attorney James Carter has been rejected. The reason states lack of notoriety however there once was a wiki page that existed for him which was removed because of defamation and slander. Also, there are other pages for people in his profession who have similar experience and notoriety who have pages listed.

Please advise.

Hamidsaahir (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamidsaahir Please confirm that you have read the contents of the big pink box, and noted that it has been declined, pushed back to you for further attention. Please return to this thread with any further questions. You will not need to create another unless this has been archived Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:26, 14 April 2021 review of draft by Em Assist

[edit]


Hi, wanted to understand why my article was rejected even though I have given the reference site. Please help me to make this article live. How can I make this article live? I have seen many wikipedia pages few pages have one liner info and one reference site and it got accepted but here, I have written the history , given the reference site still it got rejected . Why? If you are saying it looks like adverting then how about other pages that are live on wikipedia with one reference site.

Em Assist (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Em Assist Please see 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 get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you'd care to pitch in and help, you could identify some of these other inappropriate articles you see so we can address them. That other inappropriate articles exist does not mean yours can too.
Your draft does little more than tell that the company exists. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you are associated with this company, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:49, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Khmer stooge

[edit]


My draft article on Alvaro Morales was rejected because it apparently does not meet inline citation standards. I was advised to include footnotes, but my article contains several and I thought I had cited anything that would require citations. Can someone please offer more detail on what's missing from the article?

Thanks! Khmer stooge (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Khmer stooge it has not been rejected. It has been declined, pushed back to you for further work. @Tom (LT) will, I am sure, go into further detail for you. I'll leave a note on the draft myself to indicate what may be absent, but I have not reviewed it Fiddle Faddle 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_April_14&oldid=1018822588"