Help desk
< April 6	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 7

05:32:00, 7 April 2021 review of submission by 37.111.134.115

37.111.134.115 (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

@37.111.134.115: I have reparired the formatting and removed a Draft copy. Do you have a question? Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a talkback notice to their page. In case you are not aware, pinging IP does not work. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:27, 7 April 2021 review of submission by Lengstedt

Lengstedt (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Caybon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your prompt feedback. I have written the text as un-biased as possible. I believe listing a company name in Wikipedia does not go against any policy? What would you say is needed more to be considered as a proper article about a company?

Thanks in advance,

Henrik Lengstedt (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lengstedt (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lengstedt: The draft was deleted by @Jimfbleak: in the meantime. This makes it impossible to say for me what was the definitive reason (because I am not an admin and therefore cannot see deleted drafts), however, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, speficially the MOS:FLOWERY subsection, and WP:NCORP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:18, 7 April 2021 review of draft by Run n Fly

Run n Fly (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ambarish Bhattacharya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can any one help to move this draft. I have already taken help from subject experts and admins. See User_talk:Titodutta#Draft:Ambarish_Bhattacharya. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also fixed the MOS:PUFFERY issues. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me format-wise, although I'm not a reviewer. I'm sure someone with that authority will take a look soon though. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:14:28, 7 April 2021 review of draft by Mariapheidiklein

Mariapheidiklein (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Heidi Klein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am new to creating Wikipedia pages and I am confused as to what I have got to do to get my brand page published, specifics would be really helpful on what I have got to do to improve the page correctly so it can be published.

Thank you!

Mariapheidiklein (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mariapheidiklein First, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you must make.

A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself or what it considers to be it's own history; Wikipedia is only interested in what others completely unconnected with your company choose to write about it. Staff interviews, the company website, brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions, press releases, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Your three sources you have offered fall into those categories. If independent reliable sources have not written about your company, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Ideally, an independent editor would take note of the appropriate sources and choose to write about your company, though creating and submitting a draft yourself is okay.

Pleass read Your first article for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion, and is not in the business of "publishing" pages on behalf of any brand. All content on wikipedia must be supported by multiple reliable, published, secondary sources (see WP:SOURCE) and must be encyclopaedic rather than promotional in tone (see WP:PROMO). Your page currently only references one secondary source, which is not sufficient to establish the notability of the subject, and the page content is brand promotion rather than a summary of content from secondary sources. Please be aware that as this is your company you have a significant conflict of interest (see WP:COI), which means that your edits will be the subject of additional scrutiny (in fact, Wikipedia in general strongly discourages people from editing or contributing articles about themselves or their own organizations). You must also declare your conflict of interest on your user page.

Most importantly, if your intention in creating this page is to provide brand publicity then this is the wrong attitude to take and is unlikely to result in an encyclopaedic article that would be allowed on Wikipedia. In order to write about a subject with which you have a COI, you essentially have to forget everything you know about your brand, and write only what independent, secondary sources say about your brand. If your brand is sufficiently notable then this should be possible, but notability is conferred strictly by sources alone. As it is, the current page has a lot of promotional fluff and in its current form is highly likely to be speedily deleted under the G11 criterion for speedy deletion as unambiguously promotional content contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:17:23, 7 April 2021 review of submission by Tylermalinky

Tylermalinky (talk · contribs)

Hello, I am interested in any feedback that could be provided on the draft above. I have edited entries, however, this is my first article. Upon submitting for review the initial feedback I received is:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject "

I used 24 references while carefully crafting this entry, being sure to reference all of the factual information provided. The references are of significant coverage (typically the entire published article is about the aspect of Lowbrow Customs that is being referenced), and in published and reliable sources that are 3rd parties (independent of Lowbrow Customs). The references include online versions of national and international print publications, podcasts, blogs, media (television station) websites as well as professional organizations (American Welding Society).

I am open to any insight you can provide. I have reviewed the article and I do not see any references that do not meet the criteria provided. Thanks for your time!

Tylermalinky (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The citations to random blogs and interviews with company principals are not helping your draft at all. See WP:Reliable sources for more details. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]