Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 8 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 10 >
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.


December 9

[edit]

00:58:08, 9 December 2021 review of submission by Krklotz

[edit]


Krklotz (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:27:37, 9 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Queenez

[edit]


I am discouraged by the double standard used to delete my articles each time I try to develop a draft. They said I am advertising and my reference is not good. Yet they have published similar articles dealing with similar topics but located in developed world. Tell me why my articles was declined 4 times for same reasons and yet they have published thousand of similar articles 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioMed_Central 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media

Please can someobe tell me why these ones that are on the same plartform were alloed while mine is declined and deleted


Queenez (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the copyright violations, you are writing about a non-notable journal that is not comparable to the ones mentioned above. Need independent reliable sources that is, articles written by those that have no association with the subject. Slywriter (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:16:15, 9 December 2021 review of submission by Infoupdate20202

[edit]

Hi kindly take out time in re-review this article ..i noticed it was deleted a year ago i visited the article and i noticed or let me use the word the subject is notable. i am new editor here i look out for deleted articles and try to restore it thanks

Infoupdate20202 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infoupdate20202, quite the random article to just "find". Article requires in depth coverage in reliable sources, and not just coverage of one recent event that is coincidentally around the time book was released. Also see WP:COI Slywriter (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the seven sources in the article, one is the person's own website, one is a press release about the film he produced, and the other five are variations of another press release. The draft has been rejected, which means that it will not be considered for review again. --bonadea contributions talk 20:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:09:34, 9 December 2021 review of draft by Marcel.blankenstein

[edit]


Hello
Please may I ask for some advice on how to move forward with a "Submission declined on 8 December 2021 by Curb Safe Charmer". This is an article about a new invention. This invention has moved beyond concept and will be entering limited trials Q1 2022 to understand and evaluate its effectiveness. The article explains some history and the reason for its invention.

However, the moderators declined the submission as mostly being irrelevant due to:

  1. ... they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject
  2. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
  3. but then switches to being about deforestation? See WP:COATRACK. I don't think any of the sources actually mention the stove?

To answer:

  1. inventions in progress are just that, invention in progress. They don't have references as the references are being compiled. As this information becomes available, the Wiki article is updated
  2. if someone hears about the invention/trials and wishes to read about it, how are they supposed to look it up and read about it, if it is not on a public domain? This also allows other editors to improve the article
  3. this is not WP:COATRACK. This is the "why" behind the invention. The "why" adds context to the reasoning behind the invention

Whether this invention works or fails, it does not matter. At least there can be an article on Wiki that readers can learn/improve from. The invention is intended to solve a problem. The problem is not going away without a solution. Maybe this invention can solve the problem, maybe not. At least someone in the future can take this information and use it as a stepping stone and not make the same mistakes.

My view is the article was declined due to misunderstanding but I don't have the knowledge/experience to redraft the proposed article into a format that removes this misunderstanding without being true to the information. I would gratefully appreciate some guidance on how to resolve this issue. Thank you.

Marcel.blankenstein (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcel.blankenstein: you are correct there is a misunderstanding but it wasn't on the side of the reviewers. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we record what others have said about a subject in reliable sources in our own words. If no one has taken the time to publish significant detailed information in a reliable source about your product, then we consider it not yet worthy of inclusion because of our notability criteria. Please also take a quick look through WP:WHATNOT. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Put it elsewhere on the web. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform nor a catalog. When reliable sources find the subject noteworthy, wikipedia will have an article. We pretty much don't care what the inventor has to say about their product. Also see WP:COI and WP:PAID and make any necessary declarations. Slywriter (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:53:07, 9 December 2021 review of draft by Masoudtx

[edit]


Hello dear administrators, Can you please help me to improve this article? What else is needed? Thank you. Masoudtx (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masoudtx, You need sources that discuss the author, not his works. Slywriter (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:56:42, 9 December 2021 review of submission by Imcdc

[edit]

Is there any particular reason this article hasn't had anyone looking at it yet? Imcdc (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imcdc, everyone is volunteers here. Someone will get to it sooner or later. Slywriter (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:14:44, 9 December 2021 review of submission by Iblublab

[edit]

{{Lafc|iblublab=Iblublab|ts=14:14:44, 9 December 2021|page= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iblublab (talk • contribs)

Iblublab, Your draft is for a non-notable Crypto company. Without solid independent reliable sources, an article is unlikely. Also see WP:COI if you have a relationship with the company Slywriter (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:22, 9 December 2021 review of submission by 2A02:C7F:1C53:8700:54C0:B147:CA87:C4B1

[edit]

Because I need a Wikipedia page to link to my ‘Didyouknow’ template on my Fandom wiki. 2A02:C7F:1C53:8700:54C0:B147:CA87:C4B1 (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a question here? an article? Though mentioning fandom doesn't inspire confidence. Slywriter (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:45, 9 December 2021 review of submission by 150.135.165.68

[edit]

Hi folks, I was asked to edit a page about me created by someone else for entry to Wikipedia. Since I had an account (from past years but created a new one this week because I no longer use the email associated with it; I set it up on Wikipedia). So, if I tell them that they have to submit it and I can't; is it acceptable then? (of course corrections would be made as directed, etc. Thanks for the advice.

150.135.165.68 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

150.135.165.68, Neither you nor a friend should be editing your page directly. See WP:COI. All edit requests should be made on the talk page. Also please head to WP:TEA for further advice as this board is strictly for new article submitted to AfC. Slywriter (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:18, 9 December 2021 review of submission by 177.66.252.39

[edit]


177.66.252.39 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't cite social media or the subject themselves, and Alexa doesn't help prove something is notable in and of itself. See WP:Reliable sources, WP:Notability, and WP:Notability (organizations and companies). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:33:56, 9 December 2021 review of submission by Yitzilitt (paid)

[edit]

After a successful overturn of a mistaken speedy deletion at WP:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 30, the page Draft:SudShare was undeleted a few days ago. I've been working on improving the article since then, and was ready to resubmit it for AFC today, when I noticed that the page had been restored already submitted, as it had apparently been in that state immediately before being mistakenly G11'd. I'd assume this doesn't practically change much since I was planning to re-submit it today anyway, but it now shows that it's been in the queue for 11 days already, although most of that time it was inaccessible to anyone. Does this effect the AFC process at all, and if so, what (if anything) can I do about it? Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_December_9&oldid=1060375784"