Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 July 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 19 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 21 >
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.


July 20

[edit]

Request on 01:40:02, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by DrJay31

[edit]


I am not sure why this article was denied, it was all my original work. Lazaris The Top Don was featured as a guest on what was flagged as copyright issues yet I did not take any of the original work. Can you clarify specifically what is deemed as a copyright issue? Thank you!


DrJay31 (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:03:36, 20 July 2021 review of submission by 216.174.70.236

[edit]


Polished the article. I trust this time around that it is satisfactory?216.174.70.236 (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further; No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:29:07, 20 July 2021 review of submission by Makan.Meenu

[edit]


Makan.Meenu (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC) ehy was my article declined[reply]

Makan.Meenu It was deleted as a blatant advertisment. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:31, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Jliza.poseidonwaves

[edit]


Jliza.poseidonwaves (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My question is if I don't have a resource page because this information was written by the artist himself. What do I do?

Jliza.poseidonwaves There is nothing that you can do. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If no independent reliable sources exist about a topic, it does not merit an article on Wikipedia. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:22:55, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Crazyharlem

[edit]


Where can I get in-depth coverage of the subject? Also I need help with formatting!!!

Crazyharlem (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crazyharlem A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Independent reliable sources are things like news reports(but not press releases) or books about the topic, anything not written by the topic itself. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:26:20, 20 July 2021 review of submission by MarikaAgu

[edit]

Estonian pavilion appears in artists' profiles who have represented Estonia. In 2022 Estonian pavilion will be exceptionally in Rietveld pavilion, historically to represent Dutch artists. Netherlands offers such opportunity for outstanding previous exhibitions at the Estonian pavilion. MarikaAgu (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MarikaAgu The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that there is not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:30:32, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by RondDeJambe

[edit]


Ref.attempting a new page Victor Ross (Businessman):Firstly, I wrote the page as Victor Ross (Rosenfeld) as that was his family name, only changed during WW2 when serving in the Pioneer Corps (on miltary advice to avoid reprisals if captured.) I would be keen to know why (Businessman) was substituted by the reviewer? Secondly,I am really puzzled by the rejection as VR has had a full page Obituary published in the Times(UK)recently & is a published author (Hodder & Stoughton.) He also had a series of talks on BBC Home Service during the 1950s (ref. notices in the Radio Times,)initiated a charity organisation which raised large amounts of money on behalf of the Association of Jewish Refugees which provided for educational grants & an annual lecture series (by renowned speakers)at the British Academy (info.on their website,) In his career,he rose to become Chairman of Reader's Digest UK & Europe, becoming a well-known public figure on the international stage. I would therefore welcome your help and advice on getting his page published ! Many thanks.RondDeJambe (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC) RondDeJambe (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RondDeJambe Be unsurprilsed. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style then Help:Your first article That will be a good start. Your referencing scheme fails, too FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:22:46, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SunilJakhar07

[edit]



SunilJakhar07 (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:29:54, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Mirih1809

[edit]


Hi, following the commentsI received I have made some changes in the draft, but since then I did not get any more reviews or comments. What would you suggest to do? Thanks, Miri Mirih1809 (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirih1809 You wouldn't necessarily get more comments until you resubmit it for review. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:37:30, 20 July 2021 review of submission by EssyDon100

[edit]

Kindly assist me with to put my article in the appropriate manner so it can be approved. The topic is indeed notable and I'm working to gather more current information in order to continue editing. In another opinion, how can I make this a stub so others can help in developing it? EssyDon100 (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EssyDon100 This draft has been rejected and will go no further. You may start again with a new one. This essay should help you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:02:12, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Berkim20

[edit]


I wonder how to get my article published. Is it possible to get "Allo Allo" published on Wikipedia? In what circumstances?

Best regards, Azamat B.

Berkim20 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berkim20 As noted by the reviewer, your draft just tells about the subject. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article.
If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:21, 20 July 2021 review of submission by Prospero1623

[edit]


Hello. I recently wrote an article called Draft:MPB Group Limited that was rejected for sounding like an advertisement. I have since made some edits. However, I have been informed that my article (which I have not been paid for, nor do I work for MPB) doesn't reach the notability quota. Can someone explain to me why that is?

I have looked at other articles of a similar vein, and they contain similar content. To not breach OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I wish to point out that I'm not questioning the existence of my or anyone else's articles, I'm just curious as to why those passed the set rules and mine did not, despite similar content. Wiki page on OTHERSTUFF says: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."

I understand that writing about the partnerships could be a red flag, but I am unsure why the history and funding is not deemed notable.

If anyone could help me out, that would be wonderful.

Prospero1623 (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prospero1623: As there are quite a lot of references for us to go through could you follow the procedure explained at WP:THREE and provide links to those best sources on the draft's talk page? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: Hi, thank you for your reply. Yes, I believe these three may be classified as reliable:
  • "Brighton-based MPB snaps up $69M to build out its used camera equipment marketplace". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2021-06-24.
  • Loritz, Mary (2019-07-15). "Brighton-based MPB raises €10 million for its second-hand photo and film equipment marketplace". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2021-06-24.
  • Schutte, Shan (2016-03-03). "mpb.com: Disrupting the way people buy and sell used photo equipment". Retrieved 2021-06-24.

I also realise there are articles in there, such as the Express and Argus that do not classify as reliable, and will remove them ASAP. I have also put these sources on the draft's talk page.

Helped I'm helping Prospero out on the draft's talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:54, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Yingying at MPS

[edit]


Hi, I've been trying to upload a Wikipedia page for Malaysian Pharmacists Society but failed several times. I've tried to follow the same format as per other similar wiki pages e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Australia and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Pharmaceutical_Society but it is still rejected. May I know why were other sites accepted and published even though they have similar issues as mine? Thank you for your help!

Yingying at MPS (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yingying at MPS No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
You need to make a formal declar=artion of your paid editor status. Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure I am about to leave a formal question on your talk page. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:12, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Eincrat

[edit]


An editor that goes by the name Suart Yaetes made the following comment-"Wikipedia articles are built on independent secondary sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. Sources that don't meet these criteria need to be removed. I took a look at a handful of the wall of references and none of the ones I looked at were independent AND had in-depth coverage of the network." This criticism makes no sense as I am certain I could go to any number of articles and pull out a handful of references and discover that they don't have in-depth coverage as they are only being used to cite a specific fact that is important to the larger article. Moreover, I had a handful of sources that met his qualifications and mentioned which ones they were and asked the editor to further explain what was problematic. I have yet to hear a response but someone who posted after me has been replied to. The editor also appears to be an odd fit for the article as the individual appears to focus on biographies which theta network most definitely is not. As another editor correctly pointed out, it ideally needs an expert familiar with cryptocurrencies which the individual has not shown any knowledge of. What should I do? Should I just ignore the editor and repost it? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.Eincrat (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eincrat (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eincrat An editor that goes by the name of Timtrent finds your alleged question to be patronising.
No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
Every editor here is an odd fit. Wikipedia is a site for various size legs in various sizes holes.
Advice?
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. 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 referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:34, 20 July 2021 review of draft by AKAK2021

[edit]
I want the article to be reviewed again. I find the reasons given by the reviewer to be irrelevant. He is a significant person according to your guidelines and the sources are intact.

AKAK2021 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AKAK2021. You are mistaken. Annamalai K is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as the subject of a stand alone article). Of the draft's four sources that are independent and reliable, one is about his joining the party, and three are news of his being appointed state president of the Tamil Nadu unit of the party. State president of a party is not a position that satisfies the notability criteria for politicians. Leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable, but leaders at the sub-national level are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:26, 20 July 2021 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:63A0:C801:A43A:3E25:1432:C1F7

[edit]


Currently our knowledge panel on google is showing incorrect information for Jimmy, the incorrect information is coming from a wikipedia page but the pictures do not match the same person, so we need to create a wiki page for Jimmy so we can use this in our knowledge panel.

2A00:23C7:63A0:C801:A43A:3E25:1432:C1F7 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:39:10, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Uvindu Abisheka

[edit]


Hi There, 

    I am a Cambridge A/L Student of age 15. I really need to help other get to know generally of all laptops out there on the sale. This is my first article. But it got declined. I wish to get advice o trying to repost this article with required changes or a guide on what content and how should I do article.

Thank You, Best Regards, Uvindu Abisheka.

Uvindu Abisheka (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia’s purpose is not to be a guide for advice on purchases. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:29:08, 20 July 2021 review of submission by ArthurRobertRobert

[edit]

I disagree; this company is notable enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia.

ArthurRobertRobert (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission was Rejected, meaning it cannot be resubmitted. I rejected your submission because it failed WP:NCORP and your submission lacked secondary coverage. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:06, 20 July 2021 review of draft by Driverofthebluetaxi

[edit]


Driverofthebluetaxi (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had added some links to references of the infomations in the article, especially the books. My question: Are the catalogues of the Libraries (german national, viaf, lcc, ub munich) objective enough? Where is still the deficit of the article, to remove the gaps. ;-) Please support me, its my first article in english wiki. In german wiki i had already published some. Driverofthebluetaxi (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if de.wp has a policy equivalent to our WP:Biographies of living persons, but that's some of where the issues are. You have uncited biographical claims in the article that need to either get a cite or get lost. As to the links to the catalogues, they don't help for notability. Assuming the German Nat'l Library serves a function equivalent to the Library of Congress, a listing there would be a matter of course and not noteworthy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:11:47, 20 July 2021 review of submission by EvenToedUngulate

[edit]


The proposed article was rejected for a lack of notability. I've revised the article to be more fullsome, both in describing the foundation and its impacts, and also provided a number of sources that I hope demonstrate its notability, such as through the receipt of awards, partnerships, and expansion of the foundation to other cities. The revised article now has:

  • An increase in the number of secondary sources, such as news articles and press releases
  • Multiple sources with multiple points of view
  • Improving the length and depth of the article so that it is not too short, but not overly long, either

The StopGap Foundation is an important organization in Toronto and has expanded to create a sister organization in Ottawa. The organization has brought forward projects to multiple municipalities, which I hope demonstrates its notability.

EvenToedUngulate (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EvenToedUngulate The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Press releases are not independent reliable sources, nor are announcements of its activities, brief mentions, or any materials put out by the organization. Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about the good work of a charity. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Oh, okay. Is there anything else I can do? I reviewed WP:NOBLE and I don't think it falls under the the 7 listed criteria. I can remove the press releases to be other secondary sources if they aren't acceptable. I was just using that as an example since it was issued by a company, not the organization I made the article about. I don't mind finding some other sources if a press release isn't high enough quality. I made some pretty significant changes to the draft, so is there anything else I can do? EvenToedUngulate (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EvenToedUngulate As the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further at this time. The reviewer rejected it because they believed the chances of addressing the issues raised are low. A Wikipedia article must summarize 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. Press releases, announcements of routine activities, brief mentions, staff interviews, or other primary sources do not establish notability. If you have appropriate sources to summarize and feel that the reviewere erred, you will need to discuss it with them directly.
If you are associated with this organization, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Okay, I will bring it up with the reviewer. I think the issues you've raised aren't present for this article, but I can see how they might be. I'm not associated with the organization, I was just surprised they didn't have a Wikipedia article, so I decided to make one. EvenToedUngulate (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:41:23, 20 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by MisterTech

[edit]


Hi, Robert McClenon seems to have made a mistake with their AfC review of this article.

I've left a message on their talk page but they have not responded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Request_on_13:44:01,_16_July_2021_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_MisterTech

How can I resolve this?

MisterTech (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not seeing any mistakes by Robert McClenon. It reads like it was written by a PR firm, and voila, it was! Bkissin (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. They questioned the notability of the subject yet it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including being covered multiple times by the BBC, and also by Wired, Znet, San Francisco Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, TechCrunch, Cnet, The New York Times, Forbes, Engadget, etc
2. They said that "This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company", however it is not. It is written in my own words, for example nowhere does the company describe itself as an "indoor gardening company".
3.They also questioned whether there was a COI, but this was clearly declared when the draft was created https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Click_%26_Grow&oldid=1014871688
MisterTech (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_July_20&oldid=1088679977"