Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 18 << May | June | Jul >> June 20 >
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.


June 19

[edit]

01:25:36, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Æstronomær

[edit]


I'm not sure why this article has been rejected, it seems that I have factually stated in a neutral voice what this company is, and provided multiple sources that make what I am saying verifiable.

After this I added more sources but is not letting me submit again for review?

Æstronomær (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode as you read this:
Does this help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:51:57, 19 June 2021 review of draft by D.B.Chace

[edit]


D.B.Chace (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My references look correct but it looks like this page was declined because of an issue with my citations/references. Are you able to point me to instructions to format the references in the way that is required? Thank you so much for you help.

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when editing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. We can't use IMDb or Wikia/Fandom (no editorial oversight) and PR Newswire is worthless for notability (connexion to subject). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:57:55, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Suryabeej

[edit]

I've created this draft and there are enough info available to create an Infobox into the article, shall I create the infobox now or after a reviewer reviews the article? Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 02:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:04:40, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Mgendy00

[edit]


Mgendy00 (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mgendy00, you didn't ask a question. Also, the draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:54:35, 19 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Dialh

[edit]


On further review, I now consider that having a separate article on this topic will be very difficult at the present time, if not impossible, due to the lack of reliable sources to cite. Is it better to try to search for more independent sources to include, or to request the draft's deletion?

Dial (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:10:29, 19 June 2021 review of draft by Kigrts

[edit]


The rejection says the draft-article, "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources". If it helps, I am willing to remove all cites, other than say > The Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC), The Guardian, News Ltd, The Conversation, The Examiner etc - all secular sources.

Can you point to specific examples where the draft-article is not written to a, "neutral point of view"? Possibly you might suggest improvements.

I am happy to fix any issues you note.

Kigrts (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Kigrts[reply]

, Kigrts (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:15:07, 19 June 2021 review of draft by AdrewMax

[edit]


AdrewMax (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


please let me know why my article has been rejected?? let me know how to improvisation of edit my article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrewMax (talk • contribs) 7:15 (UTC), 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't rejected, it was declined. Also, as the big red box states, the subject at this moment fails notability guidelines, which can be found here and here. Curbon7 (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:07, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Rajaneeshsr

[edit]


Rajaneeshsr (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:51, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Rajaneeshsr

[edit]


Prophaze is a Web Application Product Firewall company, please see the below reference I have removed all things which mentioned about business has removed , only the technology has been highlighted Please do a research on Prophaze WAF Also advise which part of the content is advertising 

https://www.businessworld.in/article/Make-In-India-Meet-5-Promising-Cybersecurity-Startups-Redefining-The-Indian-Cybersecurity-Space-/16-02-2021-378270/
https://www.analyticsinsight.net/top-100-cybersecurity-startups-to-look-out-for-in-2021/

Rajaneeshsr (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajaneeshsr The draft is not only rejectd, t is up for speedy deletion as promotional. You may try again with an entirely new draft FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:51:13, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Shahidshafi724

[edit]


Shahidshafi724 (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahidshafi724 You don't ask a question, but the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:59:25, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Poojasharma28

[edit]


Poojasharma28 (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC) I want to know, why article is deleted and how to write article that will be approved by wikipedia?[reply]

Poojasharma28 What you wrote is a blatant advertisement for what I assume is your business or employer. Such content will not be accepted. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a business showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business, not what it wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:58, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Pangitnatawo888

[edit]


Pangitnatawo888 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this draft is not notable. --Kinu t/c 17:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:16, 19 June 2021 review of submission by 106.195.4.202

[edit]


106.195.4.202 (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the earlier post above. If you were that user, remember to log in before posting. Please edit the existing section, instead of creating new sections. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:34:52, 19 June 2021 review of submission by Alwayslp

[edit]


Hello, I'd like to please request a re-review of this draft. It had previously not been in an encyclopedic tone, but I've made some changes in regards. Thank you for your help.

Alwayslp (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Alwayslp (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:03, 19 June 2021 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:A9E1:4160:280F:D6E3:7696:72BE

[edit]


You said she wasn`t important but That`s not important. Please do this, I want to show my friends she has a page and tell her in the comments. Someone else can manage it if it isn`t good enough. I'm sorry. But I think ths is really rude and she's been active now. I've never talked to her but she seems nice and idk it seems like she should get a wikipedia page because one day she'll be really really popular and you'll regret not making her a page sooner. So please reconsider.

2607:FEA8:A9E1:4160:280F:D6E3:7696:72BE (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not free web space that you can use as you wish, such as to impress your friends. Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles, and subjects of articles must meet the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this draft is not notable. --Kinu t/c 16:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:42:13, 19 June 2021 review of submission by NavalAuxillary

[edit]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Special Operations Response Team (SORT)

Hello, my page was declined for being not a relevant enough topic, is there a way to appeal this or give evidence to support the fact this is an infant relevant topic people will want to know about? The England & Wales version was approved for being relevant enough so I find it strange the Scottish version isn't. Did I give too little information?

NavalAuxillary (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NavalAuxillary Please see your user talk page for important information about your username. Regarding your request, your draft was only declined, not rejected, meaning it is at least possible to improve it. Please understand that a Wikipedia article must summarize what multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_June_19&oldid=1030304834"