Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 March 1
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 28 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 2 > |
| 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. |
March 1
[edit]06:20:08, 1 March 2021 review of submission by Anamikana Rajwanti
[edit]Shanaya Shukla is an Indian Author. This seventeen year girl has contributed her 7 books till now. She has been an inspiration among many youngster. would request you to re-review this and make suitable changes. Anamikana Rajwanti (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The article has no sources. It is unlikely to be considered further by reviewers unless you can support the content with multiple, reliable, secondary sources in order to prove subject notability. If the subject is indeed notable, then I encourage you to find said sources, as Wikipedia is always in need of more female/non-anglophone biographies. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
10:34:44, 1 March 2021 review of submission by Golam Maruf Hassan
[edit]
Golam Maruf Hassan (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Golam Maruf Hassan You don't ask a question, but this is the English Wikipedia, contributions need to be in English. There is probably a version of Wikipedia in your primary language if that is what you are looking for. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
13:59:20, 1 March 2021 review of draft by Marx J Engels
[edit]
Hi! I found this Youtube video demo that I found helpful to describe the service. Should I be including it as a citation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aRi3l5lUqA
I've also added German news sources. Could someone comment about whether the sources I've used fit the Wiki requirements? I've submitted other drafts, but since they haven't been approved, I don't know if I am going about it the right way. Thanks!
Marx J Engels (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Marx J Engels Sources that merely report a routine business transaction, such as the raising of capital or the purchase of a competitor, do not establish that this company meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, not those that merely report actions of the company.
- If you work for Passbase, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Got it, thank you! I'm adding companies in general. They're not clients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marx J Engels (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Marx J Engels We can certainly use more editors improving coverage of companies. That doesn't necessarily mean creating new articles. Wikipedia has little appetite for new articles about extant companies. A greater need is to improve existing articles, the quality of 98% of which is rated less than "good" by the community. Those topics so deeply flawed that they can't be improved should be deleted. You might find it useful to hang out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies to see what else is going on in the domain. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've joined the project. Thanks!
17:39:49, 1 March 2021 review of submission by 67.76.114.156
[edit]
A piece of press has been added which shows more notability.
67.76.114.156 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Interviews with those associated with the subject do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
19:17:34, 1 March 2021 review of submission by Jonhawkins1998
[edit]
Hey!
I've just had a Wiki submission rejected, but I'm not sure why. The reason was "insufficient sources," but everything is properly cited to reliable sources. Could you possibly give me some more info on what I'm missing? Is there a specific part not referenced properly? An issue with my sources? Something else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Panpsycast_Philosophy_Podcast
Jonhawkins1998 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jonhawkins1998, the reviewer left you this comment "Needs external news sources to show widespread notability for this program outside of the university." Self-published blogs and Twitter are not what we define as a reliable source, see WP:RS. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
20:29:00, 1 March 2021 review of submission by Lakewood66
[edit]- Lakewood66 (talk · contribs)
Hello, I've been working on the article above for several months, including with help from other Wikipedia editors such as Jimfbleak, who was incredibly helpful. I've worked to find sources that are independently edited such as Facility Executive magazine and Plastics Machinery magazine, which do not simply repurpose company-issued news releases, but, instead, pay editors to write and edit objective content. The latest comments about my article indicate that it reads like an advertisement. I've asked the most-recent reviewer, Firefly, what specifically I could do to the article to eliminate any advertising-like language. My concern is the article might be removed before Firefly has a chance to respond. So in the meantime, what might be done to eliminate advertising-like language in my article? Where is the advertising-like language in your opinion? And what concern is there regarding the sources? I'm not sure where in the current draft there is an advertorial feel, but I'm certainly willing and able to address it. Thank you. Lakewood66 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Lakewood66 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Lakewood66, just a short comment: the article will remain at least 6 months before it will be removed - regarding your questions pinging Firefly and Jimfbleak to get some light on it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello - I’ll respond substantively tomorrow, but just confirming I’ve seen this and haven’t forgotten you. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy to leave it to the reviewers, it's not tagged for deletion at present anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the reply, CommanderWaterford, Firefly, and Jimfbleak. And I look forward to improving the article with comments and feedback from Firefly. Lakewood66 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, so the draft was declined for two reasons - a tone closer to that of an advert or promotional piece, and not showing that the organisation is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. For the first point, I would suggest reading this section of the Manual of Style on encyclopedic tone, as well as perhaps some other Wikipedia articles about companies to get an idea of the tone and prose style we're looking for. As to the second point, the draft will need to show that the organisation meets our notability standards for companies. In short, we require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, but I would recommend the following: read the full guide to notability for companies, identify the three best sources you have that show this company is notable, and post them on the Draft: talk page. Either I or another reviewer can then look to see whether we agree that the company is notable. I can say that I don't think any of the sources currently in the article will help, as most of them appear to be passing mentions of the company rather than in-depth articles about it. Hope this helps. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the feedback and suggestions ƒirefly. I will begin working on it. Lakewood66 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, so the draft was declined for two reasons - a tone closer to that of an advert or promotional piece, and not showing that the organisation is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. For the first point, I would suggest reading this section of the Manual of Style on encyclopedic tone, as well as perhaps some other Wikipedia articles about companies to get an idea of the tone and prose style we're looking for. As to the second point, the draft will need to show that the organisation meets our notability standards for companies. In short, we require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, but I would recommend the following: read the full guide to notability for companies, identify the three best sources you have that show this company is notable, and post them on the Draft: talk page. Either I or another reviewer can then look to see whether we agree that the company is notable. I can say that I don't think any of the sources currently in the article will help, as most of them appear to be passing mentions of the company rather than in-depth articles about it. Hope this helps. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the reply, CommanderWaterford, Firefly, and Jimfbleak. And I look forward to improving the article with comments and feedback from Firefly. Lakewood66 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy to leave it to the reviewers, it's not tagged for deletion at present anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello - I’ll respond substantively tomorrow, but just confirming I’ve seen this and haven’t forgotten you. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)