Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 27 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 29 >
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.


May 28

[edit]

05:10:03, 28 May 2021 review of draft by Positiveilluminati

[edit]


Positiveilluminati (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:39:40, 28 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Vollylee

[edit]



Vollylee (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vollylee: Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of anything. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for things to watch out for. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the staff of MIC, I have not done any promotional content. We don't have company page on wikipedia, so I created one. What's more, we don't need any wikipedia paid service.

Vollylee Wikipedia does not have "company pages"; it has articles about companies, typically written by independent editors. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, but in what others completely unconnected with the company say about it. Your draft was blatant advertising.
Since you work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing declaration; you should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:31:05, 28 May 2021 review of submission by 78.38.12.141

[edit]


78.38.12.141 (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:35:43, 28 May 2021 review of draft by 24.255.75.126

[edit]


I do not understand why my (autobiographical) article was rejected.

Thank you.

Mitchell James Kaplan


24.255.75.126 (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:29, 28 May 2021 review of submission by 72.68.49.212

[edit]

I added strongly references 72.68.49.212 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:36, 28 May 2021 review of submission by Tawianomlet

[edit]


Hello,

I don't understand what went wrong. It's the leading piping company in India. Do I need to change the wordings??? Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finolex_Cables, it is more notable than it!

Tawianomlet (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong I did read it, but it says it's an essay. Those are not Rules, and I read that Rules can be improved/changed overtime, but that's not what I am talking about. It's fine that Finolex Cables is what I used in my defense, but that's only because it was a similar field. I have seen many American companies on Wikipedia that are far more less notable than my Draft, less references too. But they are kept because they are known in the US through word-of-mouth. This is not fair for other countries :/

I checked Finolex's history, it was nominated for deletion earlier and someone clearly said it is notable. I mean, these are the leading industry companies! Not startups! How can a not notable company earn in billions? If your restaurant is busy 24*7, then it means it's famous in the city. If a company, that also a piping company that sells stuff for less than a USD, earns in billions, then it means it has some significant presence in the country.

Is it possible to get a conses on this, including Indian editors?

Thank you!

If there's anything I can do with the wordings, then let me know because it reads normal to me.Tawianomlet (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tawianomlet Please point out these other articles that you say are less notable; we can only address what we know about, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We could use the help in identifying inappropriate articles for action.
Wikipedia articles must do more than tell about a company, they must summarize what independent reliable sources say about it. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot It says that rejected Drafts are not suggested to be submitted again, where does it say that they are a gone case? I am trying to establish something here.

Technically, each article about a company will talk about its history, achievements, and legal cases. This is literally Wikipedia "telling" about a company. What have I done? I summarized what the sources said. That's how other companies are too.

And sure, I will put the notability and deletion tag on companies that seem to be not notable. But I wonder if that's gonna work because they will be known in the US through word-of-mouth.

Two such companies are these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Ice_Cream_Company, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garolini (Italian then US) Tawianomlet (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked a couple of your sources for Draft:Prince_Pipes_and_Fittings_Limited they failed verification, the sources do NOT say the company is the largest in India. Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to this on my talk page: Theroadislong A quick Google search will show it is amongst the top ones, I rewrote it as "one of the largest."

https://indiancompanies.in/top-10-pvc-pipe-manufacturers-in-india/ https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-list-of-top-10-PVC-pipe-manufacturers-in-India http://www.walkthroughindia.com/industry/15-manufacturing-companies-of-pvc-pipes-in-india/ https://www.indiasstuffs.com/best-pvc-pipe-fitting-companies-in-india/

These may be bad sources, but it does mean something.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tawianomlet (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tawianomlet Telling about the company is only part of an article, you haven't established that this company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company, and in rejecting it the reviewer felt that the prospect of that happening is low. Please review the notability criteria carefully, with a focus on what sources are not acceptable for establishing notability.
You are fighting for this very hard, do you have a particular interest in this company? 331dot (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Then reject/delete other companies too. They are literally not notable compared to Prince Fittings. I do have a particular interest, not directly but I do.

Tawianomlet This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. As I said, you are welcome to help us identify inappropriate articles for action. We can only address what we know about. Please also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a volunteer too. I have started to put the tags. I am not connected to Prince Fittings? I have an interest in it. How to do the COI? And I am fighting hard because the decision was wrong. It is literally a notable company. 331dot Tawianomlet (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tawianomlet Having an "interest" in a topic has a specific meaning for Wikipedia. You wrote "I do have a particular interest, not directly but I do." A conflict of interest would apply if you have a personal connection to the company, or people at the company, or reached out to the company to get information to compose the draft. If true, then on your User page you should describe the connection. If not, then state that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Okays. Tawianomlet (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:43, 28 May 2021 review of submission by User98908655227

[edit]


User98908655227 (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See answer below. Theroadislong (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:39, 28 May 2021 review of submission by User98908655227

[edit]


User98908655227 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is unsourced, no evidence of notability and rejected, will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:02:03, 28 May 2021 review of submission by User98908655227

[edit]


User98908655227 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See answer above. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:56:57, 28 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jess.goodwin

[edit]


Hello, my recent submission of the page John Paul Ataker was declined this morning because it was "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" and a comment was left saying "this is an advertisement". I put this page together on behalf of a client, who provided the copy and references.

They would very much like to have a Wiki page about their company, as many other high end clothing brands do, so if you could help me improve this article so it can be approved, it would be greatly appreciated.

Jess.goodwin (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jess.goodwin To be frank, Wikipedia is completely unconcerned with whether a potential subject wants an article or not, is completely unconcerned with its internet presence, helping potential customers, or similar. Those may be side benefits but not our goal. Our sole focus is on summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Not every company merits an article, even within the same field. It depends on the sources. The company website, staff interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, this is blatant advertising and I would have rejected it outright too " brand targets a fashion-forward clientèle" and "featured in influential fashion and celebrity publications' is NOT neutral tone for example. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:04:50, 28 May 2021 review of draft by Kepler-1229b

[edit]


This draft has been declined 3 times, but it is written like any other eclipse article, and the sources are the same website. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Approved and moved. Just how far in advance the eclipses should have articles is a valid question, but in this case, I think the template is pretty consistent. If you choose to do the missing Annular eclipse in the template, drop me a note.Naraht (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:37, 28 May 2021 review of draft by Thecr8tve

[edit]


Hi,

My draft article has two errors that I cannot figure out how to fix. They are both under the References section. Entries #2 and #3 have the following written in red: Check |archive-url= value (help).

The References are links to archived New York Times articles. I am not sure how to fix this, can you help?

The article is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Darryn_Melerine

Thank you!

Thecr8tve (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my assessment of the sources you proffer (guide):
Conclusion: You have not shown he is notable per our definition. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:34, 28 May 2021 review of submission by 2400:ADC1:1C1:1A00:C969:4F5C:8199:F965

[edit]


2400:ADC1:1C1:1A00:C969:4F5C:8199:F965 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


He really inspire many------ https://natfluence.com/interview/salman-lakhani/


https://www.cubix.co/blog/cubix-university-internship-program-2021

Currently, none of the sources used are all three: reliable, independent of cubix and contain significant coverage of the subject (Press releases, Routine Anouncements, Interviews with staff, social media and most blogs commonly fail at least one of them). If such sources don't exist, we cannot have an article at this time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:46, 28 May 2021 review of submission by Samanminika

[edit]


Samanminika (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read the advice left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:16:32, 28 May 2021 review of submission by Derek Alexander

[edit]


Derek Alexander (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


What is an example of "independent sources" that can be put under references? What makes a good "independent source"? What makes a good "independent source" qualifiable in order for his wiki article to be approved or accepted so that he can be notable? And how can I get an "independent source" to write more about Carlos Garrido so that he can become notable on wikipedia as well as appear on google like how most celebrities appear on Wikipedia & google? Because some user by the name @"Theroadislong" left two comments on my article, with one of them, if not both, being so silly & foolish saying that 1.) "zero independent sources, so zero chances of being acceptable." & 2.) "sources need to be independent NOT his own websites." And I have a comment about his comments as well as something to say about that - let me give you an example: Jason David Frank's business website "Rising Sun Karate School" is listed on his references side of his wikipedia page as an "independent source" that was created, added &/or edited by some anonymous user. So therefore, Carlos's company website should be considered as an "independent source." So that leads up to another follow up question: What makes Jason David Frank's business website qualified as an "independent source" under his wiki references, and not Carlos's business website? Carlos's business website IS an independent source, even if his official website may not be considered one. This is B.S., hypocritical, unfair & ridiculous.

Courtesy link Draft:Carlos Garrido. Theroadislong (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Derek Alexander: an independent source is one that is not connected to the subject. A personal website or a website of a company they work for or with is not independent. Now we don’t outright ban the use of primary sources such as personal websites we do limit their use to only verifying very simple facts such as a date of birth. A Wikipedia article should based on what others have said about the subject in published independent reliable sources, not what they say about themselves. If there is enough of this sort of coverage we then say they may be notable. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_May_28&oldid=1026568186"