Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 18 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 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.


August 19

[edit]

01:20:38, 19 August 2022 review of submission by PeteredOutParker

[edit]

My page draft was declined because it was promotional/advertising. I would like to know how to write the page so it is not promotional or advertising. I thought it was written neutrally with thorough detail and appropriate links, and do know understand why the draft was denied, or what I could do to make the draft acceptable. I'm looking forward to the help! Thanks!

PeteredOutParker (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PeteredOutParker: take a look at Neutral point of view. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I've taken a look at this and understand the concepts well, but still believe the draft was written in this neutral point of view. Could you point out an example from my draft on how this could be written better? PeteredOutParker (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:26:00, 19 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Thepublich

[edit]


hi I need help editing draft for Jason Innocent.


Thepublich (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thepublich you need to be more specific: what help do you seek? (In any case, the draft is pending review now.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft was declined. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:32, 19 August 2022 review of submission by Uwwo

[edit]


To whom it may concern,

I understand that this article has been rejected. I do not understand the reason for rejection. The wikipedia entry on YERUN is apparently very similar and in fact the 'mother alliance' from which YUFE originated. I have used this artilcle as a template and I have provided the alliance websites as source using cite the web as referencing template. I have understood the review request yesterday and thought this was due to weak referencing which I have strengthened this morning. Given the article on YERUN is similar and has been accepted, I do not understand why this article on YUFE, which I intended to expand, has been outright rejected. May I kindly ask for feedback as to why this is the case? If reliable resource is the problem, then I need to understand why, in case of the YERUN network, the call website is deemed sufficient but not in case of my article.

Thank you and best wishes,

Uwe

Uwwo (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwwo: it has been rejected, because the content is pure marketing blurb, and there is no indication that the organisation is notable as the only source cited is its own website.
As for the other articles you refer to, see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uwwo (ec) Please see other stuff exists. The draft you used as a model has similar problems as to what you wrote, and I have marked it as such. This is why it's not a good idea to use other articles as a model unless they are classified as good articles. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, there are many ways inappropriate content can get by us. We can only address what we know about.
Your draft just tells about the organization and what it does, and is only sourced to the organization itself. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Press releases, interviews, the organization website, announcements of routine activities, brief mentions, and primary sources do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. Rejection means that resubmission is not possible, so the reviewer must have felt it unlikely that appropriate sources exist to summarize. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:32:04, 19 August 2022 review of submission by Omniscientia101

[edit]


Hi! I am requesting assistance with regards to a comment made by a previous admin who remarked that there are too many primary sources and moved this article into drafts. Linkedin YouTube videos, tweets, and any other primary source material has been removed - except links to the company's products, which are directly relevant to their function and thus are kept as footnotes. The relevant footnotes are 25, 26, and 27. Do these count as primary sources?

Has the issue in question been fixed?

Omniscientia101 (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omniscientia101 Most of your sources seem to be announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company(not merely reporting the routine activities of the company like personnel decisions or business transactions) showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. What are your three best sources in the draft? Do you have an association with this company? 331dot (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:25, 19 August 2022 review of submission by Canada2026

[edit]

I have added many new references but I am not sure if they count towards notability. I have tried to model the page after other soccer players in his league that have published pages and I am not sure what the difference is between his page and theirs Canada2026 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Canada2026 Beware in using other articles as a model unless they are classified as good articles; if the articles you used as a model are themselves problematic, you may not be aware of why and would duplicate the problems on this draft. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. Most of the sources you offered are not significant coverage of Finn. The criteria for sports figures has changed recently, there is no inherent notability any longer- sports figures must be shown to meet the general notability guidelines for biographies. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:10, 19 August 2022 review of draft by MagneticMomentMuon

[edit]


Hey there! This is my first page submission (at first I thought I would try a concept I thought was interesting that didn't have a page and then I was like nope, that's too hard to start out with, let me do a random company those seems simpler). My first draft I used the company's press releases as a source (dumb, should have read more guidelines, definitely wrong sources). This time I tried focusing on what I could find about the company via Google News. Totally get that if it sounds like an advertisement, it's a problem, I guess I'm just wondering which bits are advertise-y?? Is it the sponsorship section (I added that because I noticed other company pages had it, but maybe that's wrong?) Should I just try to make a new page with something else? Maybe this company isn't ready for a Wiki page yet?

Thanks for any guidance you can provide!!!! I really appreciate it. Back to reading your resources I go (there are so many, Wiki is so complex!!!!)

MagneticMomentMuon (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MagneticMomentMuon Wikipedia does not have "wiki pages", we have articles. This is a subtle but important distinction. Your draft does a good job of summarizing the business activities of the company- that's not what we are looking for, though. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities like the raising of capital or commencement of operations, and the like do not establish notability. We are looking for coverage that goes beyond the mere reporting of activities and discusses why the company is important or significant. If no such sources exist, the company likely does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help!!! I definitely was struggling with that distinction. Think I'll shelve this for now, and try something else. MagneticMomentMuon (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:51, 19 August 2022 review of submission by SJYTMAIN

[edit]

My article has not even been reviewed. I am not being disruptive. I have submitted the article for review and you aree refusing to review it for no apparent reason. Please review the article and tell me what to improve on so it can be ready for the encyclopedia. It is free of advertisement, includes proper citations, and structured appropriately. What is the issue? SJYTMAIN (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reviewed and rejected, it won't be considered again sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SJYTMAIN my advice would be to drop this, and move on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:27:58, 19 August 2022 review of submission by As2302575

[edit]


This is a very famous celebrity and all the information written about him is completely backed the references. I want a re-reveiw of this article please

As2302575 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your only references are to other youtube links. You need actual, verifiable reliable sources. ValarianB (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence to suggest that the subject of this article is notable. --Kinu t/c 18:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:06:02, 19 August 2022 review of submission by Ian503

[edit]


With all due respect, I believe the subject matter definitely meets the notability and sourcing requirements. From the links that you sent it says "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." I have provided 3 sources: the first two from regional, respected newspapers that feature articles solely about FOOD For Lane County. The last source I included because this page keeps getting rejected for lack of notability. It is an article from the "The Oregonian"--a statewide newspaper. Although FOOD For Lane County is not mentioned in the title, it is about an event sponsored completely by the organization and has much more than a passing reference to this food bank. All 3 sources are secondary sources, undeniably independent of FOOD For Lane County.

I am a little frustrated that I keep getting the same cookie-cutter rejection response about notability. I based this article on one about the Oregon Food Bank that was written by User:Another Believer. I know they are a very respected contributor to the Wikiproject Oregon as well as Wikipedia as a whole. They created this article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_Food_Bank&oldid=855615015. It had one source from The Oregonian. I cannot see how that article meets the notability requirements, but one about a similar organization with similar sources (as well as additional regional sources) does not.

I therefore ask you to please reconsider your decision about this article submission

Ian503 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft consisted of a single sentence with no indication of why the topic was notable. It was rejected which means it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ian503 An article must do more that tell that the topic exists. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about it. Announcements of routine activities- like a food bank raising funds or a sports team working to help the charity- do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:31, 19 August 2022 review of submission by PeppyFi3lds

[edit]


PeppyFi3lds (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, writing to see why my article submitted to be published was declined. PeppyFi3lds (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PeppyFi3lds The reason was given at the top of the draft by the reviewer. Do you have a question about it? 331dot (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PeppyF13lds: We don't accept promotional writing, and the sourcing here is woefully insufficient. What sources you do have are not formatted properly and lack critical bibliographical information (page numbers). Finally, I doubt you have the rights to upload any of the images on that page to Commons or under that specific copyright licence, in which case we can't use them on the draft and Commons cannot have them full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:41:47, 19 August 2022 review of submission by GoodPhone2020

[edit]


I was previously declined but I changed the unencyclopedic website into a another website. GoodPhone2020 (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodPhone2020 you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_August_19&oldid=1106527722"