Help desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

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 7

03:38:49, 7 July 2022 review of submission by Yawer Nazir99

Yawer Nazir99 (talk · contribs)
- User:Baba Mahir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yawer Nazir99 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yawer Nazir99: We don't accept promotional junk. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:28, 7 July 2022 review of draft by GSL54

GSL54 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Meegan and Tobin Composers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - I have put together my first entry for consideration on Wikipedia and taken a great deal of care to adhere to the citation process. The entry about two music composers (Jeff Meegan and David Tobin) can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meegan_and_Tobin_Composers#BBC

The entry has been rejected because it is not apparently supported by reliable sources. As a retired journalist, I thought this was something I understood but I hope you can help me. The entry runs to about 850 words and contains 47 citations. Four of the citations are from Meegan & Tobin's own site. The other citations are from two music publishers: Heavy Hitters Music and Audio Network, Jazz Times, the BBC, Channel 5, IMDB, BMI and a registered charity. So, 43 citations are from independent reliable third-party sources.

I'd be very grateful if you could give me some concrete practical advice on how to make the draft compliant with the guidelines. There is, I think, nothing in the copy that isn't substantiated by reference to the footnotes and I am at a loss to know how to proceed.

Thanks you in advance for your help.

Gil Linton

GSL54 (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The huge number of references to Audio Network need to be removed they are not independent, confer zero notability and merely link to audio recordings, they are not required. IMDb is not a reliable source neither is YouTube. Theroadislong (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:23, 7 July 2022 review of draft by LeaBlanchet

LeaBlanchet (talk · contribs)
- Draft:K2 Geospatial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

My submission was declined and the reviewer's comment mentions the draft appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. I thought I've written it from a neutral point of view, but it seems the reviewer didn't think it was. How can the draft be more neutral?

Also, the reviewer's comment mentions that the draft should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. The draft has more the 30 sources which aren't materials produced by me. Should some references be added or changed?

Finally, the original article - (which I've translated from french and adapted in english) was approved and published Wikipédia. How can the french version be approved and the english not?

Thanks!

LeaBlanchet (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LeaBlanchet: firstly, the different language versions of Wikipedia are entirely separate projects, with their own rules and guidelines incl. for notability. The fact that frwiki has accepted this article has no bearing on enwiki, and v.v.

Secondly, it is better to have a small number of strong sources, rather than a large number of weak ones — this draft is a textbook example of REFBOMBING. And by 'weak', I mean anything put out by the subject themselves, including their marketing materials, press releases, as well as most routine business reporting which is usually mostly written by their marketing department anyway. We want to see what genuinely independent sources have, of their own volition, chosen to say about the subject, not what the subject's marketing team wanted them to regurgitate. Please refer to WP:ORGCRIT.

As for the promotional tone, expressions like "growing community", "democratise access", "adapt to the needs of each user", and "full services to help organizations implement powerful solutions to simplify and optimize decision making" are pure marketing blurb, which has no place in an encyclopaedia. I realise you have been paid to create this article, but to stand any chance of doing so, you will have to step outside of your marketing role and write in a much more factual style and a neutral and unbiased tone. HTH -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article for deletion as blatant advertizing. This reads like an investor-fishing press release that's drowning in buzzwords. What is your connexion to K2 Geospatial? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghastly totally promotional paid for marketing crap, from "The company is committed to making spatial information and analysis tools available to everyone." to "partners expose their expertise and technology to complement those of K2 in order to offer integrated solutions that meet the specific needs of organizations that request them" requires WP:TNT. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very experienced neither, but if the version at frwiki is similar to this, I recommend somebody go here and request AFD or SD for that article. QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing@Theroadislong@QiuLiming1

Thanks for your answers. I'll rewrite the draft in a more factual style and a neutral and unbiased tone.

I still have a question regarding sources. How can an article like Esri was accepted with 5 non independent sources on a total of 18? LeaBlanchet (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LeaBlanchet: It wasn't. The page predates Articles for Creation more-or-less entirely. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]