Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 13 << May | June | Jul >> June 15 >
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 14

[edit]

00:24:59, 14 June 2022 review of submission by 197.247.241.143

[edit]


all sources are independent and not created by the person involved

197.247.241.143 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:52:56, 14 June 2022 review of submission by Malvika 30June

[edit]


Hi This is regarding my article on Dr Malini Saba. Since this is my first time on Wikipedia, I wanted to know what all changes/additions I can do to the profile submitted to make it public. The same profile is already public in many of the newspapers and online portals.

Request your guidance on it.


Malvika 30June (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Malvika 30June:
There is nothing you can do, because the draft has been rejected and will not be considered. But if you were to write another draft on another subject, which you're of course welcome to do, you need to avoid the mistakes made in this one, namely: this draft is highly promotional in nature (Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging site, and certainly not a place for personal promotions and advertising), and it is completely devoid of sources which are needed not only to support the article contents but also to establish that the subject is notable enough to warrant its own article.
Another thing: since you mention that the same profile exists in other sources, I've just run a copyvio check on it, and indeed it seems the text has been lifted from sources claiming copyright, which not only breaks Wikipedia's rules but actual laws. I will now request that the content is deleted accordingly.
Finally, you refer to it elsewhere as 'our' article, which suggests that you may have a connection with the subject, and for that reason I have placed a conflict of interest (COI) query on your user talk page, to which you should please respond before editing further. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:33, 14 June 2022 review of draft by Ihsnavihs

[edit]


Hi,

I had written and submitted an article on IPSA (International Professional Security Association) a while ago that was rejected with feedback of seeming advertising with lack of a neutral point of view and that it needed better references.

I have now completely reworked the article based on the feedback and would like to get some feedback on it before i submit it to Wikipedia again.

Thanks. Ihsnavihs (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsnavihs Just noting it was "declined", not "rejected". Rejection means that resubmission is not possible, declined means it is. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Ok. Thanks for the correction Ihsnavihs (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you declared a conflict of interest, if you work for them, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, understood. Would you be able to review and suggest what further changes and edits I could make to be able to get it accepted? Ihsnavihs (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihsnavihs: whether this can be accepted or not is something that gets determined when a reviewer carries out a review, so let's not try to jump the gun, please. But FWIW, I for one would be declining this for being promotional; it basically reads like it came straight from the organisation's marketing department (!), whereas we want something that essentially summarises what other, independent and reliable, sources have said about them — without any spin, gloss or promotion. We also don't need to know about the management team and founders, etc.; save those for their website.
If you want to increase your chances of an early review, you could cut down the REFBOMBING: 86 sources is way OTT, especially as many of them are non-RS like Twitter and LinkedIn; we also don't need multiple references for each cell in those tables. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:23:51, 14 June 2022 review of submission by Emery Cool21

[edit]

I have fixed 2 issues, removing the gaming guide and removing the criticism section. Also, this article is may be notable enough, and the game had more than 10 million downloads in Play Store.

Emery Cool21 (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Emery Cool21 — notability does not stem from 10 million downloads; it is based on what independent and reliable secondary sources have, of their own volition, said about the subject. Your draft only cites Fandom, Facebook, YouTube and app stores. None of these contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:36, 14 June 2022 review of submission by Ts7852

[edit]


Can someone help me why the sources I cited are not reliable? They are all so reputed sources but still I got feedback that my page is not cited by reliable sources...

Ts7852 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ts7852 It isn't that the sources you provided are not reliable, it is that you don't have enough. You have two reviews that do contribute to notability, but generally to pass AFC at least three independent sources are needed. The other sources provided seem only to document specific facts. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Physicswallah

[edit]

Recently I've created Draft:Physicswallah and it was declined during review. However, I believe this is a notable subject as it was covered by tons of news organizations in recent days . I'd love to know what I can do to make the article eligible for being published on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philonoist03 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:27:16, 14 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Arieliris

[edit]


Hi again, the draft was just declined again - with the same reason/template. Help_desk#14:20:14,_12_June_2022_review_of_draft_by_Arieliris Do you have any advice on why the sources are not reliable or subject would not be noticeable - as per wording of the guidelines this seems to be the case. Thank you!--Arieliris (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arieliris (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just about everything used as a source in this article is about Mike Ashley. Notability is not contagious; you don't get to be notable by being handed lots of money by your notable father-in-law. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:05, 14 June 2022 review of submission by CeeKoll

[edit]


Page link of draft: Draft:Christopher H. Volk

Can you please advise me how to delete this draft?

Thank you. CeeKoll (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CeeKoll I fixed the formatting issue that prevented proper display of your message. I also removed the url (it's unnecessary) and converted it to an internal link. I deleted it. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:42:21, 14 June 2022 review of submission by Joshmac81

[edit]


I'm frankly a little confused by the continued pushback on this article... In the numismatic community Highfill is someone who has contributed a lot to his area of the hobby and has been referenced in several sources not related to or created by him. If there is a copyright issue with the photo or whatnot I fully understand. But please point to what specific issues this article has because I'm having a hard time figuring out what makes this article or subject any less viable than others that cover figures from other pursuits. Thank you for your time with this submission and my inquiry about it.

Joshmac81 (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshmac81: him being evidently keen to promote himself, and you being keen to get your client's profile onto Wikipedia, describing him as 'luminary' etc., doesn't get us around the fact that the sources cited in that draft do not establish the notability of the subject. And it's not like this was rejected straight off the bat; five experienced reviewers declined it before finally rejecting it, so there has been plenty of opportunity to cite better sources. Now it will not be considered anymore. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:50:01, 14 June 2022 review of draft by Mar.Morannon

[edit]


When trying to list an artist independently, what is the criteria for being a "prominent member" of two or more independently notable ensembles?

Thanks,Mar.Morannon (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mar.Morannon (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:57:16, 14 June 2022 review of submission by Draty

[edit]


Draty (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, this is not a hoax, this is the Top 4 newest flags in the world with administrative divisions & countries. The flags of Belize, Mississippi, Afghanistan & Honduras. So, please do not worry

@Draty: nobody has said it's a hoax, only that it's not a notable subject, and has no prospect of becoming an encyclopaedia article. In any case, the draft has been rejected. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_June_14&oldid=1093969766"