Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 13 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 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.


December 14

[edit]

00:36, 14 December 2023 review of submission by NorthPark1

[edit]

My recent article submission to Articles for Creation was recently reviewed. Unfortunately, it was not been accepted, the reason left by the reviewer being the following:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

In addition, the reviewer also left the following comment:

Promotional language throughout. Clearly based on the company's own publicity material.

I am writing to both ask for and request help and assistance from experienced and seasoned editors in rewriting my submission in full compliance with all stated Wikipedia guidelines, standards, policies, and requirements before resubmitting for approval. 

NorthPark1 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we won't write your draft for you. ltbdl (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
You need to start by finding such sources. It doesn't look to me as if any of your current sources meet the requirements of the golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:17, 14 December 2023 review of submission by Pololos29

[edit]

My draft for the 2024 olympics Artistic swimming Duet event telling me I did not use any independent sources. However the topic does not have any reliable and worth independent sources for understanding it. I know the sources are from the competition organizers but they are the ones that organize and write the rules, procedures and qualification process for this type of events. As well there are multiple articles of other Olympic games at artistic swimming that only use primary sources and they are official Wikipedia article. Therefore what can I do to improve my article and use independent sources? Thanks!!! 

Pololos29 (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However the topic does not have any reliable and worth independent sources for understanding it.
this means that it does not qualify for a wikipedia article. articles have to be based on reliable and independent sources.
As well there are multiple articles of other Olympic games at artistic swimming that only use primary sources and they are official Wikipedia article.
similar articles existing is not a reason to create more of them. in fact, they should probably be deleted as well. ltbdl (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:50, 14 December 2023 review of submission by Bigfard

[edit]

Hello, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, I am a new editor.

I am working on writing articles about people from my town. I recently got my first one denied, and the reason was the sources I used weren't adequate. So my question is: why weren't they adequate, and what counts as a reliable source? I have pasted a source that I have been planning on using for a future article (not the tim urban one); would this count as a reliable source?

https://theorg.com/org/new-balance/org-chart/bob-infantino Bigfard (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

articles have to be based on reliable, independent sources that cover the subject significantly.
source 1 is very weird. it seems to be entirely written by one person. i wouldn't trust it for anything.
sources 2 and 4 are interviews and not independent. source 3 lists his ted talk, not independent. sources 5 and 6 are his blog and are not independent.
the source you asked about also is not independent. it seems to be a hiring website. ltbdl (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 14 December 2023 review of submission by VIMALKUMAR PAREKH

[edit]

PLEASE HELP ME TO SUBMIT MY ARTICAL THIS IS REAL AND JANUAN VIMALKUMAR PAREKH (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no. stop trying to write about yourself on wikipedia. ltbdl (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 14 December 2023 review of submission by 2A00:A040:199:5385:E4ED:D8C8:741F:2417

[edit]

How do I improve this page? 2A00:A040:199:5385:E4ED:D8C8:741F:2417 (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot. the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:38, 14 December 2023 review of submission by 2603:6010:7807:5B5A:F894:421A:DDD0:97AC

[edit]

Don’t understand why it was rejected 2603:6010:7807:5B5A:F894:421A:DDD0:97AC (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the draft is incomprehensible. ltbdl (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:11, 14 December 2023 review of submission by 185.185.168.136

[edit]

It is the 2nd time that the page was declined, and with this second time, I wonder why. I have already before told, that the reason that is again given for the rejection would be that Im "too close to the subject" which I don't buy! I've already before discussed this with you and it's not convenient that you reject a page that has been created just according to your comments. As told before, I wanted to create a page of Solita as a proud Finnish person, since Solita is one of Finland's best succeeded technology company, which is now international.

Last time, you instructed me to write the article again, and try to find research material as sources. I found, and wrote the article as you instructed: referring the neutral and independent sources. Now the page is declined again. Could someone help?? 185.185.168.136 (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was declined for being promotional, and for a possible undisclosed COI. Personally, I can't say I disagree, but I would have again declined it for lack of notability, which, based on a quick glance, the sources still don't demonstrate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Can you give an example of why the page seems to you promotional, as I have stated all the facts of the company neutrally and referring to the sources. I've already with the 1st try reported about your suspicion about the COI, and I don't get it why I can't create a page of a successful Finnish company which I have nothing to do with other than I follow tech companies and think it is a good example.
Also, what do you mean with this: "I would have again declined it for lack of notability, which, based on a quick glance, the sources still don't demonstrate."
Thank you for the help! I appreciate it! 185.185.168.136 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solita’s service portfolio combines expertise from strategic consulting to service design, software and mobile app development, AI & analytics, cloud and integration services. I'm not quite sure what that means when translated from PR speak into English, but I think it's something like "Solita provides consultancy and software developent. I might have missed a bit of reality hiding among the blather. The company has been growing fast - which independent source has made that value-laden claim? Solita’s growth has been mostly organic, translated into English, seems to mean "Solita has got bigger", which is hardly encyclopaedic.
Solita values its corporate cultural, and the company's values of caring, easy-going, brave and passion are reflected in the company's everyday life. The company invests in family-friendliness and in work-life balance: this belongs in the company's brochure, not in an encycloapedic article about it. Find me a company that will not claim that (even companies where it is patently untrue). ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:32, 14 December 2023 review of submission by Mozammalhoquetipu

[edit]

1. I request an expert to review my draft if it is submission-worthy 2. can I use a public image that is already available in Wikipedia ? Mozammalhoquetipu (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to request a particular editor or expert to review a draft. Expert knowledge is not required to participate here, as articles are written by lay people for lay people, summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:British Spring College, Awka

[edit]

The reviewer of my article (Draft:British Spring College, Awka ) commented of not using reliable sources.

’Reliable sources’, according to Wikipedia, are articles that directly support the information in the article.

The only ‘self published media’ sources in my article is the school official website which, according to Wikipedia, can be included if it supports an uncontroversial information. The other sources were from various respected publishing houses, magazines, journals and other news converges available on the web.

The comment left by the reviewer is: “Please correctly use in-line citations “

So before I resubmit what other thing should be fixed? MikeJanetta (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:British Spring College, Awka
@MikeJanetta: first off, there is far more to the definition of reliable sources than simply "directly support the information in the article".
Secondly, the decline reason "not adequately supported by reliable sources" can mean not only that the sources are not reliable, but also that the referencing is insufficient to support the contents. My guess, looking at this draft, is that this latter point applies here, given that most of the draft contents are unreferenced.
Therefore, before you resubmit, you need to make sure that you support the contents better. The reviewer or reader should never find themselves wondering "how do I know that's true" or "wonder who said that", because there should be an inline citation right there, pointing to a reliable and verifiable source. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Sorry, also meant to say that piling most of your citations into the 'References' section is pretty pointless, because by definition they don't support anything in the main body. Cite them instead inline, against the information in the draft which they directly support. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will try to cite them inline than piling it up. I think that’s where the error is. MikeJanetta (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MikeJanetta. Yes- sorry for the confusion, my initial issue with the draft was that all your in-line citations were hanging off the bottom of the page so it was impossible to know which statement was backed up by which reference. I have not yet reviewed the references themselves to see if they are suitable. Qcne (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 14 December 2023 review of submission by GD.GERRYS

[edit]

My article is rejected. GD.GERRYS (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GD.GERRYS: indeed it is, and deleted; promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. And if you're planning to try again, you need to first disclose your paid editing; I've posted a message on your talk page with more information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GD.GERRYS: that's strike two, and you still haven't disclosed your paid-editing status. Just to warn you, you don't get many more strikes before you're out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 14 December 2023 review of submission by AdamdGee

[edit]

The page submission was declined, despite adding sources and detailed information on the club. I believe the club should be able to get a Wikipedia page as other smaller clubs in the same league or in lower leagues have Wikipedia pages. AdamdGee (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AdamdGee: we don't assess drafts by comparing to whatever else may exist out there in the article space, but by reference to the applicable guidelines and policies. This draft was declined because there is no evidence that the club is notable. For that, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the club, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Could you please help as to what evidence would be required? I have provided links to UAEFA, the governing body of UAE football leagues, which show that the club is one of the top perfoming clubs in the 2nd division. The club also hasJean-Marc Nobillo as the Technical Director who is a well known coach who has had a lot of success in previous clubs. Also the club's team (which can be verified from UAFA Website which i have linked) has Marcelo Torres, a well knows Argentinian football player (Verified from Transfer Market) as well as Abdul Al Hammadi, who plays for the UAE National Team. (This is verified from the UAFA website)
I believe this would make the team notable, considering it features known players, as well as it being a relatively new club yet already in top positions within the 2nd division, and it is likely the club will be promoted to the next division next season.
Would this not be sufficient to prove that the club is notable? AdamdGee (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AdamdGee: no, none of that has anything to do with notability, as understood in the context of Wikipedia. Per WP:NTEAM, sports teams and clubs must meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires the sort of sources I described in my earlier reply. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying there is no way to get this published as you do not believe the club to be notable enough? AdamdGee (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AdamdGee: it's not a question of whether I believe, it's a question of whether you can demonstrate notability, which so far you havent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna know the exact reason of rejection

[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as a "quality assured reference." I've read the Wikipedia guidelines, but references from other brands or company pages seem somewhat similar to this draft. Could you clarify what specific types of references would be ideal to add? 익명의 4인 (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kixx Oil
@익명의 4인: we are looking for sources that are secondary, reliable, independent, and have provided significant coverage of the subject, as detailed in the decline notice.
If you have found other articles with insufficient sources to establish notability, you're more than welcome to improve them, or else start deletion proceedings. That is not, however, a reason to create more such problems.
Lastly, you were asked two months ago to disclose any conflict of interest you may have with regard to this subject, especially but not only if you're engaged in paid editing. You haven't responded yet (that I can find, at least); please do so now, as your very next edit. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:54, 14 December 2023 review of submission by Tseella

[edit]

Hello! Could you please tell me what will be the best way to find reliable sources for this article? For a newly founded gallery, it seems to be quite challenging to find any. Thank you! Tseella (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tseella: you're approaching this BACKWARD. You shouldn't first write what you know (or what someone has told you to write, as the case may be), and then try to find sources that support that. You should first find a few sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, summarise what they say, and cite those sources against the information they have provided. And if, as you seem to suggest, you cannot find such sources, then that probably means the subject isn't yet notable enough and it isn't therefore possible to publish an article on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh you rang the bell, thanks so much! Tseella (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 14 December 2023 review of submission by Dfcy

[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to collect some thoughts on how to revise the page. I understand the comments made but am unsure about how to best go about the revision. Thanks! Dfcy (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the link is incorrect
Draft:Michael Just Dfcy (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning, are there enough references provided and the main problem is the tone / style of writing as the editor commented? What to focus on? Dfcy (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dfcy: there is a vaguely promotional tone throughout this, with quite a liberal use of adjective and adverbs that 'peacockify' the text; for example: "Michael Just has taught at universities and art schools internationally since 2004. He has participated in numerous conferences on methods of artistic research and art education and has published on these topics frequently, most recently as part of CAMP Notes on Education at documenta fifteen." – those words that I've bolded could just as well be left out, and IMO should be. Your objective is to describe, not to promote, the subject.
One could say that the long listings of exhibitions, awards, publications, etc., further create this effect. Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive catalogue of someone's entire output and career details, blow by blow. I would suggest cutting down those lists to the most notable items only.
The biggest issue I have with this, however, is the sparse referencing: eg. the 'Artistic Practice' section doesn't cite a single source – so where does that information come from? In any article, but especially one on a living person (WP:BLP), pretty much every statement needs to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable published source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:41, 14 December 2023 review of submission by QuickCan

[edit]

I Don't Know What to Do With The Citation When I AM QUICKCAN QuickCan (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickCan: doesn't matter much; this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 14 December 2023 review of submission by Alirezadubai

[edit]

This article is not about a person in afc Alirezadubai (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question @Alirezadubai? Qcne (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about a person in afc. How can I remove this topic from the article? Alirezadubai (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your question. Are you asking how to put the draft in the encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is afc category in this article. How to remove it? Alirezadubai (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AFC categories are there because the draft is in AFC. They shouldn't be removed until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a musician. afc is about football. These have nothing to do with each other. Please look at the article. Because it is rejected without checking with the wrong category. Alirezadubai (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFC stands for Articles for Creation, the name of this process. It has nothing to do with football. 331dot (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this advice. I have seen articles that are poorly documented and even wrongly referenced. Can you help me to print this article? Alirezadubai (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alirezadubai: if you come across articles that are insufficiently referenced, you're welcome to improve them. Or if they cannot be improved, you may begin deletion proceedings. But either way, just because there are problematic articles out there, is no reason for us to create more such problems. Your draft will be accepted if, and only if, it meets the relevant guidelines and standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 14 December 2023 review of submission by Avyukta31

[edit]

I want to make my article notable. Please help me on how I could do so. Avyukta31 (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Avyukta31. You do not meet our definition of a notable person at this time, sorry. Perhaps in the future if you become notable and are discussed by mainstream media, journals, books, and articles then you will merit an article on Wikipedia. You can not have one at the moment though. Qcne (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be releasing a book in Jan, would you be able to publish it then? As I will also be doing a book release interview and more.
Thank you for your feedback. Avyukta31 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Avyukta31 It is extremely unlikely that you will meet the criteria of a notable creative professional or a notable person that quickly. It takes much time. I suggest that you go on about your career as if Wikipedia didn't exist. Articles are typically written by independent editors who take note of coverage of a subject in independent sources and choose to write about it. That's the best indicator of notability. Also see about how an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:25, 14 December 2023 review of submission by Kuba666xd

[edit]

Because i didnt do anything bad i dont deserve rejection, its just info about a group of friendly gel blaster shooting friends! Kuba666xd (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuba666xd Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise your gel blaster shooting friends, as fun as that might be. Qcne (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_14&oldid=1190832496"