Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 3 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 5 >
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.


January 4

[edit]

03:08:36, 4 January 2023 review of draft by SigurdsCross

[edit]


What did the critic mean that surname pages aren't in line with what Wikipedia does? There are thousands. If "The Thursday Night Massacre" can get a page in less than a day and all of the surnames I linked have pages, why would my last name not be approved? Thanks. SigurdsCross (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SigurdsCross: the answer to your question "What did the critic mean..." inevitably lies with the 'critic'; perhaps you could enquire with them directly?
FWIW, it is true that we do have articles on surnames (eg. Taylor (surname)); it is also clearly the case that we cannot have an article on every surname. Whether we should have one on 'Saviers' depends first and foremost on whether sources can be found that show the name (in its own right) to be notable. Of the ones cited in your draft, I would say only the book, The Seaver Genealogy, looks like it provides significant coverage of the subject, but whether it is independent (and/or reliable) enough, I don't know, seeing as it has been written by someone with at least some direct interest in the matter. In any case, it alone isn't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, which requires multiple sources. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:04:27, 4 January 2023 review of submission by Tamtrible

[edit]


Previous reviewers have taken issue with the similarities between this article and the "list of herbs and spices", which... I have issue with, but it seems like a valid concern, at least. This reviewer said the subject is "not notable". That seems... not a reasonable criticism.

Some non-Wikipedia results on searches for "plants used as herbs" and "plants used as spices": https://www.anniesremedy.com/chart.php?gc=b101 https://www.healthline.com/health/most-powerful-medicinal-plants https://www.nhp.gov.in/introduction-and-importance-of-medicinal-plants-and-herbs_mtl https://www.nlm.nih.gov/about/herbgarden/list.html https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/herbs/ https://list.ly/list/1UDP-top-10-plants-used-as-spices https://plantsbank.com/spice-plant-10-easy-herbs-and-spices-to-grow-at-home/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33809800/ https://www.yaclass.in/p/science-state-board/class-6/plants-in-daily-life-16198/the-plants-in-human-welfare-11743/re-cd6e3777-ad54-4b1b-9359-2afbb98e44ba https://www.thespruce.com/grow-your-own-spices-3269653 https://www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and-animals/botany/botany-general/herbs-and-spices

So, I'd say that it's a topic that a lot of people are talking about to at least some degree, so I fail to see how it's not "notable".

Tamtrible (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamtrible: what is your question regarding this rejected draft? Please bear in mind that this help desk is for assistance with drafts currently undergoing the AfC process, not for debating the rationale for articles more generally. If it hasn't been suggested before (and I seem to recall it has, although could be wrong of course) then let me suggest that you might wish to bring this up at Talk:List of culinary herbs and spices to see if there is consensus for eg. splitting the contents or changing the way the topic (of that and/or any other articles, possibly new ones) is delineated. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question is... how is the topic "not notable"?
As far as bringing it up at the list of culinary herbs and spices... I have. To no avail. My page now has considerably more information than the original, in a more useful format, but... the only way I could "improve" the existing article with my article is by, well, basically replacing, or at least almost entirely duplicating, it. So, I have tried to ask on the talk page as suggested, and gotten... a minimal response. And I can't make my table back into a non-draft-space page since it was rejected before, except by going through channels. So I keep trying, in hopes that someone will either agree to let it be its own thing, or generate enough consensus to replace the existing page with my page, or tell me what I need to do to make my page into a different enough page to allow it to be its own thing, or whatever. Going round and round on that angle is one thing, but claiming that the topic is "not notable" is... a bit silly, to me.
Does that make sense?
If you want, I can dredge up links to the prior discussions on the topic. Tamtrible (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:08:48, 4 January 2023 review of submission by 223.176.112.126

[edit]


223.176.112.126 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or personal blogging platform. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, try LinkedIn etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:25:36, 4 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Botan Hamza Hasan

[edit]



Botan Hamza Hasan (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Botan Hamza Hasan You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:32:04, 4 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Vardyhero

[edit]


My article Retro Gaming Expo has been rejected three separate times (I believe unfairly) regarding referencing. The references provide a mix of both primary and secondary references, and some of the references although being just passing comments regarding the event, still to emphasise the points being made well (ie one reference supports the statement that the event has live music, and the supporting article is that of a band commenting on how they will be playing at the event on a given date, and the music they will play. This was commented on as not sufficient). The next edit requested this be reviewed, and instead the article was commented on as 'being too much of an advertisement'. Other than one statement mentioning the popularity of the event causing expansion, the whole article is nondescript, and comments entirely on the history of the event and the features it holds. It would be impossible to write about any event without this occurring. I would appreciate a fair take on this, as other wikipedia pages of similar natures are far less in-depth, far less securely referenced, yet have made the cut. I am beginning to get very frustrated and believe that posting on Wikipedia must only be for an elite group, who hold the power currently. It does not encourage free information/education sharing such as the site aims to achieve. Please review this for me and let me know your thoughts. Vardyhero (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vardyhero As someone associated with this event, you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not for merely sharing information. This is not a mere database where existence warrants a mention; this is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called "notability". This isn't a place to merely tell about a subject and what it does. As an encyclopedia, an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets (in this case) the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. You have done a nice job citing the existence of the event and what occurs there- the trouble is, that's not what we are looking for. We are looking for independent reliable sources that have written on their own about the significance or influence of this event as they see it. None of the sources you have do that. I fear that you are too close to your event to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires. This isn't about power or the elite, it's about our guidelines. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:26, 4 January 2023 review of submission by Andrevan

[edit]

Meets WP:GNG so why was it declined again? Andre🚐 13:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Andre🚐 13:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: the reviewer's assessment was that it does not meet GNG. If you believe otherwise, please highlight the three strongest sources and satisfy the criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Andre🚐 13:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan The first two sources are largely interviews with the subject; interviews do not establish notability because it is the person speaking about themselves. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, reading the essay Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability.... nterview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts I think a few of these interviews might fall in that category, but regardless: This source [8] is not an interview at all, and this source [9] only has a few small quotes but is mostly not an interview. Andre🚐 13:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An essay is not policy. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm aware of that, but what is the relevant policy that says interviews should not be counted at all? Andre🚐 13:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say interviews "should not be counted at all"; interviews cannot be used to establish notability. WP:GNG requires sources be independent of the subject, which an interview by definition is not. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what about an article that is independent of the subject and also interviews the subject? E.g. the first article I linked, by Rito P. Asilo - Entertainment Editor, Philippine Daily Inquirer, contains descriptions such as The six-part HBO Asia Originals production “Food Affair with Mark Wiens,” which kickstarts a three-year collaboration among Warner Bros. Discovery, Singapore Tourism Board and Zhao Wei Films, sees the charming YouTube sensation going on an invigorating journey of food obsession as he shines the spotlight on a country’s diverse cuisine—from fine dining to hawker fare.... Mark, who has more than 9 million subscribers worldwide and 2 billion views on YouTube This isn't material coming out of the subject's mouth but is being written by the reporter. Andre🚐 14:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan But that is not significant coverage, another requirement. It just documents a specific fact, which is important, but does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh, ok. I think there's a bit of gray area here, but we can agree to disagree. It's an article called "Mark Wiens makes the big jump from YouTube to mainstream TV" which is pretty much entirely focused on the subject. Part of it is an interview yes, but it's significant and independent in my view. But I don't want to die on that hill. Andre🚐 14:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" goes into detail about what is influential or important about the topic. I'm not seeing what is influential or important about this person from that source other than "they moved to television"- but that may be for the community to decide. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's basically a food vlogger who was able to parlay his success into his own restaurant and a TV show deal. Honestly, I did not even know that he had an HBO show until yesterday. But he's essentially an Anthony Bourdain-esque figure who has spawned a number of imitators and a whole subgenre of youtube videos. And he has managed to pick up some coverage in the process - more than what I would usually expect merits an article. Andre🚐 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are addressed in the WP:Primary section. specifically in note c, of the WP:Original research policy and WP:GNG states secondary independent sources are required. WP:Independent sources is actually just an essay but it is cited enough by the community that it leans toward a de-facto guideline. And @Andrevan no one will ever come close to Anthony Bourdain. :) S0091 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case they are independent news media reports about the person. I can see the argument for being primary news reporting close to an event. But for example an independent news article that happens to quote the subject - I wasn't aware of a policy-based argument that it's not independent due to interviewing the subject. Andre🚐 17:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The trick is to strip out anything attributed to him (quotes, or things like "he says", "according to him", "he claims", etc.), statements that are clearly emanating from the subject or promotional fluff. There will also always be a brief introduction/background about the subject being interviewed which is generally considered trivial coverage. The first source listed above does have a little more meaningful content but the second and third are not useful. S0091 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources 13 and 14 are clearly based on a publicity campaign promoting his new HBO series. We need to see what serious, independent journalists have written of their own volition, rather than regurgitating press materials and 'media roundtables'. Besides, The Sun Daily is considered non-reliable.
I asked for three sources, not nine, precisely so that we can evaluate the best sources, not having to plough through piles of refbombing. It is the best sources that need to satisfy the GNG criteria, otherwise notability is in jeopardy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a review of the same article by CaptainEek from 2 years ago where they wrote the current sourcing has three good sources in it that seem to meet GNG. That predates the HBO series announcement. I apologize about "The Sun Daily" as I did not realize that was an unreliable source. If the reasoning is that they are interviews I guess that makes sense, but I wish one of the reviewers would have written that before. Andre🚐 14:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan I am willing to accept this draft in its current state. After that the community can decide. I would have done so already but it is create protected. @DoubleGrazing I understand the points you are making. Even so I believe that this has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion on the references that appear to be worthwile 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for weighing in, and your thoughts. I appreciate that either way. Andre🚐 14:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan If it ends up at AfD then the community can decide. If it does not, then the community has decided. If it does not get to mainspace then the community is not deciding, however many reviewers add wisdom to this discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent Being create protected is usually a decent indicator that the subject is not notable, as it's create protected due to repeated attempts at creation. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article about a popular Youtuber and restauranteur, likely being repeatedly recreated by fans like myself who think the subject deserves an article and don't understand why he doesn't have one. Andre🚐 14:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan Fame is not the same as notability- something which most fans who come here to write about persons they are fans of don't understand. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of that, but I happen to think that Mark Wiens is both famous and notable. We have a List of YouTubers and there are quite a few people on there less notable than Mark Wiens in my estimation. Andre🚐 14:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an WP:OSE issue. If they are not notable, they will eventually be addressed. Best wishes to you. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I don't want to make an OTHERSTUFF argument at all. However in my view Wiens is notable, and the reason why he is perennially recreated is because the notability bar is low enough that other similar individuals such as Trevor James (traveler) can survive being tagged since 2019, while Wiens is gate-kept by NPP reviews despite apparently having sourcing. But, I appreciate the engagement on this and your time. Andre🚐 15:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan The draft is held up at present by AFC, not NPP. Assuming acceptance (were I able to do it) I would also ensure that NPP took a look. I anticipate an early visit to AfD.
In real terms none of this discussion matters despite strongly held opinions. It can be accepted and may or may not survive. If it survives, then good; if it is deleted, then good, because Wikipedia is improved either way. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I meant AFC sorry. Neurons crossed. Anyway, thanks for your attention to this and we'll see what happens I guess. Andre🚐 16:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People do not "deserve" articles- they merit articles, based on notability and whether or not they have significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that is semantic, I am using "deserve" to mean "merit." Andre🚐 14:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you meant it that way, okay, but many people mean "deserve" as in a topic should get an article to honor or recognize their work- which is not what we are about. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that. I am not a new user. If I didn't think he was notable I would not be advocating for the creation of his article or at least an AFD hearing for it. Andre🚐 14:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Normally I would agree with you. My feeling, though, is that it is worth a punt. I am but one voice, and I seem to be in dissent, but I have a genuine belief that this scrapes in, despite my personal distaste for such "personalities" and articles on them. Anyway, I have said with goodwill what I felt important to say and will leave it to others now. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent I respect your viewpoint. Thanks for offering it. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair. I've no issue with that, FWIW. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're all set with sources on this page, to pass this process, only about three are needed. We're only interested in your three best sources(which I believe you have already offered above). 331dot (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:40, 4 January 2023 review of submission by Genefpolicinski

[edit]


Genefpolicinski (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC) The material was lifted from my personal pages by Discovery Park of America for use in a press release, with my permission. The original source/information is owned by me, and thus, I retain all rights to use.[reply]

Genefpolicinski I assume this is about Draft:Gene Policinski Yes, that's it- you retain the rights, this means that the content is incompatible with Wikipedia, whose licence allows reuse with attribution for any purpose(including commercial). If you wish to retain the rights, you can't put the content on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, people are discouraged from writing about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Genefpolicinski As 331dot rightly implies, if you are willing to license your material in a way that allows anyone to reuse it for any purpose, including commercial purposes, feel free to include it on Wikipedia. Note that the autobiography policy still applies. David10244 (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:20:11, 4 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Gracy Mugi

[edit]


I got most of information on the cited sources about the person. I did not know how I could paraphrase them yet it is not my own work. Secondly, I don't know I could quotes in the wiki talk text. It is my first article and I would like it to be published as I learn a lot for my next publications.

Gracy Mugi (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gracy Mugi Will it be okay if someone places it in Draft space, and not on your user page, which is for the named person to tell about themselves as an editor? 331dot (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes no problem. It can be done, all I care more is that it is published. Thanks Gracy Mugi (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gracy Mugi When the draft is in "draft space", it is not yet published. When you think it is ready to be reviewed to see if it meets all of Wikipedia's requirements, and it is properly sourced (click here), click the "submit" button in the draft. Let us know if you don't see a submit button. After it is submitted, a reviewer will review the draft and let you know if if needs more work. The wait for an article to be reviewed can be a few days, weeks, or (sometimes) 3 or 4 months. We hope it doesn't take that long. Good luck, and ask again if you have more questions. David10244 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:26, 4 January 2023 review of draft by Tojoroy20

[edit]


Tojoroy20 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't claim any information that isn't confirmed by a source. In this case, it doesn't need in-depth reference because it only provides information which is very basic about the subject. References sufficiently substantiate the facts mentioned or stated about the subject. Some articles may not be directly about the subject, but they do not disprove the facts mentioned. All the other articles about Colleges of Tripura, for example Government Degree College, Amarpur, Government Degree College, Dharmanagar, Government Degree College, Gandacharra, Tripura Institute of Technology and all of them don't have any references or max to max one or two. In comparison to those, this is far better in terms of sources. Why those articles ( mentioned ) are qualified but this one ? Just the two lines are not enough to describe why it isn't accepted ?

Tojoroy20 You are in error. An article is meant to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Mere existence is insufficient to merit an article- we are interested in what outside sources say is important or significant about the college. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read other stuff exists; it could be that these other articles you cite are also inappropriate, and simply not addressed yet. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:50:51, 4 January 2023 review of submission by Fico Puricelli

[edit]

Greetings. I tried to publish this article, but I was told it has a few issues. That's why I need help, or someone else to take over, please. Thank you. Fico Puricelli (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fico Puricelli: this draft has been rejected, meaning it's the end of the road for it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now I understand what went wrong. I deleted the unnecessary things. If you want, you can check it again. If it fails again, then you can delete it. Thank you for everything. Fico Puricelli (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fico Puricelli If you want this draft to be reviewed again, click the blue "Submit for Review" button. David10244 (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:35, 4 January 2023 review of submission by Fico Puricelli

[edit]


Fico Puricelli (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dup of above section. David10244 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:48, 4 January 2023 review of submission by LabourTO

[edit]


Hello! I do not understand why my article has been rejected. I am requesting that you please reconsider. You may see the history of feedback and assume I am mindlessly or irresponsibly re-submitting, however, this is not the case. The article has evolved substantially as I now better understand the feedback. I have taken great care to refine the article pursuant to several rounds of feedback, and strongly believe that the article now meets all of Wikipedia's standards.

Re: Notability (This is cited as the reason for the rejection) Given the volume of consumer publications that have published articles covering the chain, its rapid expansion and business growth, and coverage about its socially responsible corporate approach, it is certainly notable. In fact, the author of one of the articles cited (Diane Galambos in The Hamilton Spectator) wrote about how she'd "always meant to visit", and then finally did so when a newer location opened. This suggests that the brand had already built up noteworthiness, even before her published article furthered this notability.

Re: Paid Promotion / Editing (In case this is a question) At one point in the process, I received a question about whether I have any vested interest in the article. To confirm, the answer is no. I am a neutral party - simply put, a happy customer.

Re: Advertising (In case this is a consideration) At one point in the process, I received feedback that the article sounded too ad-like. Great care has been taken to ensuring all sentences are factual articulations of the content within the articles. The cited articles themselves are positive, so the statements in this article are, by extension, not not positive.

I have reviewed countless Wikipedia articles about other restaurant chains, and am failing to see any difference at all in the 'notability', tone, sources, of any of those articles. In fact, my article about Pür & Simple has many more public articles cited than some others that have already been accepted and published by Wikipedia. Some examples of other published restaurant articles that I think are far less notable include: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tha%C3%AF_Express -- Literally all sources are either on their own website, in their own press release, or a trade publication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey%27s_Seafood_Restaurants -- One source, and their own website to boot! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Grill_(restaurant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikes_(restaurant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cora_(restaurant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Florentine

If these are all notable enough for publication (and there are so many more just like this), I truly believe that Pür & Simple is notable too, and worthy of publishing.

I ask that you please reconsider the rejection. Thank you!


LabourTO (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists, most of those articles should be deleted as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Thank you. I understand your response to me questioning how other articles compare. Do you have any response or suggestion in respect of the rest of my commentary about how the subject is, indeed, notable? The reason cited for the article's rejection is that it is not notable. I believe I've outlined a detailed explanation for why it is, indeed, notable. How can I go about having the article reconsidered or allowed to be back in draft? LabourTO (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamiebuba - Please see my comments and questions here, further to your rejection of my article about Pür & Simple. (You can ignore the last section where I reference other articles, as @Theroadislong has already explained those are irrelevant.) My main comment is to suggest that the article does indeed meet notability criteria. Can you please advise? Thanks! LabourTO (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of wether this is notable, it is still just blatant advertising eg. " Pür & Simple serves a wide range of breakfast and lunch menu options, including omelettes, Benedicts, pancakes, sandwiches, and skillets" "many new restaurant openings in 2022", "menu is accessible for many dietary restrictions, including Halal and gluten sensitive"' " restaurant has also been recognized as a dessert destination, for sweeter dishes like cinnamon swirl pancakes and french toast crisp" etc. Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong The article wasn't rejected on account of it being advertising. It was rejected because it supposedly isn't notable. So its notability is what I am questioning. As for advertising, it's not intended at all to be advertising. The example text you're quoting is not advertising, it's exactly what's been reported in the articles - and therefore what makes the brand notable. Pür & Simple is a popular and well loved restaurant. Its menu offering is, of course, what people will talk about. And what is wrong with "many new restaurant openings in 2022"? These are historical events - and matters of fact. There were many new locations that opened, which were widely reported about in newspapers. LabourTO (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to convince the user who rejected the draft that the topic passes the criteria at WP:NCORP, it is not remotely clear that it does? Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Okay, I will await a response from @Jamiebuba. LabourTO (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LabourTO Sorry I've been down with Flu hence my inactivity. Thank you for your contributions and sorry that your article was rejected, I understand it maybe frustrating. I have thoroughly gone through some of your sources, some of which are blogs while others are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions of the subject. When reviewing articles, reviewers analyze at the Reliability of the sources present. Just because someone wrote "always meant to visit" doesn't assert notability.
To address the issue of Conflict of interest, being "a Happy Customer" actually gives you grounds of having COI with the subject indirectly or directly. Another is the tone of which the article is written. As pointed out by @Theroadislong some choice of words make it seem promotional. I would suggest giving it a bit of time before working on the draft again, because currently it will just be declined again.
Thanks and Happy New Year! Jamiebuba (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_January_4&oldid=1132898608"