Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 23 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 25 >
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 24

[edit]

03:10, 24 July 2023 review of submission by Intuivo

[edit]

Requesting for help to improve the article so that it gets approved, i keep getting rolled back so i dont think i can help improve the article for it to get published and i'm not sure what else i can do to get it approved. Thank you! Intuivo (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Intuivo: this draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting another review. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask, but requesting "help to improve the article" is too vague to be answered here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the ambiguity of my question. I still encounter an issue of merging pages, is there any way i can request for the draft pages to be merged? there's a "suggest to merge" banner but i'm not sure how to input that i agree that it should be merged and to request for it to be merged. Intuivo (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Intuivo: I think it's just a question of you and the author of the other draft to work together to decide which draft to work on and submit for publication. There's no merge procedure (that I know of, at least) that would automatically merge the contents of the two drafts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see ok thank you! Intuivo (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:37, 24 July 2023 review of submission by Pleaseclap2022

[edit]

Hi, Does anyone know where to find additional sources for this article? Thanks. (It needs more sources to be accepted). Pleaseclap2022 (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:58, 24 July 2023 review of submission by Mystmoneyman

[edit]

Can someone please clarify why my draft has not been accepted yet? I've conducted thorough research on the topic. Could anyone elaborate on how I can make the subject suitable for Wikipedia? I am certain that there are many subjects that deserve to be included on Wikipedia. Mystmoneyman (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mystmoneyman: what is there to clarify? The decline notices state that the referencing is inadequate. For a topic to be notable, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. This draft only cites the company's own website.
Not to mention that most of the content is unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 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. ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 24 July 2023 review of submission by Tanya 1613

[edit]

need to resubmit my article for review Tanya 1613 (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanya 1613: you cannot resubmit, as this draft has been rejected as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:23, 24 July 2023 review of submission by Anne van der Veer

[edit]

We are working on the notability of the program. We need some time to get all reference information correct. Is this acceptible in this stage of the process? Anne van der Veer (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne van der Veer: if you have new sources which weren't available when the draft was rejected, you may take your case to the rejecting reviewer and appeal the rejection.
Who is "we" in your question? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single individual only.
I've also posted a message on your talk page about conflicts of interest; please read and action as appropriate. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support. I still think of "Wikipedia" as a group, and therefore I tend to speak in the "We" form. However, I've noticed this can cause confusion, so I'll stop using 'we' to avoid any misunderstandings. Anne van der Veer (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anne van der Veer (ec) The draft was rejected, which means that it will not be considered further at this time. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and what it does. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- such as notable software. We are not interested in what a topic(or those associated with it) wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the topic choose to say about it.
It seems like you wrote about this topic on other language versions of Wikipedia- each language version is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than other versions.
You say "we", only a single person should be operating your account. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all, and all undestood. I still think of "Wikipedia" as a group, and therefore I tend to speak in the "We" form. However, I've noticed this can cause confusion, so I'll stop using 'we' to avoid any misunderstandings. Thank you for your understanding. Anne van der Veer (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 24 July 2023 review of submission by Tanya 1613

[edit]

I want to make changes to the draft and resubmit Tanya 1613 (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanya 1613: you cannot resubmit a rejected draft, as I told you already last time. This is pure advertising, which cannot be accepted; I have now rejected it for the second time. Please do not resubmit.
Also, please do not start a new thread each time.
And finally, I have posted a COI query on your talk page, please respond to it promptly. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 24 July 2023 review of submission by 103.167.232.81

[edit]

May i know what is the exact reason to reject first of all this was my first edit so may i know what was the mistakes 103.167.232.81 (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft had no content apart from the fact that you are a digital artist? Wikipedia is not social media. Theroadislong (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are Princechhetri321, you probably shouldn't be editing under IP, as you have been blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49:29, 24 July 2023 review of draft by IVickyChoudhary

[edit]


Submitted this article 30 days ago, still no one reviewed it. I am contributing on WiKi since 2015, but it never takes more than 3-4 days, why so much time on this ? IvivekChoudhary (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IVickyChoudhary: as it says there on top of the draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,159 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IVickyChoudhary Wikipedia is bigger than it was in 2015, and many people submit drafts with an extremely limited number of reviewers. If you have had quick reviews it was purely by chance. If you have no conflict of interest with the topic, have experience with having drafts accepted, and are very confident the draft would survive a deletion discussion, you may place the draft in the encyclopedia yourself. This process is voluntary for most. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It will definetly survive the deletion discussion. Kindly guide me further. IvivekChoudhary (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier my articles used to published directly, but not now. May I know any possible reason? IvivekChoudhary (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @DoubleGrazing Earlier my articles used to published directly, but not now. May I know any possible reason? IvivekChoudhary (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IVickyChoudhary: you have autoconfirmed status, and are therefore able to create articles directly, but on your talk page you say "And thanks for letting me know about Articles for creation process. I'll use it as of now instead of creating articles directly", so it seems going through AfC is your own choice? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said that but I don't know that I'll lost my autoconfirm status, How to get it back ? IvivekChoudhary (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IVickyChoudhary: you haven't lost it, as far as I can tell. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then how to make it active or default so I can publish articles directly? IvivekChoudhary (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking for assistance on a problem which I don't think exists. Either I'm wrong, or you are, but either way I don't know how to help you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your help. :) IvivekChoudhary (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 24 July 2023 review of submission by Mario Michaels

[edit]

Hello - are there specific references on this article that need to be addressed? I believe the majority of the news articles are solid and verifiable. But I do understand others need better references. Could I get a list of those to work on? I'm sure better references are out there...just need the time. Thankyou! 

Mario Michaels (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mario Michaels There is no deadline, so take all the time you need. You will need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Mr. Marino. What is your association with Mr. Marino? You claim the image of him as your own work. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mario Michaels: NewsBreak is deprecated and cannot be used; YouTube and Facebook are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable; Amazon and Apple Music are retailers; Wikipedia cannot be used as source on Wikipedia; Mr Marino's own website can only be used to verify basic, non-contentious statements. The only reliable secondary source is the WRAL one (even though that particular piece may be based on a press release or similar), but it doesn't even mention Marino. So I'd say better referencing is needed pretty much all round. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this detail. I am an intern in his office this summer. The photo is his and he owns the rights. There are better articles we can use. I'm new to Wiki but Mr. Marino has donated before. Thanks again Mario Michaels (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia as for the photograph he may own the rights, but NOT the copyright. Donations have no bearing whatsoever on accepting articles. Theroadislong (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok please delete Sandbox. Seems its more complicated than originally thought. Thankyou Mario Michaels (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested deletion based on your above comment.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, being an intern counts as "paid editing" even if you receive no money, as you are compensated with the experience of the internship. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:04, 24 July 2023 review of draft by Chase1635321

[edit]


Hello, my submission on the HeartMath Institute was recently declined, citing concerns about neutrality. I've attempted to model my article after ones on similar topics like parapsychology, energy medicine, etc, which aim reflect the scientific consensus on the respective topic and will refer to something as pseudoscience when this is the view of the scientific community. I've edited it slightly but I'd be interested in any specific comments I can get on how the article fails to be neutral.

Chase Kanipe (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:53, 24 July 2023 review of submission by Oakleigh Primary

[edit]

I am puzzled by the feedback provided on this article that is leading to it being rejected. The feedback says "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." However, five examples of this were provided in a variety of publications. This artist has won significant scholarships and awards, has worked with highly regarded institutional partners (MIT, NASA, QAGOMA, etc) and was recently recognized as an artist of renown within a widely distributed book on contemporary artists. Any further specifics would be very helpful. Oakleigh Primary (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oakleigh Primary The first reference is her personal website, which is not independent. The second has a two-sentence mention of her, and includes her website at the end, suggesting it is neither independent nor significant coverage. The third source is a Forbes contributor, which is generally unreliable. The fourth does not mention Morawetz at all, and the last is the website of an art gallery she did an exhibition with, which is not independent either. Unfortunately, none of your sources pass the strict requirements of WP:GNG. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 24 July 2023 review of submission by RachelClineWriter

[edit]

Hi, I have submitted this page a few times, and it has been rejected a few times for the same reason despite the fact that the criteria for notability and reliable sourcing (New York Times, LA Times, New York Review of Books) have been met. I have read all the advice about not creating a self-promotional page and have disclosed my potential conflict. In the midst of this, I have been solicited as follows by a presumed Wikipedia editor, and I can't help but wonder if that person killed the article after I didn't accept that solicitation... (text of which follows) This side Ritesh from IDIGITALAKKI Media Pvt Ltd. I am contacting you to let you know that your Wikipedia page submission was rejected.

If you want to get your page live on Wikipedia then we will help you with that.

So, if you're interested then let us know.

Thanks

Ritesh Kumar RachelClineWriter (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore any solicitations; scammers monitor submissions to look for people to tale advantage of. Some may be legitimate, but can make you no promises. Do not give anyone money about this.
While not forbidden, it is highly discouraged for people to write about themselves, see the autobiography policy. There are also good reasons to not want an article. My advice is that you go on about your career, and let an article about you organically develop the usual way, when an independent editor takes note of coverage of you. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:40, 24 July 2023 review of submission by Ab.Haris999

[edit]

Hello I created this article several months ago and and it gets reject in review by the not satisfying reason It has strong citations please anyone can look at that article again and accept for publishing. Ab.Haris999 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_24&oldid=1167817570"