Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 March 17
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < March 16 | << Feb | March | Apr >> | March 18 > |
| 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. |
March 17
[edit]02:39:20, 17 March 2023 review of submission by Writer01wiki
[edit]- Writer01wiki (talk · contribs)
Hi there, I am a new editor and just received a decline on my first submission. I am suggested to add more references which need to meet the criteria before the resubmission. However, as my topic is an app which was launched not long ago. It would be difficult for me to provide more sources at the moment... Therefore, I would like to seek for more specific guidelines on improving my page so as to get a pass on launching the article. Please let me know what I should do in this case.
Thank you!
Writer01wiki (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Writer01wiki: if you cannot find sources to establish notability, then by definition you cannot publish an article, because Wikipedia only summarises what reliable published sources have already said about a subject.
- Most of this draft is unreferenced – where did the information come from? Did you read it somewhere? If so, cite those sources. Or do you have some 'insider' information from unpublished sources that you've based the draft on? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply! Basically all the info I have written can be found from those references I have attached... For example, the features part, it can be found from the description of the app stores; and the lines of the cities can also be found from the links I have put on. Writer01wiki (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Writer01wiki The descriptions in the app stores are not independent of the subject, so they don't contribute to notability. Also, please read too soon. David10244 (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- In other words, the descriptions in the app stores were probably written by the creator of the app. That's what I meant by not independent. David10244 (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Writer01wiki The descriptions in the app stores are not independent of the subject, so they don't contribute to notability. Also, please read too soon. David10244 (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply! Basically all the info I have written can be found from those references I have attached... For example, the features part, it can be found from the description of the app stores; and the lines of the cities can also be found from the links I have put on. Writer01wiki (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
15:04:28, 17 March 2023 review of draft by UrFathermaybeblind
[edit]Hello! This is JJ Savani's Team and we are trying get his page published on wikipedia and we dont know why you declined it. It was his actual biography recorded by him.
UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- UrFathermaybeblind If you work for this person, the Terms of Use require that you make a formal paid editing disclosure. You must also read conflict of interest(even if you are not paid). Also, only a single person should have access to and be operating your account.
- Wikipedia articles should not be the words of the subject. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone says about themselves, that's what social media is for. This is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
20:01:08, 17 March 2023 review of submission by Muzic SP
[edit]
Muzic SP (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Music SP You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered any more, and it has also been deleted as blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
21:30:59, 17 March 2023 review of draft by Philip Torchinsky
[edit]
I did my best to create informative article about a topic that is significant at least for people starting to develop software in Java: Draft:BellSoft.
Unfortunately, my draft was rejected, and I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how to improve it.
Specifically, I am seeking an example of a well-written article about a company supporting a product in a similar industry. By studying such an article, I can learn from best practices and create a more informative and compelling text. I am committed to using this feedback to create the best possible article.
In addition, I am looking for guidance on how to ensure that my article is written from a neutral point of view and supported by a range of independent, reliable sources. I understand the importance of avoiding any appearance of advertising in my text, and I have made every effort to do so. In fact, my draft cites 30 independent sources, with only four of them referring to the company's website. These sources provide important information for readers to fully understand the topic at hand.
Also, I would like to remove a comment that was made in my draft regarding WP:COI. As someone who is not affiliated with BellSoft in any way, I believe that this comment is irrelevant to the article and to me personally. I hope that you will agree with my request and allow me to proceed with my revisions accordingly.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Philip Torchinsky (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Philip Torchinsky as far as COI, I will add a comment to the draft you have stated you have no affiliation with the company. For the draft, giving it a brief look, I see sub-par sources such as blogs or forums which are user-generated thus not reliable (like Wikipedia) along with press releases which are not independent. I suggest you read the notability guidelines for companies thoroughly, along with WP:42. For examples of well-written/well-sources article, see WP:GA. S0091 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Philip Torchinsky To clarify, S0091 is saying that Wikipedia is (also) not considered reliable by Wikipedia, since the content here is user-generated. All info at WP should be properly referenced, which is more than blogs do, but incorrect information can sometimes slip in unnoticed. David10244 (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)