Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 14 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 16 >
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.


May 15

[edit]

02:04, 15 May 2023 review of submission by 59.154.107.86

[edit]

I am trying to add an artist but it always gets rejected, would love some feedback 59.154.107.86 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will need more information. Do you have a link to the rejected draft or can you provide the name of the artist?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:28, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Cyberspacecat

[edit]

Hello. I am proposing a split from an existing article. The reviewer says the conservation of the medium deserves a page but not the medium itself. Saying time-based media does not deserve a page because that info is covered in conservation is like saying painting does not deserve a page because painting is described in painting conservation. I updated the conservation page because was very messy and too dense. Time-based media deserves its own page because media conservation only exists because time-based media came first. Cyberspacecat (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
. S0091 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Thefreeeditor1

[edit]

I want to add an article about an famous Travelogue writer, researcher, and biographer. The person already has an Urdu Wikipedia article. Now we want to add that person's English article but failing againg and again. We are using the same references which are used in already uploaded Urdu article. Please help us to add this article. Thefreeeditor1 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefreeeditor1: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Just to explain, each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project, with different policies and requirements for notability. Just because an article on this subject exists in another language version has no bearing on whether one will be accepted into the English-language Wikipedia. Similarly, just because sources have been deemed adequate for inclusion in one language version doesn't mean they are adequate for another version. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:18, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Shreklover932

[edit]

Hello. I recently tried to publish an article, on a subject that no one had written about before, but it got rejected right after i submitted it so please read it again and publish it. 

Shreklover932 (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shreklover932: couldn't publish it if I wanted to, as it has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but if I re-write it would you publish it? Shreklover932 (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you write the same thing again, it will be rejected and deleted again. Stands to reason, no? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Man is it just beacause im black?
I have visions too man! Shreklover932 (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:28, 15 May 2023 review of submission by StanislasMontreal

[edit]

Good Morning,

Could you tell me why the article has been rejected as this article exist on the wikipedia platform in french and spannish ?!

Have a lovely day,

Stanislas Montreal StanislasMontreal (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@stanislasmontreal: wikipedia-space articles are not submitted through the afc process. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) edited 09:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry ... I am not sure to understand ...
Is it the title that has to be changed ? StanislasMontreal (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 15 May 2023 review of submission by 247dot247

[edit]

What will happen if Bengali news is published to publish Wikipedia articles in English language? The central president of a country's student body can not publish Wikipedia articles? 247dot247 (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@247dot247: can you rephrase that, please; I don't understand what you're asking? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a national level news source in a person's native language, can an English Wikipedia page be created under that person's name? 247dot247 (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
247dot247 The language of a source is not relevant, a source may be in any language, see WP:NOENG. The bigger problem that you have is that this person does not appear to be notable as the English Wikipedia defines it. It is possible that he meets whatever criteria the Bengali Wikipedia has, and if so, you can certainly write about him there, but that is a separate project. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your talk page, you seem to think that the head of a student organisation is somehow inherently notable, is that the issue here? Hate to break it to you, this is emphatically not the case, despite fancy titles like 'Central President'. To be included in Wikipedia, this person needs to meet the WP:GNG notability standard, like pretty much any other subject does. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now can I publish Eucdia in this person's name? (Draft:Razebur Rahman) 247dot247 (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 15 May 2023 review of submission by 2001:4C4C:1817:2000:BC8C:8837:6584:80B2

[edit]

Can someone help me with what is required for the article to be accepted? 2001:4C4C:1817:2000:BC8C:8837:6584:80B2 (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the decline notice, this draft fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable. So what is required is for you to cite sources which achieve that according to the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Shikeishu

[edit]

Hello everyone, I have been working on the article Draft:Ichiko Ima, who is an award-winning manga artist whose most famous series sold several million times. The reason given why the article is not accepted is that I don't quote enough sufficient sources. However, here I link a scientific paper focussing on her work, here I quote her Japanese publisher. I also include interviews and smaller mentions in other sources to support. I can't find reliable other sources. I would be grateful for support in how to go further. Thank you. Shikeishu (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shikeishu Interviews and information from her publisher do not establish notability, as an interview is the person speaking about themselves, and her publisher is associated with her. As noted by the reviewer, most of the other sources are brief mentions, which also does not establish notability. If this is all you have, and there are no other sources that have significant coverage of her and are not associated with her, she would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you speak Japanese, it is possible that she would meet the criteria on the Japanese Wikipedia, which has its own editors and policies as a separate project. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shikeishu: it isn't clear what exactly that scientific paper is, whether it has been properly published and peer-reviewed, and if so where; in any case, note that scientific papers are not necessarily secondary sources, which is what we need to see for notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining, I understand these criteria, although it was not clear to me they are this strict. I have been going from my experience of improving other articles about manga artists. According to these criteria, many articles in the List of manga artists are meant to be deleted then.
I was looking for support in finding better sources for this specific case. Shikeishu (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shikeishu: you may want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga if anyone there can help you with sources.
As for other articles which exist but shouldn't, feel free to take them to AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Matthew Tailor

[edit]

Hello,

I am currently working on the above article draft and user:MaxnaCarta has added a maintanance tag regarding COI & Undisclosed Paid on the page. I have already contacted him on his User talk:MaxnaCarta and informed him that I am neither a paid author nor have a close connection to the subject mentioned in the article. He replied that I should contact the AFC help desk and it can be reviewed by another editor and possibly removed. Matthew Tailor (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew Tailor: obviously we cannot ascertain this one way or the other, and are reliant on you to tell the truth, so if you're saying that those issues don't apply then you're welcome to remove the tags yourself.
That being said, for example the two middle paragraphs in the 'Early life' section contain private personal information which isn't backed up by referencing; this inevitably raises the possibility, at least, that you might know this individual personally. Where did you get that information from? Which is a way of saying, wherever you got it, please cite your sources. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for the quick reply. The information about his early life comes from the German newspaper article of the "Westfälische Nachrichten", which I have already added as a source. Matthew Tailor (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew Tailor: okay; you still need to cite the source against that information, though. Especially in an article on a living person, where the information is potentially sensitive or contentious, clear citations are a hard requirement (and are best practice also in other articles). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, so do I need to cite the source for those two paragraphs again? Because I quoted that source at the end of the whole "Early life" section because all the information in that section is also part of that source. Matthew Tailor (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors with 63 edits do not know what edit summaries are, or how to apply a WikiProject tag. Yet within 5 edits you are using edit summaries, applying WikiProject tags, and submitting formatted drafts. This, to me, says you have prior knowledge of editing Wikipedia. If not a paid editor, is this a new account? How do you know how to navigate the AFC process, ping editors, and do other things most editors take quite a while to learn? You have also, by your own admission, been pushy. To me, these edits suggest you have one purpose: to get this article up. Why such passion from an uninvolved editor? That's what I would like to know. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta I understand your objection. I haven't looked at it from that perspective yet. To answer your question, I've been on Wikipedia a lot for a long time, just as a source of information and a reader.
As a result, I read up on it, looked at how Wikipedia works, and then tried to publish my first article (fortunately, everything is actually very well described and backed up with examples). Of course, I don't know a lot of things yet and I'll take any help I can get. With my article I have oriented myself much at other articles from the similar category and tried these "to imitate", I admit. And yes, I said that I am a bit pushy, that's me because I put a lot of time and effort into the draft and also tried to stick to Wikipedia's guidelines. I admit, I like to listen to the music of Fifty Vinc very much and also for a very long time. Nevertheless, I personally have nothing to do with him / his music, nor was I paid to write or publish anything. Matthew Tailor (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MaxnaCarta besides our small discussion about the maintenance tag, I would appreciate your feedback on the article draft and what I could do to improve it. I would also appreciate it very much you if you can give me feedback in terms of sources. Thanks in advance. Matthew Tailor (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve offered all I can on this. Please resubmit and engage with the editor who next reviews it. I have nothing further to offer with this draft. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:44, 15 May 2023 review of submission by AH.Data20

[edit]

It is unclear to me why the sources for my topic are deemed not in-depth, unreliable, primary, or not independent. I have reviewed the guidelines for sources and am still confused. Does anyone have specific advice on why these sources are not usable and how to find proper sources, or how to change the wording of the submission to use the sources properly, such as in the last example in the "Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/reliable sources quiz?" AH.Data20 (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AH.Data20: based on a quick scan, I'd say at best two of the sources, the PBS piece and the Forbes article, come even close to meeting the WP:GNG standard, and even they are more about the founder than the business; in any case, those two alone wouldn't be enough, even if they were fully focused on the company. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! I appreciate your time in reviewing. Do you have suggestions to finding proper sources? AH.Data20 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AH.Data20: other than searching on the internet, and/or asking your client, no I don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The company isn’t notable. I wouldn’t bother resubmitting this for the reasons DoubleGrazing has mentioned. Sorry. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 15 May 2023 review of submission by 2A0A:A548:B70:0:E1F:1DB7:6DAE:927D

[edit]

I was not finished. 2A0A:A548:B70:0:E1F:1DB7:6DAE:927D (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you submit it for review, that's you saying "I'm finished, please check it". Certainly that's what you're saying the fourth time you submit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can provide comments in the article. For that, you need to click or tap "Edit" on this article on Wikipedia. 2A0A:A548:B70:0:FC1B:5427:85BB:E0B5 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Jakemcmurchie

[edit]

Hi. I'm trying to add basic information about our past releases, including this one. I've created pages for them using the 'articles for creation' process but they've been rejected because they have no references. What kind of references are appropriate? The record label no longer exists so I don't know if there is a definitive source of information. Jakemcmurchie (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakemcmurchie: first thing to say is, you need to formally disclose your conflict of interest (COI) with regards to the band and any related topics. This has been flagged up on your talk page before, but I cannot find a disclosure anywhere.
As for your question, this, and every other article, needs to be supported by references to reliable published sources so that the information can be verified. Moreover, there needs to be sufficient sources to establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources (meaning, newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, books, etc.). In fact, it goes further than that: when writing an article, you shouldn't just write whatever you know about the subject, and then try to find sources which support what you've written; you should find sources meeting the GNG standard, summarise (in your own words) what they have said about the subject, and cite the sources against the information they provide.
If you cannot find sufficient, appropriate sources on a given topic, then it isn't possible to have an article on it included in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 15 May 2023 review of submission by EliLG

[edit]

Thank you YesI'mOnFire and CNMall41 for your feedback on my article Healthy Living Market. I'm more than happy to remove language that has been flagged as promotional so that it is in a neutral point of view. As I have provided 14 independent, third-party sources and cited them abundantly in my article, I don't believe it should be deleted. Also, other local grocery chains (Bi-Rite Market, D'Agostino Supermarkets, Sprouts Farmers Market) have been approved with similar citations, so I have reason to believe that these sources meet our communities requirements of describing the subject from a neutral point of view. EliLG (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EliLG: advertising isn't allowed, no matter how well referenced your draft is. And whatever other articles may exist is not relevant here, as new articles need to be created in line with the currently applicable policies and guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Sara Erika Walter

[edit]

Hi, my draft was rejected, but it is in fact the translation of the published French page, so I don't understand how it can be published in one language, but not in another. Best regards, S. Sara Erika Walter (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sara Erika Walter: it wasn't rejected (which would mean you couldn't resubmit it), it was declined (which means you can, once you've addressed the decline reasons).
Each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project with their own rules and requirements, and an article being included in one language version says nothing about whether it will be included in another. This draft was declined for lack of notability, and the notability standard on the English-language Wikipedia is higher than on any other language version (that I'm familiar with, at least). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sara Erika Walter, you need to provide references to reliable, independent sources that verify the assertions in the article. Veifiability is a core content policy. Read Referencing for beginners to get started. Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Keymung

[edit]

What Happen to keymung Articles Page Keymung (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Keymung, it has been rejected and will not be considered further. This is not the place to write about yourself. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It not about myself i am write for my fav singer KeyMung Keymung (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Keymung: then you need to change your username, because it looks like you're Key Mung. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can change my user ! Please Help me how to change. My first time write for my fav artist so i put wrong Name on my wikipedia users name. Keymung (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keymung, your draft lacks references to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. An article about a student in a student newspaper is not independent. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Senjasenkaappi

[edit]

I would like to express my concern regarding the ongoing process of publishing this article, which has been taking a considerable amount of time, extending over a period of six months. Initially, the article faced two rejections due to insufficient sources or lack of significant differentiation. However, these concerns were addressed by incorporating additional sources, particularly when it was discovered that Finnish language sources could also be utilized in the English Wikipedia.

Subsequently, the article encountered three further rejections on the basis that it appeared to be promotional in nature. It appears that the product being discussed, which has the potential to enhance gas turbine power output by 1-2% and subsequently reduce CO2 emissions, was the primary reason for these rejections. Despite the availability of research findings and practical experience supporting these claims, it seems mentioning them has been discouraged, although they are directly relevant to the company in question. It is worth noting that this company was among the pioneers in recognizing the significance of air permeability and filterability of filters in improving efficiency, and has been actively developing such a product in collaboration with a research institute since the early 2000s.

Now, the most recent rejection suggests that the topic lacks sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, I have come across various companies on Wikipedia that are less familiar to me, some of which are smaller in scale or have not even existed for a quarter of a century. This prompts me to question the criteria for defining a notable company, especially when a publicly listed company fails to meet the requirements. I am uncertain about the appropriate course of action for the article if the opinion of a single reviewer holds the final decision.

I had intended to write about a few other companies with environmentally interesting products, but given the circumstances where one person's unfamiliarity can deem them uninteresting, I feel hesitant to proceed, as it appears to be an unproductive use of my time.

I kindly request your assistance in addressing these concerns and providing clarity on the matter. I appreciate your attention to this issue and I am hopeful for a favorable resolution. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Senjasenkaappi: first and foremost, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. If you wish to appeal the rejection, you need to take your case to the rejecting reviewer.
Second: what is your relationship with this business? I have posted a message on your talk page regarding conflict of interest (COI) and how to manage that.
As for why this draft was ultimately rejected, it was for lack of evident notability. In the Wikipedia context, notability does not arise from the subject being more energy-efficient, or being the first or best in something, or whether the subject is familiar to you or not; it arises from whether there are secondary sources that are independent and reliable and provide significant coverage of the subject, which are sufficient to satisfy the WP:GNG notability requirement. Based on a quick scan, I would say that the only one of the sources cited which meets this standard is the Kauppalehti one, and that alone isn't enough. Note that primary sources such as company websites, press releases, routine business reporting and churnalism do not count. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with this company lies in the fact that its past activities, as documented in reputable publications such as Suomen Kuvalehti (https://suomenkuvalehti.fi/avainsana/loudspring/), are easily accessible. Even government ministers have promoted the company for its ESG investments. The former management of its affiliated company, Nocart, had claimed to utilize development funds worth hundreds of millions of euros to invest in solar power plants in Nepal. This endeavor received significant attention, and numerous articles were published on the subject, highlighting strategies for successful green investments. However, it eventually became evident that no orders were placed, resulting in the company losing its credibility and undergoing management and name changes.
In 2021, the company made the decision to shift its focus solely to its sole profitable ESG investment, which ironically drew criticism for its involvement in the fundamental industry of filter manufacturing. Given the company's complete transformation, the bankruptcy of Nocart several years ago, and the current management's lack of connection to emerging market investments, there haven't been a substantial number of articles written about the company yet.
Please note that the above information is based on my understanding of the situation and available sources. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Senjasenkaappi: putting all that to one side, the only question we're interested in regarding notability is do sources exist, which are sufficient in quality and quantity to satisfy GNG, or not, and if they do, are they cited in the draft (it's no use saying they can be found and are "easily accessible")? Bear in mind that the sources must cover directly the subject in question, not any indirectly related matters such as affiliated businesses or earlier ventures. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is a translation from the Finnish Wikipedia. While it is important to note that these are distinct projects with limited connection, the source material in the Finnish Wikipedia relies on reputable sources such as stock exchange releases. It is crucial to uphold the accuracy of information, as publishing false information would constitute a securities market offense. Notably, very few newspapers dedicate separate articles to topics like share consolidation or similar operations, which are worth mentioning in the company's information. This inclusion is relevant as it may attract the interest of investors who do not closely follow the company but are curious about the whereabouts of previously held voting shares that were used for control purposes.
Conversely, newspapers often exhibit a higher margin of error. Given my familiarity with the company's history and the discussions surrounding it, the sources cited in the article instill a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the information presented. For instance, in a recent article, Kauppalehti, which you mentioned, described the company as follows: "It is a small company in terms of market capitalization and turnover, comparable to start-ups, as it is still in the initial stages of its business." The current Wikipedia article remains more up-to-date than the perspective of a journalist who possesses limited knowledge about the company. Consequently, the existence of the Wikipedia article serves a valuable purpose by providing a comprehensive reference to verify all relevant facts about the company. These facts are accurate, current, and appropriately sourced. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Senjasenkaappi sources serve two purposes, verifiability and notability. Stock exchange releases may be fine to use for verifiability, but here on the English Wikipedia, do not nothing for notability and your purpose to "attract the interest of investors who do not closely follow the company" is the antithesis of Wikipedia's purpose because it is inherently promotional. Please see read NCORP along with WP:NOTPROMO thoroughly. S0091 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I once wanted to find out how many times Microsoft stock has been split in history. It's possible to calculate it by going through the stock exchange releases, but it's very laborious and you can miss something if you're just looking for keywords. Wikipedia had the information right away (Microsoft#Financial). The fact that a listed company gives information about the number of shares and what kind of shares it is is not promotion, but information for those who are interested in these things.
I did read the NCORP along with WP:NOTPROMO thoroughly. Relevance and suitability of Wikipedia articles may not apply to companies like Eagle Filters, which have a long history and have made a strategic decision to focus on their core strengths. Transitional events are often overlooked by mass media, as they tend to prioritize tangible results.
If I were to include the history of an investment company age in an article, I could find some very good articles on it, for example in the Finnish newspaper Suomen kuvalehti I mentioned earlier. They just have nothing to do with the current situation of the company itself. Just as Nokia once manufactured televisions, rubber boots and car tyres. Those divisions are all sold.
However, I would like to emphasize that the market shares of gas turbine filter manufacturers are diverse, without any single dominant player. While many competitors already have Wikipedia articles, it is only fair that Eagle Filters also receives recognition through its own dedicated article.
Eagle Filters holds an important position as a filter manufacturer, contributing to CO2 reduction efforts with their unique products. Sharing their accomplishments and merits more widely would enhance knowledge and understanding within the industry. Moreover, having an article dedicated to Eagle Filters would be beneficial for individuals, such as students, who may not be familiar with the sector and find it challenging to evaluate available information. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Senjasenkaappi: I think we're talking at cross purposes, or you're not wanting to understand the concept of notability and its relevance here, so it's probably best if I leave this now and let someone else carry on from here. Just to reiterate, though: this draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong second opinion please? — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao, I took a look at this, and the company is actually notable under previous names, but not for very flattering reasons (some africa related scandal). Obviously, none of it was mentioned in the draft. CandyScythe (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:59, 15 May 2023 review of draft by Burvegas

[edit]


Burvegas (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Burvegas you do not ask a question but the draft appears to be a copyright violation so likely will be deleted. Please see your talk page, User talk:Burvegas, for more information. S0091 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:31, 15 May 2023 review of submission by JackyVRKiwi

[edit]

Inquiry on notability failure.

I'm failing to understand the standard here. How is a VR game not notable enough when the game received 206k view in itself and 1m view for its predecessor from just one video each from reputable youtubers? Is that not enough coverage by a 2nd party? Do youtube videos and articles about game not count as coverage?If gameplay view count is not enough notability, there are other reviews of the games.

There is also a news article from one of the major news stations in Finland. Are those not considered as verifiable evidence?

I asked the editor who rejected the article to elaborate more by commenting, but no response was given. JackyVRKiwi (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JackyVRKiwi, the number of views, etc. does not matter and YouTube is generally considered unreliable (see WP:RSPYT) unless is it is by an otherwise reliable source (i.e. BBC) and based on what you linked, they do not meet that standard. The one news source you cited may meet the the standard but a single reliable source with in-depth coverage is not enough. Multiple are required. You might find WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources helpful and feel free to post a note at WT:WikiProject Video games to request assistance. S0091 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment and providing useful links. So if I understand correctly, YT is generally considered to be a non-reliable source. Since jornalism in game is relatively new, only posts from reliable sources list can be approved, and even than it can be situational.
I'll check the reliable source list and the refence library to add more sources.
How about notability? The article was rejected for 'clear notability failure'. Are notability only applied to jornals and blogs, and not youtube where you can see views and comments? So notability means notable in jornalist sources and not as in generally notable to the public? JackyVRKiwi (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JackyVRKiwi I think was you are describing is "popularity" versus "notability" so yes, something or someone can be popular, even "famous" but not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. Also, blogs generally not considered reliable (see WP:BLOGS). Not sure what you mean by "jornalism in game is relatively new" but publications dedicated to video gaming go back at least to the 1970's. Still young from a historical perspective but I wouldn't describe it as "new".
Anyway, it looks like you have one good source, Push Square, which is an in-depth review. If you can find a couple more like that, it will meet notability. And be kind to @DoubleGrazing. They are very helpful editor here and I agree with their assessment of the Yle article. S0091 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JackyVRKiwi: the Yle article you mention here talks about VR gaming in general, and discusses at some length the Cave Digger game, but makes only passing mention of the (at the time, forthcoming) CD2.
In any case, one wonders why you mention sources here which weren't cited in the draft, and even then do so only after the draft has been rejected. When we review drafts, we can only look at what is included in the draft; with 4k+ drafts awaiting review, we don't have the time to go hunting for sources, nor is it in our job description. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment, but you're neither answering the question nor being helpful unlike the previous comment.
I'm failing to understand the purpose of your reply. JackyVRKiwi (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked about the Yle article; I replied. I'm sorry if you're failing to understand. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_May_15&oldid=1156147410"