Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 26 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 28 >
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.


November 27

[edit]

01:56, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Coding.wiki

[edit]

Please help me edit and submit this! Coding.wiki (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can resubmit it by clicking "Resubmit" on the draft(in the box at the top containing the most recent review). Is there specific help you are looking for? 331dot (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:49, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Samh100

[edit]

Hello,

I am looking for assistance on two things.

1. I want to make sure that the title of the page stays the same. huupe is spelled with a lower case "h" as it is how the company prefers to spell it.

2. I want to add three images that are mine but the page will not let me add them. Can I please have assistance on having them added?

Best, Sam Samh100 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samh100 If you work for the company that produces this product, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.
I believe the title can remain as it is from a technical standpoint. What matters is what independent reliable sources use as a spelling, not necessarily what the company wants.
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until your draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. New accounts cannot directly upload images, you may work with other editors via Files For Upload on doing so, but I would just wait as by the time the draft is accepted you will probably meet the criteria to be able to upload yourself(account is four days old with 10 edits or more). In order for it to be accepted, much promotional language needs to be removed. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:08, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Oluwafemi1726

[edit]

Can you tell me why this was moved to the draft? I think when i first made it i had no sources, but every single one of my claims had a source, even the author's name and his wikipedia page was mentioned on the first paragraph. on my links were through internet archives, with the quotes i was using, making the link DIRECTLY accesible to everyone that clicks on it. So can you tell me what i did wrong? Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwafemi1726: you would have to ask the user who moved it to drafts why they did so, but I'm assuming it was for the same reason as why this has since been twice declined, ie. there isn't sufficient evidence that the subject is notable: a single source, especially what appears to be a primary one (travel journal, of sort), is very seldom enough, and certainly not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Taimour sheikh

[edit]

I am making a draft for the first time on Wikipedia and my previous one got rejected because of promotional language. Even though I am connected to the organization I am making this draft for but its not my intention to promote them on wikipedia. Since I am a content writer I don't know how to use neutral language according to wikipedia guidelines and I am overwhelmed by so many restrictions. However, please check this new draft and tell me will it get approved or not because I have tried my best to not use any peacock terms here. Taimour sheikh (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Taimour sheikh: we don't do on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk; submit your draft, and pretty soon you'll get a verdict. Note that promotionality is not just about the language and tone, it can also mean that you're saying what you want to say about the subject rather than summarising what independent secondary sources have said; that will inevitably result in promotional content. Looking at your sources, this is almost certainly the case here. You need to forget what you know about the subject, and instead find some sources that meet the WP:GNG standard and summarise them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you declared a conflict of interest- if you work for this organization, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. Please see your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Gorkem80

[edit]

The subject clearly satisfies #1 and #4 from the listed 8 notability criteria for academics. The listed references clearly demonstrate this. Could an editor help me understand if there is anything I am missing here?

06:58, 27 November 2023 review of submission by TshepoR

[edit]

Request for help with improving the declined draft Good morning team, may I please be assisted with improving this draft, Draft:Khayalethu Anthony. It was recently declined because I couldn't place reliable sources. What helps me search for reliable sources? Please help a brother out. TshepoR (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TshepoR I fixed your post to provide a link for your draft as intended(you had other text there). We can't find reliable sources for you- it's up to you to gather them prior to writing- using search engines or your local library, to find sources with significant coverage of this person. Aside from the reliable sources issue you have some promotional language about his "journey" and "entering the arena"- Wikipedia articles are written very matter of factly and dry, without embellishment. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Spiggotr6

[edit]

Is it true that Publishers Weekly and Booklist are not independent or reliable sources? I have used them in the past with no issues. Spiggotr6 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book retailers are not independent because they have an interest in selling the book. If you've used such sources before, it's probably just pure chance that you got away with it, or you were given incorrect advice previously. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you for the help Spiggotr6 (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Danielleafrica

[edit]

Hi everyone, I would just like to know why this article was rejected? Not enough content perhaps? Danielleafrica (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Danielleafrica. I declined your article because articles about organisations need to show they pass our WP:NORG criteria. There wasn't any indication that Alliance Media Africa passes this criteria with your current sources.
Can I also ask if you are an employee of Alliance Media Africa? Qcne (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, I sure have a lot to learn still. I am an employee yes so I will try to go declare the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest policy now. Danielleafrica (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Danielleafrica It was not rejected, it was declined, the two terms have different meanings here- "rejected" means that a draft may not be resubmitted, "declined" means it may be resubmitted.
The only sources provided are associated with what I assume is your company- press releases and the company website. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company(i.e. not press releases or announcements) showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared per the Terms of Use, see the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest.
You claimed the logo of your company as your own personal work- this makes it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. Did you create the logo yourself? 331dot (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot, thanks for your message. A previous graphic designer of the company created the logo, the company has made small edits since, but the initial work was done by a former employee. Should I load it as something different? Would really appreciate the guidance here. Danielleafrica (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Danielleafrica You must immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons- Commons only hosts images free of copyright issues- or at least you need to claim it as the work of the company, not your personal work- if they want to make their logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution(I wouldn't want to do that, but it's up to your company).
Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. See WP:UPIMAGE. Fair use does carry some restrictions- like being unable to be used in drafts- but it does permit logos to be in articles.
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about uploading images until and if you draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@33dot, okay thank you. I will try to request deletion right now and re-upload later. Danielleafrica (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please make the paid editing disclosure first- I've place instructions on how to do so on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 27 November 2023 review of submission by 197.148.73.153

[edit]

I do not understand why this was not accepted, or what more is needed. The artist is one of the leading musicians of the country, but as it is one of the smaller countries in African print media, especially online, is not going to be as readily available. 197.148.73.153 (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues Editor:
  1. We need in-line citations for every single material statement. This is a hard requirement for biographies of living people. See the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
  2. You need to prove that Barhama meets our WP:NMUSICIAN criteria. Do this through the use of significant coverage of Barhama in multiple secondary sources that are independent and reliable.
Qcne (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to provide significant coverage of the subject and show they meet the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:21, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Anthon Caesar

[edit]

need help with my biography Anthon Caesar (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthon Caesar Wikipedia is not a social media website like Facebook, it is not a place to tell the world about yourself. Qcne (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Karl.zylinski

[edit]

Can this be re-reviewed? I have updated the article with additional sources that I think should make the article more reliable. I have also changed the structure somewhat to make the article clearer. Finally I removed some sections that had a lack of sources or that seemed subjective. Karl.zylinski (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, typically meaning it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. Personally, I'm not seeing it- the draft is highly technical and does not seem to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say is important/significant/influential about this programming language, what we term notability. Are you associated with this language? 331dot (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Ilghibellinfuggiasco

[edit]

Hi there. My entry was declined for it says it is not supported by adequate sources. I was helped by other users in developing the page and thought I came to a decent result. From the last rejection I understand that only the sources in the reliable sources list page are taken into consideration? I have put dozens and dozens of sources, all verifiable, mostly Italian well-known magazines, and apparently this is still not enough. It is especially frustrating because I continuously see a lot of pages that have 3 or 4 sources, all outside the "reliable list" and apparently there is no problem with them. Maybe I put too many? I would like some help in understanding how to improve the sourcing. I can add several more, or reduce. Thanks! romeoandjuliet (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilghibellinfuggiasco As odd as it may sound, you actually have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. What are your three (and only three, please) best sources?
Be aware that other articles that you view might also be inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this- that another article exists does not mean that it is problem free. See other stuff exists. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles.
As an aside, you altered your signature to display something very different from your username, this makes it hard for others to link to your username and communicate with you. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I did not know that username and signature would have to be the same. I will revert my signature back to my username then. I'm still learning.
Yes I may have put a lot of sources, surely too many, in an attempt to understand what needs to be sourced and what doesn't. Will reconsider the whole source list and narrow them down to the best ones. romeoandjuliet (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Jrg valdez

[edit]

Σ Jrg valdez (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but three characters will never be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:12, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Kodakararajeev36

[edit]


Kodakararajeev36 (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:51, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Rblack1185

[edit]

What specifically is causing this to be declined for lack of notability? It's a large, privately-held organization that holds numerous, reliable resources to illustrate its notability, including partnerships with other major organizations. This would be a great encyclopedic page that outlines the company's evolving history. There are pages with less notability than this organization, and certainly pages with similar notability. Rblack1185 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rblack1185 Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and just not addressed yet.
You declared a COI, what is the general nature of it?
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your draft did not do that, which is why it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. My COI is that I am employed by the company, but that should have no bearing since I claimed the COI.
As for the reliable sources, there are 9 sources that are reliable in nature. There is nothing claimed in the article that is not backed by a reputable resource. How can we get this reviewed again, or approved in general? Rblack1185 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are NOT reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Insulation2

[edit]

I tried to look up hide.me VPN on Wikipedia. It seems that someone decided to reject an article about it, despite Wikipedia having pages for several other VPN companies, e.g. Proton VPN, NordVPN, ExpressVPN, and many others. It seems unreasonable to have articles about some VPN companies and not others. I am not connected with hide.me in any way and only found out about it today - I was googling for VPNs that offer full IPv6 support. Insulation2 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every company in a field merits an article, it depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources showing that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you just learned of this company, what motivated you to write about it? My first thought when learning of a company is not to run to Wikipedia and write about it. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you had bothered to read what I wrote before replying to it, you would have understood that I am not in the least "motivated to write about it". I came to Wikipedia to read about it. My search for a VPN provider offering full IPv6 support turned up hide.me, but I wanted to learn more about it before paying anything for their service. It seems that somebody was willing to write an article that might have been useful to me (and presumably to other people) - but some Wikipedia editor (maybe someone who works for a competing VPN provider) blocked it. Insulation2 (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read very carefully what you wrote. Since you are posting on the Articles for Creation Help Desk, which is intended to ask questions about creating and submitting drafts, I (incorrectly, it seems) assumed that you wanted to write about it. Many people say they come here after learning about a company to write about it. Since that's not what you were doing, I apologize. If you're not here to contribute to the draft that I am wondering what exactly your query is. Are you requesting that the rejection be reversed?
Accusing the reviewer that rejected the draft of being associated with(and presumably paid by) a competitor is a serious accusation that requires serious evidence. Do you have that? 331dot (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I'm requesting that instead of a draft being totally rejected, it be cut down to a minimal stub giving the company's date of founding, location, and a statement of what it does. The draft that was rejected does seem to contain a lot of press-release puffery. I'm unqualified to contribute to a Wikipedia article myself because I no longer read printed material other than textbooks, so cannot supply printed references to anything. I think that complete rejection of an article about a company, on "notability" criteria which inherently involve subjective judgement, when many competing companies do have articles about them, inevitably raises the question of bias. Insulation2 (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that this draft was written by a declared paid editor from the company. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Qstor2

[edit]

want to resubmit page. - question what's wrong with Reference #3? It's not "showing up" correctly for a webpage I think. Qstor2 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qstor2: it was just missing one of the closing double curly brackets of the cite tag. Fixed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 27 November 2023 review of submission by KSienkiewicz

[edit]

Hi! I have tried to publish a page of a film that I am working on. I am a Polish distributor of the film, and also a Post-production manager and PR manager internationally. I added references but it was still declined and I don't know how else can I make it authentic enough to get past verification. KSienkiewicz (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KSienkiewicz: the first thing you need to do is disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:PAID.
This draft was declined because the sources aren't sufficient to establish notability either per WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by they were not enough. What wil be enough. the film is a real production, it exists. I ahev put numerous references. What else can I do? KSienkiewicz (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So can you tell me how many sources I have to provide? 10 articles/reviews? Or more lik 30+? KSienkiewicz (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KSienkiewicz: it isn't just about the quantity, but also quality; three solid sources is probably enough to establish notability, while 30 weak ones isn't. You need to read and understand WP:GNG and/or WP:NFILM, and demonstrate by either standard that the film in question is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure - nobody is paying me, it's my film, I am not getting aything for preparing the page. KSienkiewicz (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KSienkiewicz: paid editing is a much broader issue than simply whether someone is paying you to edit this article. Per WP:PAY, "An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder." Based on what you say, you certainly seem to come within the scope of this policy. My advice is to make the necessary disclosure without further delay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:27, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Rahmanibnusaid

[edit]

I'm sure my article was correct. Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be correct, but he is not notable, which is why the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by 195.252.198.127

[edit]

This information here is a collection of information that enthusiasts have painfully gathered over the years. There are hundreds, probably thousands of hours in collecting all of this info. Toyota does not publish this info, there is no authoritative source on this information but that makes this information even more important because there is no alternative source for it even if you pay Toyota for their technician subscription service.

I do donate to wikipedia and this is a big part of why i use it. Please don't delete this amazing source of information. 195.252.198.127 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor, I thank you for donating, but that has no impact on the consideration of articles. Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation and go towards running the computers Wikipedia is on, as well as other Foundation activities. We don't get the money.
Wikipedia is not a mere database of information- it summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You have just compiled technical information, you have not summarized any reliable sources as to why this transmission is notable. I would suggest finding an alternative forum to host this information, such as a personal website. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:40, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Redstar0005

[edit]

Can you please review this page and tell me what I should work on before I submit it again? Thanks! Redstar0005 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the advice left by reviewers pretty much covers it. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:51, 27 November 2023 review of submission by CreatorNotConsumer

[edit]

Can you explain why this article got rejected? Why don’t sources 5, 6, 17, and 18 count as notable? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. So why did it get declined? How do the sources I listed fail WP:CORP? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CreatorNotConsumer have you read WP:NCORP? The sources I checked (NYT, Financial Times, etc.) are mostly what those affiliated say or are not in-depth. Others are likewise not independent and/or not reliable (sources like CoinDesk, forums, have no editorial oversight, etc.) with some making no mention of Manifold so not useful. S0091 (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’ve read it carefully and checked the four sources I listed against the each of the guidelines. I have trouble understanding how the NYT and FT articles don’t qualify as significant coverage, given the amount of reporting and analysis each devote to Manifold in those sources. CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are Bloomberg and TDN not reliable or independent? They each have editorial oversight and significantly cover Manifold in their articles. I’d be so grateful if you could explain to me what it is that I’m missing. CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to offer another voice here (disclosures: I'm a Manifold user, I just sold my stake in the relevant market at a small loss, and I don't have experience evaluating articles for WP:CORP).
5 (NYT: The Wager That Betting Can Change the World) is a bit tricky because it intermingles talk about Manifold, Manifest, and prediction markets generally, but the focus seems to be on prediction markets generally. As a general datapoint, only about 15 out of 91 sentences in the article seem to be about Manifold specifically. Those 15 sentences might well be enough to be significant, but it's hard to confidently say that they're "in-depth", and I certainly would not say as you do that "the majority of the text is about Manifold".
6 (FT) has seven sentences about Manifold, of which two are "Meta, innit." and "Sort it out, nerds!". It certainly seems like a very cursory coverage of the website and not significant.
17 (Bloomberg: Five Things You Need to Know to Start Your Day) is clearly not significant coverage of Manifold. It's a one-sentence mention within a small substory about OpenAI prediction markets.
18 (TDN) talks about Manifold most directly: what it is, how to use it, the charity aspect, and the market they've placed on it. It's a little short but it seems to me like it should be a sufficient source.
As such, I only see one qualifying source for WP:CORP. I haven't looked closely at the other sources beyond the four you listed but they seem unlikely to be qualifying at first glance. As such, I agree that it was correct to decline the draft at this point. Eiim (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eiim
Does the google scholar stuff help notability? There are 6 different research papers which reference Manifold Markets, three of them arxiv, the other three are in journals. Also, not clear what you mean by "I haven't looked closely at the other sources" .. are you saying you're making a determination without reading the articles? Wikiqrdl (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mere mentions of Manifold are not sufficient for being a qualifying source for notability purposes, instead, the source must generally be about Manifold (or more precisely, contain "significant coverage", which does not necessarily require it to be the main topic. For example, a book about prediction markets would likely be significant coverage if it contains a chapter on Manifold. There might be important precedent on applying this rule that I don't know, which is why I'm not trying to speak authoritatively here. The NYT article might well be considered significant, but by my plain-language reading of the rules it doesn't seem likely.) None of the papers on Google Scholar contain more than a single mention of Manifold, or in some cases simply a citation to a comment on Manifold. (Technically, Gleiberman 2023 contains both: once in a list of 222 EA-related organizations and one citation to a comment by Oliver Habryka.)
As for "making a determination without reading the articles" - my intent was simply to evaluate how many sources met the notability criteria, and CreatorNotConsumer only mentioned 5 sources that might meet that criteria, so I considered it reasonable to only carefully evaluate those sources. However, I at least looked at all of the other sources, enough to feel comfortable that none of them are likely to be a qualifying source. For example: I don't have access to the article in The Information, but the fact that the headline is about a completely different company strongly suggests that it's not going to contain significant coverage of Manifold. If you have an argument that one of those sources should be qualifying by WP:SIRS, I'm all ears. Regardless, I'm not making a decline/accept decision here, just adding an opinion that I hope will be helpful for the editors drafting the article so that they can get it to the point where someone else will accept it. Eiim (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read 6 as it is paywalled(which is fine, I just can't see it). 5 seems to talk about prediction markets as a broad concept and discussed this particular one very little. The other two sources don't seem to have significant coverage about why this particular prediction market is important/significant/influential- why it is notable. I've seen this described as a "startup"- startups almost never merit articles. A company must be established and recognized in its field before sources start giving it the needed coverage. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you’ll read the full NYT article (5), you’ll see that the majority of the text is about Manifold, especially about the reporter’s experience at the Manifold conference. What makes you call that “very little”? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say earlier—-thanks so much for your help! A few more things: In what way is the Bloomberg newsletter not describing Manifold as notable? It explains that Manifold is a site from which you can gauge the opinion of engaged people with “skin in the game,” and includes a screenshot of the site and uses it as an indicator of popular sentiment about what will happen in the future. By explaining its usefulness, doesn’t that mean the article shows that the site is notable? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The TDN article states that they will be creating Manifold markets for each of their story posts going forward, so that readers can bet on what will happen in the future of the story covered. Is it notable that they are using Manifold as a tool to get the general opinion of their users? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:26, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Coding.wiki

[edit]

I have all my sources. Why am I not able to have this published? Coding.wiki (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coding.wiki, your draft contains numerous promotional phrases and sentences, which violate the Neutral pint of view, which is a mandatory core content policy. One of many examples is the final sentence:
In his spare time, Alucozai immerses himself in the beauty of California's hiking trails and steadily pursues his dream of traveling to every country in the world. That promotionsl, non-neutral sentence is unreferenced, which violates another core content policy, which is Verifiability.
Promotional writing and editing of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you so much! Anything else to change? 73.103.74.220 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you so much! Anything else to change? Coding.wiki (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Coding.wiki it needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral manner using reliable sources. Most of the content is unsourced or WP:CITEBOMBed with unreliable sources or extremely poor sources (LinkedIn, The Exponent, Salam Neighborissignal.nfx.com are not reliable sources so should not be used). There is nothing that currently suggests Alucozai can meet the notability guidelines. S0091 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is it not possible? Coding.wiki (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_November_27&oldid=1189287462"