Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 28 << Mar | April | May >> April 30 >
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.


April 29

[edit]

23:40:18, 28 April 2024 review of submission by 2601:201:8000:5BB0:B134:DB4E:95ED:1D60

[edit]

Hello,

I was wondering what can the issue be fix on this draft article since it was decline of last year. I was wondering what’s there need to be improve for it to be accepted as a article. I did add new info and parts of this year of this subject. 2601:201:8000:5BB0:B134:DB4E:95ED:1D60 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you corrected the draft with reference to the decline notice? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 29 April 2024 review of submission by QWproject

[edit]

I submit a draft about a company which has been refused to be live please give me the reasons why this happen. QWproject (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QWproject: the draft has been declined because it is completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability, and therefore also entirely promotional. (Not to mention a copyright violation.) And you clearly have a conflict of interest which needs to be disclosed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 29 April 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:894C:7EDF:F0CC:DD53

[edit]

I want to know specifically which citations in my article are problematic. The company I am writing about is a new company so citations will be limited. I have referenced everything that is available. 2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:894C:7EDF:F0CC:DD53 (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see significant coverage, directly of this organisation, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Your draft does not cite sufficient sources meeting that standard to demonstrate that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - this is helpful. I will find more citations and add them. I'm not sure what you mean by 'this draft was created by Kia Lewis'. Why is that an issues please so I can rectify. Thanks for your help. 2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:894C:7EDF:F0CC:DD53 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was created by Kia Lewis. One of the issues is the newness of the organisation.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all in-line links and adding more citations. When I compare my entry with Mulholland Books, a fairly recent publishing imprint which only has two 2/3 citations, I'm struggling to see the consistency here. All of my sources are viable and from reputable respected sources, eg The Charity Commission, The Guardian Newspaper, and The Bookseller, Books for Keeps Books for Keeps which are book-industry established and trusted news sources, and I have added way more then 2/3 citations at 12. 2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:894C:7EDF:F0CC:DD53 (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? What's this? Someone claiming their sources are good simply based on the pedigree of their outlet? Hold my drink.
You have one usable source; the rest are of marginal, non-notability use at best. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 23:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, although I don't know why Theroadislong felt the need to be sarcastic - so uncalled for! The only reason I use the Charity Commission as a source was because I saw that Oxfam had referred to the same, so saying this is useless for notability again feels inconsistent. But thanks, apart from the sarcasm, this is all helpful information. Kia Lewis (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think I was sarcastic? Theroadislong (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THis:
See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Oh? What's this? Someone claiming their sources are good simply based on the pedigree of their outlet? Hold my drink.
2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:9500:852F:82AE:9C2C (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence is mine, not Theroadislong's. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kia Lewis: it's not sarcastic, it makes a valid point that we don't (and you shouldn't) assess drafts by comparing them to existing articles which may have their own issues, but instead to the prevailing policies and guidelines.
The Oxfam article may well cite the Charity Commission as a source, but it's unlikely to be relying on that to establish notability, which is what's at stake here. You need 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG / WP:ORG standard to show that the subject is notable; beyond that you're welcome to cite reliable primary sources to support factual, non-contentious information as much as you want. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Does that go for inline citations too, as I stripped them all out and see that all of charities in wiki have them in their articles? 2A02:C7C:7C2A:4800:9500:852F:82AE:9C2C (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Manveerdulay

[edit]

Can you review the article now? It's been rewritten. Manveerdulay (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, Facebook and Amazon are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Tangoueta Emanuel

[edit]

i recently place an article on this subject but my review submission for the article was declined. I want to know how to write an article on a subject that was recently deleted from wikipedia. So i can move forward with my article. Tangoueta Emanuel (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tangoueta Emanuel: given that an article on this subject was deleted for lack of notability less than a week ago following the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Bonjawo, it is pointless to even try to create a new article unless you have significantly stronger evidence of notability than what the deleted article contained. The community has decided that the subject is not notable, and you should abide by that consensus until such time as you can demonstrate otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Mrc26wiki

[edit]

Hello, I don't understand why my article is not accepted because of reliable source, because the links I provide are local press articles, so for me it's a reliable source. Mrc26wiki (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrc26wiki: the draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. I counted at least eight paragraphs that have no referencing at all. This would be far from ideal in any article, but is especially problematic when the subject is a living person. For privacy etc. reasons such articles have particularly strict referencing requirements, with pretty much everything needing to be clearly supported with inline citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 29 April 2024 review of submission by GrammyNoether

[edit]

Hi! I've recently submitted a page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Category_of_Markov_kernels, which has been declined. The reason seems to be the lack of reliable sources. Could I have some advice on how to bring the submission to an acceptable standard?

The current references include a standard monography published by Springer, and 4 published peer-reviewed articles in mathematics and computer science journals, some of which quite prestigious (like Advances in Mathematics). Should there be more references, or maybe references of different type (say, conference talks instead of articles)?

Thank you in advance, I'm eager to work on this. GrammyNoether (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrammyNoether: the problem is that while the sources are solid, all the citations appear in the lead section, with the rest of the content entirely unreferenced. This makes it very difficult to verify the information, when it's not clear which source has provided what. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you!
Let me fix that. GrammyNoether (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Fintechfraser

[edit]

Thanks for the recent reviews of this article.

Could I ask for some pointers on which areas are hitting this problem: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement".

Any tips on this would be great ahead of any resubmission. Fintechfraser (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You state on your user page "I am the co-founder of Lyfeguard. I am neither paid nor directed by my employer to edit topics related to the company" I think as the co-founder, Wikipedia would deem you to be a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Theroadislong - while I am employed by Lyfeguard, I am not directly being paid to write or contribute to this article.
What options do I have available - as far as I understood it, being associated (with a clear COI statement) would be ok as long as the article was written from a neutral point-of-view, which I believe it is but if not, please help me understand which parts are coming across as not being neutral. Fintechfraser (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fintechfraser under the Wikipedia definitions you are a Paid editor. You have made a CoI declaration, but you must also make a PAID one by following the instructions at WP:PAID.
The draft is vaguely promotional in nature- it reads like something you would have on the About Us section of your website or in a glossy brochure. Qcne (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Qcne - appreciate the insight here - I've gone ahead and added this declaration too. Any insights on what to add/remove to remove any essence of promotional in nature? I'm new to Wikipedia so anything that could help helpful, I'd appreciate! Fintechfraser (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you've written the draft WP:BACKWARDS. Find the sources, then paraphrase or summarise them, instead of writing text and finding sources to fit the text. Qcne (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Qcne - appreciate it! Fintechfraser (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note it'll probably be really difficult for you to write dispassionately as co-founder. My suggestion is to write it like an autopsy report. Check WP:VOICE and WP:PEACOCK too. Qcne (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's really helpful - thank you @Qcne Fintechfraser (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Anjil dutta roy

[edit]

i dont know what to do now Anjil dutta roy (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do with "Sashrik Hour" as a topic, they are clearly not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Grantsharples

[edit]

Hello! I've created several drafts for this article, and I wanted to ask why it has been rejected several times despite meeting the general requirements. I have 20 non-primary sources in my references, and this is clearly in line with the quality of sources I've seen on other pages for organizations that are in the family-building industry. Grantsharples (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been rejected, it has been declined, you have been told that these sources [1] are not reliable, interviews and Reddit etc. Theroadislong (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grantsharples Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet. If you would like to help us address inappropriate articles, please identify them so action can be taken. We need the help, we rely on volunteers. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 29 April 2024 review of submission by 39.58.231.132

[edit]

Filming 39.58.231.132 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, it is too soon for an article about this unfinished film. This is why the draft was rejected. Once the film is released, the article can then be written- or if you can show that the production of the film itself is notable. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 29 April 2024 review of submission by MP93CY

[edit]

Hi! i am trying to re-submit the rejected draft for Curity but there is an error when i click on re-submit. Does this mean i have to wait a certain time to re-submit? The draft was rejected two weeks ago. MP93CY (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined not rejected, your changes are not an improvement so I doubt that it will be accepted when you do submit, also see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MP93CY: This reads like an advertizement. We do not accept blatant advertizing. As to your sources, the overwhelming majority of them are either routine coverage, written by people connected to Curity or associated firms, or content-free profiles. You have pretty much nothing to base an article off of other than the Devies and API Awards, and both of those are otherwise content-free. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 02:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Curity is a small b2b company, it's hard to impossible to receive national media coverage. This is an example of a similar product Keycloak with little reference to external resources. We will edit the submission to ensure it doesn't read as marketing material. MP93CY (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MP93CY: Wikipedia articles should by and large be composed by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. If such sources do not exist, it isn't possible to summarise their coverage, and it may not therefore be possible to write an article. In such cases, we don't just go on regardless and publish an article with whatever sources there are available; we don't publish an article at all.
BTW, who is "we" in your comment? Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by one individual only. If more than one of you are working on this, you will each need to register separate accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With we I mean myself, just wanted to be more formal. MP93CY (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the royal we? :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 29 April 2024 review of submission by Tuckerleejones7803

[edit]

I forgot the references, My apologies, This may take a month to fix, so please wait until it is done! Tuckerleejones7803 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References or not, being the great-great-great grandfather of Franklin D. Roosevelt, does not of itself make the person notable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tuckerleejones7803, there is nothing in your draft to indicate that he was a notable person. We only accept biographies of notable people. Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_29&oldid=1222336764"