Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 16 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 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.


February 17

[edit]

03:06, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Dbaines84

[edit]

I am unable to submit the page for review. Please can you advise me with what I need to do in order to publish the page? Dbaines84 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbaines84: you have submitted it; it is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and now I have declined it. Please read WP:NCORP. Also, WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:03, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Ocherrya

[edit]

I created and corrected MugglePay topic, and did not get update, would you please review my topic and give feedback? Thanks! Ocherrya (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocherrya: there is no 'update' forthcoming, because this draft has been rejected (which remains the case, despite you removing the rejection notice) and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear,
Could you please tell me the reason for rejection? How I should correct it and then can set topic? Thanks! Ocherrya (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:40, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Zzremin

[edit]

Hi all. My article was published in the main category. But, I noticed that it is not indexed by search engines. Please, help! Zzremin (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzremin: it becomes available for indexing by search engines when it has been reviewed by the new page patrol, or is 90 days old, whichever comes first. There is currently a backlog of over 9,500 new articles awaiting patrol, so it could take a while. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Zzremin (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:55, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Appliancetechsc

[edit]

It was cited that my article was "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" How is that? This is information on what occupation of work services and repairs home appliances- which is there no reference for Appliancetechsc (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Appliancetechsc: because it wasn't written as an encyclopaedia article, more a Q&A, and it was entirely unreferenced. It did contain an external link to a business website with a remarkably similar name to your username, therefore I concluded that the draft was just pure WP:ADMASQ. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought referencing Wikipedia all throughout the article was a referenced article. Even with a few external links that are objective to the role of an appliance repair technician. As far the link to a business website, that has been taken out.
There is no reference for this occupation, and the "home appliance" section is so poorly referenced, I felt I needed to add a contribution to what an appliance technician does in the role of home appliances for the public. Appliancetechsc (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected it so that it won't look like a Q & A
I have given references
No business website linked
Just pure, factual information, 95% referencing Wikipedia, the official NAICS website for US labor statistics, and an EAP testing organization Appliancetechsc (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for other Wikipedia articles, see WP:CIRCULAR. Blocked for promotional username. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Thisasia

[edit]

Hello, I submitted Leehan for creation but it was declined despite the fact that it has all the necessary Rs required. Leehan is Notable so I don't know if there are more special requirements for any article to be approved? Thanks. Thisasia (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thisasia You must disclose your connection with this musician, see conflict of interest. If you work for him, the Terms of Use require disclosure, see the paid editing policy.
You have not shown that this musician meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Your sources are wholly inappropriate for doing this. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not connected to the musician in anyway, I'm rather interested in Korea WikiProject, and I'm just a volunteer contributor. THANKS. Thisasia (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will discuss this more on your user talk page; which of the musician notability criteria do you claim this person meets? 331dot (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Vderetic

[edit]

1. I am failing to understand where precisely the specific cases of citations overkill are? Could you please point out to the specific examples that need to be altered and how (e.g. give one citation only, or whatever is your desirable format). Right now, the citations are based on published peer-reviewed scientific articles, and it is not uncommon to have multiple citations that converge on and support a topic. 2. There was a comment on the style. Can you please point out precisely where the issues are, and what changes you'd like to see.

Thank you for your input and consideration. 

Vderetic (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like overkill to me, but Zoglophie can comment. Cremastra (JWB) (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was that as I described previously until the most recent edit here. zoglophie•talk• 09:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:43, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Femspace

[edit]

What’s the issue with the page can be removed but the page can’t be romoved so please give suggestions Femspace (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not he considered again, and it has been deleted as blatant advertising. If you are associated with this topic, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 17 February 2024 review of submission by RobertJPierno

[edit]

I don’t know RobertJPierno (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct link Draft:Robert Pierno, draft was rejected clearly you are not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 17 February 2024 review of submission by DAFFODIL555

[edit]

this is my brand name DAFFODIL555 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft speedied, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Publicrelationr

[edit]

Dear All,

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate the time you've taken to review my article submission. I apologize if my attempts to address the concerns were not satisfactory, and I acknowledge the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines.

I am open to learning from this experience. If there are specific areas where I can improve or if you have suggestions for more suitable topics, I am eager to listen and contribute in a constructive manner.

Thank you for your guidance, and I look forward to your continued assistance in ensuring the quality and relevance of Wikipedia content.

Best regards, Publicrelationr (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered below, please do not create multiple topics. Qcne (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 17 February 2024 review of submission by Publicrelationr

[edit]

Need a neutral advice without any bias Publicrelationr (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Publicrelationr your draft has been rejected and therefore will not be considered further. Your wrote in a completely unacceptable way and ignored all advice left by the two reviewers. Qcne (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments but where have I rejected their advise. I edited draft all the time as per their advise. Can you please have a look and be specific about the need for improvement and not make generalized comments. 78.110.76.22 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please log in when replying.
You clearly did not take the advice as you re-submitted four(!) times today with very little improvement in the inappropriate language or sources. There is no longer any advice to give you as the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publicrelationr, your deleted draft included overtly promotional and advertising language like showing inordinate talent in chess and is becoming known as an inspiration for young chess fans worldwide. That's not neutrally written encyclopedia language. Far from it. Looking at your username, I need to comment that any form of public relations activity is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 17 February 2024 review of submission by FayezAhmed78

[edit]

Why was my page rejected FayezAhmed78 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you provided zero evidence of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 17 February 2024 review of submission by NilsenAudun

[edit]

I wished to submit a page for review, and almost immediately after I pressed "publish", I got three posts about conflict of interest and then the option of submitting for review was gone, so I didn´t get a chance to press submit for review.

What made me feel real uncomfortable was that the individual who told me not to edit anything until I replied gave me a very robotic and, to me, strange reply after I reposted the requested disclaimer again on my talk page.

I don´t wish for things to be misunderstood or decided in haste, so I ask here sooner rather than later.

Should I assume that this individual has put a block on my review?

Where would I file a complaint?

This is the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ABL_Group

There are literally 1.000s of articles like this one. I feel a little uneasy about this. NilsenAudun (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a real human being (as far as I know). What I posted on your talkpage are called templates. Having to explain things over and over again would get boring real quick, so the Wikipedia community has made a bunch of templates that can be used to quickly post a message to a new user explaining how (parts of) Wikipedia work. In this case I used Template:Welcome, Template:uw-paid and Template:uw-coi. I did not block anything (and I can't, we have moderators for that sort of stuff, see WP:ADMIN) and your draft has been reviewed by another user (which is why you no longer see the message asking you to submit it for review). Polygnotus (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:WAX. Basically, don't try to use another article's existence to support your article. ''Flux55'' (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NilsenAudun I have re-added the Submit the draft for review! button. You accidentally removed it in this edit, not @Polygnotus.
However, it is not ready for submission in it's current state as there is no indication yet the company passes our WP:NORG criteria. Qcne (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also VERY promotional in tone, which has led editors to question whether you have a conflict of interest with the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_February_17&oldid=1209659507"