Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 16 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 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.


January 17

[edit]

01:31, 17 January 2024 review of submission by 企業チェック

[edit]

Wikiページの修正ポイントがわからず、どのポイントをどのように修正すれば良いのかサポートをお願い致します。 企業チェック (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation: I don't know what points to fix on the Wiki page, so please help me figure out which points to fix and how to fix them.
@企業チェック: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further, so there is nothing to fix.
Also, please communicate in English here on the English-language Wikipedia. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:49, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Bilalhasm

[edit]

I want to contribute on wikipedia. I just want to know that which persons are quilified to be on wikipedia so i can create articles on wikipedia Bilalhasm (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilalhasm: we only accept articles on individuals (or any topic, for that matter) who are considered notable by Wikipedia standards. In the case of people, the relevant guideline is WP:BIO. There are additional considerations specifically applicable to articles on living people, which are detailed in WP:BLP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:00, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Investronaut

[edit]

Hi, recently we have uploaded an listing of our organization but we are unable to understand the exact reason of rejection. Please could you guide us what needs to be done to approve the same. Investronaut (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Investronaut: is this User:Investronaut/sandbox the draft you refer to? It seems to be the only one you've created. What is it that you don't understand?
If you're writing about your organisation or any related subjects, you need to disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:COI.
Also, please note that Wikipedia user accounts are for use by a single individual only. So when you say "we", if there are more than one of you editing, you all need to have separate accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:31, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Exam26

[edit]

The reason why I am requesting assistance is because I need help with finding references for my draft and currently I don’t know where to find and add references to my article. I need some help alright. Exam26 (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Exam26: where did you get this information from? That's what you need to cite as your sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Isley LIN

[edit]

I only can find one reference to support my new draft. Could you please tell me if I couldn't find another reference, there is no chance that I summit it successfully, right? Isley LIN (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Isley LIN: that's correct, one source (and a pretty useless one, if I'm honest) is not enough to establish notability; we usually require three or more, and they must meet the standard detailed in WP:NCORP.
In any case, you're going about this WP:BACKWARD. You shouldn't first write what you want about the subject, and then try to find sources that support what you've written. You should start by finding a few reliable and independent secondary sources that have published significant coverage of the subject, summarise what they've said, and cite them as the sources.
BTW, what is your relationship to this business you're writing about? Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID, and action as relevant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Bilalhasm

[edit]

How can i Improve this article Bilalhasm (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilalhasm: you can't, it has been rejected. And please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to your previous thread. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:48, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Afek91

[edit]

This article is created to document a national monument in Tunisia under a project. We need help publishing the english article to be translated as soon as possible to other languages. Afek91 (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Afek91, there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Your draft is in the review pile and will be reviewed in due course, this could take over a month. Qcne (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Sadiquepatel

[edit]

my article is getting declined Sadiquepatel (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and as you have been told "most sections are unreferenced. The tone is very promotional" Which part of this are you not understanding? Theroadislong (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 17 January 2024 review of submission by TaprootTomas

[edit]

Hello why it was denied? What should i add/edit TaprootTomas (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TaprootTomas the draft has been rejected and won't be considered further, there is nothing you can do. Qcne (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 17 January 2024 review of submission by TaprootTomas

[edit]

Whats wrong with the article? TaprootTomas (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TaprootTomas Please stop submitting this, it will never be accepted. Mach61 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the reason for that? it only explain a disabled function and why it was disabled TaprootTomas (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTADVERT, WP:N Mach61 (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand how my article is an advert, it is not TaprootTomas (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's written in a completely inappropriate way. It's written like a Blog post, not an encyclopaedic article. Qcne (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 17 January 2024 review of submission by BekimMusic

[edit]

There is coverage on different blogs. Am I supposed to quote each one of them? BekimMusic (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BekimMusic, most blogs are not considered reliable sources. Adding them in would not contribute to a draft. Justiyaya 15:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 17 January 2024 review of submission by LeeEmbers

[edit]

I submitted Ms. Donovan's page for publication during the Women in Red project last September. Ms. Donovan's name was already redlined. The rejection stated that my article wasn't well-sourced although it did contain references to full articles about Ms. Donovan or her works. These articles were in the NY Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic and Publishers Weekly. The rejection also mentions that my article relies too heavily on mentions of Ms. Donovan's uncle. However, there are only two references to him, the first of which shows how Ms. Donovan followed in her uncle's footsteps as an author of early LGBTQ literature.

I'm happy to make revisions but it didn't seem like the reasons for the rejection were in the spirit of the redline project, which is to ensure traditionally under-represented groups are featured on Wikipedia.

Thank you for any guidance you can provide. LeeEmbers (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 17 January 2024 review of submission by SanskarTiwari

[edit]

I HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN ASSIGNMENT IN WHICH I HAVE TO CREATE AND PUBLISH A WIKIPEDIA PAGE , I KINDLY REQUEST YOU TO HELP ME WITH IT . SanskarTiwari (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SanskarTiwari PLEASE DO NOT SHOUT, it is considered rude. In any case, it is rather unfair for your teacher to have given you this assignment- it is incredibly difficult to create an article for new editors. Your draft was rejected as not suitable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanskar Tiwari, there are recommended ways to use Wikipedia editing in educational projects - it does not sound as if your assignment is within those recommendatiions. Please look at WP:Education program, and show it to your teacher. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 17 January 2024 review of submission by AGBetrGuy

[edit]

Why was my submission rejected? AGBetrGuy (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the messages left on your user talk page by Mcmatter, your draft was a hoax, and so vandalism, and they have deleted it. If you think this is not appropriate, you need to take it up with them. ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Rizos01

[edit]

I would like to know the status of of my resent re-submission. Thank you Rizos01 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to the draft for ease of answers: Draft:Harry J. Psomiades
@Rizos01, according to the notes left by the reviewer, you do not have enough reliable sources. There is also a note that your subject is likely to be notable - that is, it is likely a Wikipedia article about him would be approved - if you can add some good sources to the article. That's a good sign! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 17 January 2024 review of submission by Classical Tadpole

[edit]

Hello reviewers, I worked to fix anything and everything that was not reliably supported to the same standards as the other related entries that I have contributed to, in talking of secretive defense companies, yet this new entry was declined for the references not being enough to support the entry, apparently for the second time, without any specifics about what is unsupported, with the same exact error, levied by the same exact user, who devotes about a third of their page to grumbling about company entries, which I do concede have some inherent promotional aspects to them, but when documenting and describing what any company is and does, what would be the other option? In closing, I think that I have said everything that needs to be said, except that this was the first new entry that I worked on, and to the highest degree, because I personally experienced many of their services through my previous job/employer, and I noticed that it should have an (hopefully my/this) entry. Classical Tadpole (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, scanning the citations in your draft, only one of the 26 looks as if it even might meet the requirements of the golden rule. That is no 13, the NYT article - I can't see it behind the paywall, but it doesn't mention Afrisk in the title, which does not bode well.
Multiple citations on a single short sentence almost always indicate a writer who does not understand what Wikipedia requires in a citation, and thinks that adding more low quality sources will somehow add up to a high-quality one.
And note that official publications may be high quality in a general sense, but a rarely so for an organisation in Wikipedia's sense, because they are almost always either non-independent, or do not contain significant coverage of the subject.
Which are your three best sources - sources that are wholly independent of Afrisk, and contain significant coverage (not just routine corporate information) of it? ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would like to say that I did not intend for that message to come across as hostile in any way. To answer your last statement, I can see when and why exhaustive third-party coverage would be preferred or even required in some cases, but as aforementioned, while I will take the blame for any apparent improper citation formatting — not exactly the spirit of Wikipedia that I was told — all of the facts are supported by frequently used and accepted sources (Gov, archives, investor disclosures, agencies, groupings, reports, reviews); and even as far as the products and motives section, it is backed to the same degree as every other similar entry that I have seen, as what could describe the functions of a company more comprehensively than an archive of abstracts written about each, albeit after bias- and fact-checking. Classical Tadpole (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked at the draft but I can see a potential disconnect based on your rebuttal. The issue is not that things are not supported or believed to be true or not. The issue is, is it notable by Wikipedia standards. In a nutshell this means have others taken note of the company and written about them in depth in a published sources. The others in question must have done this on their own without any sort of payment or conflict of interest with the company they are writing on. This means any sort of press release, government documentation, standard business reporting or the like are generally not considered towards that notability requirement. It's not to say the sources are bad for validating information in the article it's just that they don't demonstrate they are notable to the standards we are looking for. I hope this helps. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is far more helpful, so the issue is not related to the article but rather to the secrecy of the subject itself; this does make sense in broad strokes, however, at least in my view, but when the subject is almost actively being covert and is objectively important — shown perfectly in their employee fulfillment social account, with 143k followers and following 2 (dept of defense and dept of justice) — it seems akin to not including a large amount of known accurate information about a secret government agency because they do not hire or respond to public relations firms, and that really seems to be not that far off in this case... (or I may be thinking too academically) Classical Tadpole (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Classical Tadpole. I'm sorry if my reply was not clear, and grateful to Mcmatter for explaining to you. Since Wikipedia insists that articles are mostly based on independent sources, not on what the subject or their associates say, it does mean that some kinds of subjects are less likely to be covered: examples that have come up before are music producers, and female artists. You may have found another class.
Having said that, the question of whether or not "they ... hire or respond to public relations firms" is not really relevant: it's more whether independent commentators have chosen to write about the company irrespective of whether the company cooperates. We have a long article about Howard Hughes, who was famously uncooperative with the media. ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, from which I can understand the angle from which you are looking, but again, in my possibly wrong opinion, there does seem to be, or need to be, some distinction from, using your example, a music producer or female artist, who also both likely work, in some form, for a music label and publisher, respectively, making the person and company inherently commercial and attention-based, i.e., presublably why the guideline you referenced would be written to be very particular and cautious (quickly-found example of my point: Northbridge); and just to push back a little against your response, whether you regcognize it or not, my comment about them not hiring a public relations firm to 'encourage' or 'inspire' articles is not exactly an out-of-bounds conspiracy theory; and not to even go into Howard Hughes, who was the Hollywood director, casino magnet, media tycoon of his time — I am really not sure if there exists a less apt comparison, maybe Donald Trump, although he practically was the Donald Trump of his time if you really look at it — and truthfully, I gleamed from your response a quiet agreement, but either way, I did find new informational coverage — by Bloomberg — for their teased public listing on NASDAQ, of which I will be adding, and then resubmitting the entry, with this discussion, for someone who has read this. (Finally, in parting, I would like to specifically thank McMatter, ColinFine, Baeu7, GoingBatty, and I'm tla for either starting or contributing to the entry, which for the aforementioned reasons I am glad to have led.) Classical Tadpole (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Submitted-- Classical Tadpole (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: I added an archive-url for the NYT reference, and it doesn't seem to mention Atrisk at all. I think the sentence fragment "the dominant structure in the Fortune 500 because of its corporate secrecy and being considered a domestic 'corporate haven.'" could be remove from the lead, along with references 12 & 13. GoingBatty (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I fixed it, I agree that it was not included/worded very well but it does seem important for context. I also fixed the note, I kept it because the differences between what a "corporate haven" can mean or imply are important to note. For example, it should not imply that Atrisk or most of the largest public companies in the world are in Delaware because they can walk all over the government and not have to follow any regulations. Baeu7 03:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_January_17&oldid=1198130110"