Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 1 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 3 >
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.


July 2

[edit]

07:34, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Nurebz001

[edit]

We faced issues with two paid editors due to lack of awareness of all policies. Our first editor's work got drafted when it was discovered he was paid. The second editor faced the same issue when GSS assumed it was the same person. Although we fired the first editor and hired a second person. Now, we have submitted our own page, but GSS drafted it again. We are trying to comply with all policies and have disclosed our COI. I believe GSS is being unreasonable, and may be thinking that I am one of the previous editors. I am a direct employee of RSP Architects and can verify my identity with a company email. Can someone help resolve this situation? The page was live for a month without issues. All I am asking is to submit the page to AFC. Here is the page link Draft:RSP Architects Planners & Engineers Nurebz001 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like it was written by the marketing department to promote every thing the company has ever done, that is not how articles are written here. Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... I'm confused. If I understand this correctly, you, as an employee of the company you're writing about, paid 2 editors, both of whom are blocked now, to promote your company, before you fired both of them and decided to do it yourself? Wikipedia is not for companies to tell the world about themselves, and the draft will almost certainly be declined again if resubmitted. Regardless, you need to disclose your paid editing status now by following the directions on the message I left on your talk page, or you may be blocked like the 2 other editors. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Turini2

[edit]

I've posted three times on the talk page of the draft article that it is too soon for the article, and that fundamental errors and mistakes remain in their draft. Another editor (Joeyconnick) reverted previous edits for being unsourced. The editor continues to submit for AFC regardless! Can someone decline this draft, and encourage some concrete steps on how the editor can improve (i.e. talk to people rather than ignoring talk page comments!)? Turini2 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Turini2: not sure what good declining will do, if the author (and it probably is the author, editing as IPs after they were blocked – maybe that's something that could be looked into?) is insistent; they can just resubmit again. Only a rejection would put an end to that, but I'm not sure that's justified. That said, I'm happy to decline this on the basis of notability, if you think that would help? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so - maybe directing them to the talk page, or seeking a mentor? Turini2 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Arahi991

[edit]

Dear Moderator Put in more official sources I will add what I need Check the article and can publish Arahi991 (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arahi991: for the third time (in the space of a week), this draft has been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. If you wish to appeal the rejection, you must make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have appealed to me but the company still does not meet notability so the rejection stands. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Arahi991 we have little interest in 'official sources', as they do not establish notability nor are considered reliable and independent. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. In addition, to reiterate, do you have any connection with Solyankich (talk · contribs)? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arahi991: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Absolutely none of your sources are any good, with the vast majority of them being sources we couldn't cite under any circumstance. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Np 7 13

[edit]

Hello, I would like to please ask for more assistance on the reasoning behind the rejection on. I thought the citations were legitimate and reliable news resources and their format was auto-created by Wikipedia. I wish to improve this article therefore any additional more specific feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you very much! Np 7 13 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Np 7 13! It looks as if your first step is to disclose your conflict of interest| in relation to this topic – as far as I can see, every edit you've made in the last six years has been to promote it in one way or another. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justlettersandnumbers I am sorry, I think this is a bit unfair. I have made a few other edits that are not related to specifically this topic. I have an interest in art, culture and non profits in Greece as it is something I am more familiar with but I started researching and I noticed a gap about an issue and one edit led to another. I am new to this and have less than 100 edits which include other institutions in Greece as well so I might have fallen very deep and focused extensively into one topic maybe. I will try and research it more and amend the citations for a more accurate and reliable post. Thank you very much! Np 7 13 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Np 7 13, my previous statement was not 100% accurate (my apologies!), but seems more than fair. I may have missed something, but as far as I can see every edit you've made is connected to the Neon topic with the exception of those relating to the Stavros Niarchos Foundation or to the John S. Latsis Public Benefit Foundation (and for all I know those are connected too). It looks very much as if you you should make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure in relation to both the Latsis foundation/family and to the Neon organisation. I'll leave a note on your talk-page on how to do that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 2 July 2024 review of submission by 212.139.32.254

[edit]

hello. this from the donald team ahs been a problem. we have worked about. 5 days on this article. not for it to be deleted by a BOT POWERED BY AI. please accept. we need this for our work document . so accept it and the references might be fake. BUT that doesnt matter at all. it only matters if you Accept it.. FROM THE DONALD FOUNDATION 212.139.32.254 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, enough. I've issued you an only warning. Keep this up, and you can expect to be blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft is absolute garbage and there are no bots editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troll blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

13:22, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Shmego

[edit]

This article has over 21,000 bytes, 47 sources, and has enough information to be a notable and useful article. While only causing minimal damage, there is still enough information in it for it to become a standalone article. It is most likely only written as minimal damage as there is no monetary damage written down from St Vincent or St Lucia, so it is likely that there was a fair amount of damage, and the sources found in the article would agree with that. In conclusion, i believe that this article in notable, and with this much information, I'm not sure why it hasn't been published. Shmego (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One reviewer cited WP:DENY but I'm not sure why. This process is (usually) voluntary. If you feel that the reviewers got it wrong(have you asked them directly about it?) you are free to move it to they encyclopedia yourself, but then you run the risk of an WP:AFD discussion being started. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: From the looks of it this draft's been edited by an LTA in the past, so it might be that an admin familiar with that LTA's behaviour is leery of accepting a draft they've targeted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not asked them. Thanks for the help, I may try to move it to the mainspace. Shmego (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Frankincense Diala

[edit]
@Frankincense Diala: you have resubmitted the draft, so you will be getting a review once a reviewer happens to pick it up. If you have specific questions in the meantime, you can ask them here, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala I considered reviewing it. Instead I flagged the picture on Commons as a copyright violation. That puts me right off reviewing a draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala I decided to swallow my distaste for drafts embellished by copyright pictures, and no Declined this draft, with a very full rationale. You have substantial work to do. Please go to it with a will. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay . I actually asked for help Frankincense Diala (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala Which you received. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I lost the submission button for review to my draft. Please how do I retrieve it? Frankincense Diala (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I lost my submission button. Please how do I retrieve it? Frankincense Diala (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala: you lost it, because you deleted all the earlier AfC templates (declines and comments). Please don't do that, they need to remain there until the draft is accepted (assuming it is). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored these now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you...but I am yet to see that it has been restored, as can't see it at the top of a draft I was already on before the mistake occured. Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I delete a draft? Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I can see now that it has been restored. Thank you very much Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala: it's not at the top of the draft, it's at the bottom of the topmost decline notice in a draft. In this case that notice is long, which pushes the blue 'resubmit' button quite far down, but it is there.
You cannot delete a draft (or any other page), only admins can do that. However, assuming you're the only substantive contributor to a draft, you can request its deletion by placing the {{db-author}} template on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me with the submission button on this draft please.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Growth_Africa Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala: you actually created that directly in the live encyclopaedia. I've moved it into the draft space, as it is completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability. You can now find it (with the submit button) at Draft:Green Growth Africa. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it unreferenced, it reads like something a C-Suite guy wrote to try and attract investors. If the "Internet Publications on Green Growth Africa" are intended to be sources, please read Help:Referencing for beginners. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @DoubleGrazing you have been helpful. I saw your email on my draft still under improvement. Will do tye needed Frankincense Diala (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 2 July 2024 review of submission by WikiPhil012

[edit]

What should I do if one of my independant sources is an pdf with no author? Should I just write the name of the university who made it? 

WikiPhil012 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPhil012: "an [sic] pdf with no author" is not a source that will contribute anything towards notability, so you might as well ignore that.
You should study the WP:GNG guideline, and find sources that meet it.
You also need to review WP:REFB about referencing in general.
And if you're citing offline sources, you need to provide full bibliographical details, see WP:OFFLINE for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this helped a lot. WikiPhil012 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPhil012 no Declined If you can find no references there is a strong probability (0.99) that the topic has not yet achieved notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Zahidhasanshuhan1

[edit]

article submission has been rejected Zahidhasanshuhan1 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zahidhasanshuhan1: that's correct, and also speedily deleted. If you're writing about yourself, don't – see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Bcarpenterr

[edit]

What can i do to get my article published? Bcarpenterr (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcarpenterr Dump YouTube and Discogs as references. They do not meet our criteria. Seek better references. Do not seek more, seek better.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Can't find references, proper ones? Then the subject is not yet ready for an article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Li-reg

[edit]

Hello, I am writing here since I need help. I'm afraid there is a reviewer whom his actions seems not professional and I would love help with this. I am sure all can be read so i wont copy it but in cases like this, what can be done? Also, I must point out, I have expressed my wish to correct everything needed, I asked help and I am still willing&want but I do believe what this reviewer is doing is not okay and too personal. Thank you, Li-reg (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Li-reg Please do not make accusations about other editors. They say more about you than they do about anyone else. I see two reviews, neither of which is personal. This brief tirade of yours is likely to put other reviewers off reviewing lest they feel the sharp edge of your discontent. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Li-reg I have chosen to disregard the potential for your making further accusations. I have no Declined this draft with a full rationale. Wikipedia does not tolerate accusations. If you have something to complain about please use one of the formal complaint mechanisms. This is not the place to do it. Meanwhile, even when doing that, you are required to assume good faith. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Li-reg: If you think the reviewers are being "too personal" by offering you advice, then you're not going to like what I'm about to do. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of the sources I could assess are any good; none of them discuss Freidenberg beyond the surface level. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Lucas Pat

[edit]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Do not submit the wrong question. Lucas Pat (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Pat Then do not submit it. Do you have a question? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_July_2&oldid=1233245244"