Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 8 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 10 >
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.


May 9

[edit]

01:09, 9 May 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener

[edit]

Hello Again, I have created another message because my other message was ignored, I am certified that my article about the School falls under the Notability guidelines and regulations as I said in my previous message, the Articles provide the Awards and Achievements of the school, the Visit of U.S Marines and Sailors and even featured on a segment in Philippine National Television that was premiered through GMA Public Affairs the biggest network in the Philippines. So, I Ask again to see and to double check my article so it would be release to the Article Page.

thank you for your consideration -Rex Scrivener RexScrivener (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener none of those points you have just made meet the requirements of WP:NORG or WP:GNG. As you have been told in every decline message. The awards and visitors do not indicate any sort of notability as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned. Please read through the decline messages links and the one in this message to help you better understand what is required. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thank you for replying on the issues regarding the article, i believe the sources that i use are reliable and certified, also with your response i edited the article base on the requirements and perhaps you or anyone can check the sources that i place to fully verified it is true.
thank you again - RexScrivener (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I would like to petition that this article is fine, I see other schools that are in Wikipedia, and it did not even follow the guidelines, but it was approve, so I'm asking for equality that this article may be uploaded to the article page. i am asking with sincerity. thank you RexScrivener (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener Please stop creating new sections and just respond in the existing location. At this point since you are not listening and the draft has been rejected it will not be considered any further. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry if i did not follow your instruction, maybe i was too exited the article to be publish or release. I offer my deepest apologies and i would like to continue to work on this project and maybe in the future you guys will approve of it. Again im very sorry for such in a hurry of this work. RexScrivener (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, in your previous post (which was not "ignored" - volunteers here are in different timezones, and have real lives) your draft has been rejected. I strongly advise you not to waste any more of your time on it. ColinFine (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:44, 9 May 2024 review of submission by 111.125.122.184

[edit]

Good Day, Im a student at this school and I’m very happy to see this article on google and other search engines soon, regarding the issue that was raised by Rex Scrivener, i think he is too rush but correct at the same time. Regardless im very happy someone created an article about my school and thank you for the admins of help desk for being professional. 111.125.122.184 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like other reviewers have answered above, the draft does not meet WP:NORG. It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Also, please stop creating new sections for the same draft. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:10, 9 May 2024 review of submission by 178.135.18.17

[edit]

helloo, thank you so much for your comments on my article, may i please know how can i add reliable sources? i already added 22 sources, can you give me example?

sincerely,

Tonio F. Mrad 178.135.18.17 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are indeed 22 citations (speaking of which, do we really need 11 of them to support the last two short paragraphs?), but they are all in the last approx ⅓ of the draft, with most of the content unreferenced. This would be problematic in any draft, but especially so in articles on living people (WP:BLP) which require comprehensive inline citations throughout. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a citation is to verify a specific piece or pieces of information in an article, nothing else. If a piece of information is already verified by a citation, it is a waste of everybody's time to add another citation for it. See WP:OVERCITE.
Meanwhile, in a BLP, if there is information which is not supported by a citation, that is a problem. ColinFine (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:10, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Antwan123123

[edit]

need assistance on what to do to make this article suitable for wikipedia Antwan123123 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After seven declines and a rejection there is probably nothing you can do, beyond accept that they are not notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antwan123123: also for future reference, when a draft has been declined, especially if it already has a history of multiple previous declines, do not resubmit it without any attempt to address the decline reasons. This signals to the reviewers that you are unable and/or unwilling to develop the draft further, which leads to the inevitable conclusion, like it did here, that the draft's current state is the best it will be, and if that isn't good enough for publication then there is logically no option left but to reject it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Jasmineanna

[edit]

Hi, i've added new references for the page Simon Ree, can you please let me know if these reference are inline with what you are after? Jasmineanna (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasmineanna what is your association with Simon Ree? There is utterly no indication that he is notable by our standards. Qcne (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 9 May 2024 review of submission by B.sooshiant

[edit]

hello dear friendI have tried my best to keep this article up to date. Could you please not delete it and help me complete it?

respect and regard B.sooshiant (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@B.sooshiant this draft has now been rejected, and will not be considered further. If you feel the draft has substantially changed since the last rejection, please reach out to @TheTechie. Qcne (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Thanks for the ping. I now know what to expect. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:06, 9 May 2024 review of submission by RadisonRathod

[edit]

Hi , Can someone check and mark this page as reviewed. So that it would appear on google and search engine as well. Thankyou. RadisonRathod (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RadisonRathod please see WP:INDEXING. Qcne (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RadisonRathod: that's not an AfC matter, that's one for WP:NPP. In any case, it was reviewed two days ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Marisa at Klick

[edit]

Hi. I'm feeling very confused as to why my draft was declined. There are 58 references, many of which are significant or in-depth coverage by independent, reliable global and business media or leading trade journals. There are also numerous industry-leading awards. This makes a strong case for notability, and I'd appreciate another review. Thanks a lot for your help, I appreciate your time. Marisa at Klick (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marisa at Klick: it is true that you have 58 (!) citations in your draft, but that's not necessarily a good thing, as you seem to think, it might actually work against you; see WP:REFBOMB and WP:CITEKILL. In short, 5 solid sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard are better than 58 that don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @DoubleGrazing. I believe it is the best of both worlds: we have several references that describe the company's history, operations, products, and awards… and Klick also meets the notability guideline. This draft cites major business news coverage, including Fast Company, Forbes (by a staff writer), Toronto Business Daily, and CNBC. Then we cite leading health and marketing trade publications, including Ad Age, Strategy, Clio, The Drum, Campaign, MM+M, PM360, and MobiHealthNews. Last, Klick is a multiple-award winning company with recognition from Cannes, Clio, Fortune, Fast Company, Ad Age, and MM+M. I think the case for notability is clear with the number and relevance of sources. Marisa at Klick (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list three and only three sources that you think prove the notability of this company? The sources must all be independent of each other, from reliable places, contain significant coverage, and be secondary to the company. Qcne (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Qcne, Here are three sources that are independent, reliable, secondary, and significant:
  1. Globe and Mail
  2. MM+M
  3. Toronto Business Daily
I'm happy to add more. Thank you. Marisa at Klick (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Marisa at Klick.
  1. I can't access this one (though it is fine to use sources that are paywalled) - do you have an alternative?
  2. My concern with this one is that it has quotes from the CEO and co-president (not independent), and is in the sort of gushing style similar to regurgitated PR pieces.
  3. Again, this is just regurgitating an award ceremony announcement. The source is fine to cite the award, but doesn't establish notability.
Got three more I can look at? Qcne (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qcne,
The Globe and Mail is available to read in full here: Globe and Mail at web.archive.org.
As for sources 2 and 3, respectfully, it doesn't make sense to me that we can't use media which quotes the principals of the company; business news quotes principals of companies as a normal practice – not a PR tactic. A source can still be secondary and independent even if it quotes the principals of the company in the context of reliable reporting.
In addition, here are four more sources you can use, which makes a total of seven.
a. Strategy
b. Campaign Canada
c. Campaign Asia
d. Yale School of Management
I think I have complied with every request you've made as well as what is required per the notability and verifiability policies. Thank you again for your consideration. Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Marisa at Klick. In addition to the helpful coverage @ColinFine replied with, I think it's worth reading WP:ORGIND, especially the bit "Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.".
The difficult thing about the first three sources you gave is that they have some of the hallmarks of churnalism- just regurgitating quotes from the CEO etc without much independent analysis.
I'm looking deeply at strategyonline.ca now, and this is my assessment:
- The article extensively discusses Klick's achievements and future plans without presenting any critiques or external perspectives.
- There's no indication that the article provides independent analysis or commentary from sources outside of Klick. The info seems to be derived directly from the company's internal announcements and press releases.
I derive the same assessment from campaigncanada.ca, mmm-online, torontobusinessdaily too.
In good news, the Globe and Mail is a much better article:
- It puts Klick into the wider context for Canada, includes industry studies, exploration of challenges etc. This is much more of a case study piece of journalism and is the type of thing that confers notability.
The sagepub.com study looks good too.
A few more sources like the Globe and Mail would be excellent.
I hope that clarifies things, and let me know if you have any questions! Qcne (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You gave me a lot to think about and I appreciate the time you spent on the article. Just letting you know that I've resubmitted a version focused on source quality. Thank you again. Marisa at Klick (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Djmooyall23

[edit]

I don't know why my article has not been approved and published although I have paid for this task to create the content for Daniel Marc Mouyal who is a famous rapper and hip-hop singer belongs to Florida, Can anyone please help me publish the right way if I have mistakenly do something against the policy, But I have all the references authentic... Djmooyall23 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djmooyall23: I'm confused, it seems you've written about yourself, but you say you've paid for someone else to write this? Only one of those can be true, but be that as it may, please see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:PAID. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No i am not writting this article for myself, actually i am a freelancer and my client have provided each thing about has self life detail and i have to create an article for him here on wikipedia... Djmooyall23 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear @Djmooyall23. I suggest you give Daniel a refund on your services. Qcne (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is Daniel here. I'm who Samir is writing about. He is doing a good job, I encourage that he proceeds with writing my article. I have companies looking to start working with me and they look for influencers, singers, actors who have a Wiki page. I have plenty of PR and have been on radio as well as newspapers. An issue I've had was finding reputable Wiki contributors who'd write an article for me. Samir just needs very specific proper guidance and he'll do just fine. I'm walking through this process with him step by step and improving the grammar and fact checking along the way. Thank you. Youalreadyknowrecords (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youalreadyknowrecords frankly there is no evidence you are notable by our standards and therefore you do not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Please refund Samir for his services. Qcne (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djmooyall23 I wonder if you have fallen victim to this WP:SCAM? Qcne (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have zero independent, reliable sources, and the draft is full of hagiographic promotion, fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Qcne implied, you appear to have taken on a task which you do not yet have the requisite skills to perform.
I always advise new editors to spend several months learning how Wikipedia works by making edits to existing articles, before even thinking of creating a new article. Once you have understood principles like reliable sources, neutral point of view and notability, then is the time to read your first article, and start trying to create an article ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am paid by Daniel Marc Mouyal $50.00 on fiverr.com as a freelancer to write the article and upload it to wikipedia.org for him since he is featured in notable newspaper "The Jerusalem Post" and many online entertainment news sources such as "genius.com" "thesis50.com" and many more. Daniel Mouyal was also on #3 Hip-hop/R&B Canada charts on "Apple Music" and has over 18,000 subscribers on Youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCk3hNPVssFQReVqjLCluQNA ). Daniel Mouyal is a rising sensation in music and entertainment, I have researched on him and read dfferent blogs and articles on different online media and he is an authentic sources famouse person he is well known as a singer on the internet.
Also below are the references you can check from an authentic sources ...
• https://genius.com/a/watch-daniel-mouyals-a-little-too-much-music-video
• https://www.jpost.com/special-content/daniel-mouyal-releases-a-little-too-much-off-of-new-album-yeshiva-freshman-743187
• https://thisis50.com/2023/04/15/daniel-mouyal-is-next-to-blow/
• https://thisis50.com/2024/03/13/daniel-mouyal-signs-deal-at-roc-nation/
• https://hiphopsince1987.com/2024/music/equity-roc-nations-distribution-division-will-be-releasing-daniel-mouyals-music/
• https://hiphopsince1987.com/2023/music/genre-bending-maestro-daniel-mouyal-unveils-collaborative-extravaganza-in-new-album-house- of-g-d-featuring-project-pat-riff-raff-gucci-mane-camron-kool-g-rap-and-too-hort/ Djmooyall23 (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djmooyall23: first and foremost, you must make the paid-editing disclosure as requested on your talk page, as your very next edit. Please note, this is a hard requirement, not an optional extra.
Secondly, it is pointless posting sources here, because in few days' time they will be archived, and no one reviewing the draft will know where to go looking for them. Cite them in the draft, please (after making your paid-editing disclosure).
And thirdly, you probably should change your user name, because it very much gives the misleading impression that you are Daniel Marc Mouyal, especially when writing about Daniel Marc Mouyal.
Speaking of which, do you have other accounts set up for writing about other clients? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djmooyall23: I have a very strict policy of not rewarding undisclosed mercenaries by reviewing their sources or writing. Until you disclose, I'm not looking at any of your sources proffered here or your draft. We take (allegations of) paid editing dead seriously. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no scams involved at all, I have a long list of reputable magazine and newspaper coverages. -Daniel Mouyal Youalreadyknowrecords (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 9 May 2024 review of submission by AndreiPPa

[edit]

I would like to create a nice and complete encyclopedic page on Wikipedia about Samir Buzatu, I have read the conditions of Wikipedia and I believe that Samir is an encyclopedic person: he works and is in charge of production designer of several Marvel films (which have a Wikipedia page and they also mention him), but when I create the page with the minimum information, I am denied creation because I am told that the sources I provided concern the film and not him: but if it is an important film and he is the production designer, and is mentioned in the cast by several newspapers also giving information, why can't he have a Wikipedia page? AndreiPPa (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AndreiPPa To merit a standalone article about Buzatu, he needs to receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources- himself personally, not merely the things he works on. Sources need to tell what makes him important/significant/influential as a production designer- how he is either a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. Just the fact that he worked on a film that might merit an article is insufficient- we don't do notability by association. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 9 May 2024 review of submission by 24.191.217.79

[edit]

Is there an editor who can help me revise this draft (or make suggestions) that would improve its chances of being accepted? 24.191.217.79 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. You can ask at one or more of the projects listed on the draft talk page, if anyone there is interesting in chipping in, but the onus really is on the draft authors to create the draft.
This was declined for notability, which is demonstrated through sources. You need to find multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, to show notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_9&oldid=1223915082"