Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 14 << Sep | October | Nov >> Current help desk >
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.


October 15

[edit]

08:59, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Anastasia (Nastia)

[edit]

Hi everyone, could you please let me know why this draft was declined?

I removed anything that is remotely promotional and added several independent and reliable sources that mention OnePageCRM. Forbes and Forbes Advisor covered OnePageCRM as well as The Irish Independent, The Times, Local Enterprise Ireland Office, and also TechCrunch.

Some of them are globally known (Forbes and TechCrunch). Others are well known and established in Ireland, like Chambers Ireland, the federation of chambers of commerce for the Republic of Ireland, that officially endorsed OnePageCRM on their website.

Pipedrive has a similar number of references - Pipedrive

Another Wiki article has no reputable references but is still published - Really Simple Systems

Could you please let me know how I can improve the draft to get it published? I'd appreciate your feedback. Anastasia (Nastia) (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastasia (Nastia): the reviewer declined this because of insufficient evidence of notability.
Forbes and TechCrunch aren't quite the strong sources you seem to think; see WP:FORBESCON and WP:TECHCRUNCH, respectively. Sources such as Local Enterprise Ireland and chambers of commerce are primary, and do not contribute towards notability.
It's also not sufficient for a source to mention the subject, we need to see significant coverage, and more specifically, coverage that is entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia (Nastia) When linking to another article or page on Wikipedia, the whole url is unnecessary. Simply place the title of the target page in double brackets(like [[Article title]]).
You declared you were an employee in an edit summary; you should do this on your user page as well.
Please see other stuff exists. There are many ways inappropriate articles can get past us, that an article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone, or that standards have not changed since it was(if it was). This is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, so things get past us. We can only address what we know about. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles, this is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have indeed received community vetting. I've marked the articles you pointed out as problematic, thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot and @DoubleGrazing for your quick responses and help.
I didn't know that articles can be published without approval, so will refer to the link provided to edit my draft. I declared that I was an employee on the Draft's Talk page too but will do this on my User page as well.
@DoubleGrazing- thanks for sharing the links to Forbes and TechCrunch. I'll have a look at what generally reliable sources have covered OnePageCRM and will add new references before re-submitting the draft. Anastasia (Nastia) (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:14, 15 October 2024 review of submission by CadenSilva

[edit]

Why is my sources not reliable? I keep getting this: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

How can I make my sources more reliable so that my article gets approved?

Someone please help, many of my sources are credible. CadenSilva (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CadenSilva I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended.
Your draft is improperly formatted; please see Referencing for beginners. The draft is also written as an essay, and not an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the topic.
If you are associated with this fund, please declare that, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Jenmchole

[edit]

Hi -- I have been working on a submission about BlackSky for a few months now and haven't been able to figure out how to change it so it will be accepted. This is my first attempt at writing an article, but like the first editor of this article, I noted that the text about BlackSky in the Spaceflight Industries article is out of date and that there was a proposal on the talk page of that article for an article about BlackSky. I have done some writing work in the past in the satellite space (mostly about Maxar) so tried to fill this gap. I have used the same kinds of sources from comparable articles (Maxar, Planet, AirBus, etc) so I'm not sure why those articles work but this one does not?? Please help! I'm happy for this to be edited in any way (shortened or changed) but it seems like if comic book characters get a wiki entry then a company that can watch the world from space should at least have a mention!! Thanks so much for any help!! Jenmchole (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection to this company?
As reviewers noted, the draft just summarizes the routine activities of the company and its offerings, not significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources thqt shows how it is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not employed by this company but have done freelance writing/editing about multiple companies in this sector.
Is the text currently under the heading "Satellites" not notable? They built and launched satellites into space. I'm having trouble understanding what notable means?? I looked at the published Stardew Valley article and it's notable references (The Stardew Valley Developer Blog or Nintendo Life) and its not clear why NASA, Forbes and SpaceNews don't work as independent, reliable sources? I'm not tied to any of this info being included, I'm happy to adjust -- it just feels very unclear when comparing to the other articles I've edited or read what's missing from this one. Thanks very much. Jenmchole (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenmchole Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits.
So, to be clear, you are not freelancing about this company? If you have freelanced for their competitors, it could still be a conflict of interest you need to disclose. If not, okay.
The "satellites" section just documents their routine business activities(building/launching satellites). It doesn't say what is important/significant/influential about this company doing so- what makes them a notable company as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 15 October 2024 review of submission by SweLiving

[edit]

Clarification on Source Reliability Hi, my article was declined: Draft:Per Olsson (photographer) The reason given was "not adequately supported by reliable sources."

I’m not sure which of the sources I used are considered unreliable. Could it be due to the fact that "Fotografisk Tidsskrift" is cited with a URL from sfoto.se, or is mynewsdesk not an adequate source?

Additionally, I have these other sources I could use for the article:

- [Magasinet Tryck](https://issuu.com/magasinettryck/docs/magasinet-tryck-nr-4)

- [Racestripe Magazine](https://se.readly.com/magazines/racestripe-magazine-readly-exclusive/2023-12-27?srsltid=AfmBOooADLP6XEf_2WpEtTOpShoEDRC94wkEkVvEFEkxw7o4NwJmfCPN)

Do these seem more reliable? Any thoughts on how I can improve the sources or references for this draft would be appreciated! SweLiving (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweLiving: almost all the citations are to the first source, which is an interview of him. People can, and do, say what they want in an interview. These sources also do not establish notability, which would have been another reason to decline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SweLiving I fixed your post so the link to your draft is in the correct place, I think you thought it was a section header. Also, the whole url is unnecessary when linking to a Wikipedia page. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SweLiving: "not adequately supported by reliable sources" is generally used when the subject is a living person and there are unsourced claims in the article. Literally everything that could be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that explicitly corroborates it; interviews are not third-party. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 15 October 2024 review of submission by HYTEN CREW

[edit]

A new page SNEAKO has gotten through the cracks and it is worse than the draft. I think the draft article qualifies to be an article since he has been the dedicated subject of an article from a major accredited newspaper and has been mentioned countless times in more tabloid journalism (which is par for the course for these influencer types). HYTEN CREW (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HYTEN CREW: Thanks for letting us know about the article. I'm going to see if it's salvageable in any form before sending it to a deletion debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HYTEN CREW: As to this draft, it has the exact same problem as the existing article, sourcing aside - it's an article on a living person known for being a gadfly for shock value, which makes sourcing next to impossible. All I really found online was clickbait (mainly from Sportskeeda). The sourcing you have in the article does not help a whit, as you rely a lot on sources that either are from him or don't even mention him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I'd like to say it's not my article, I haven't contributed to it at all, and I really couldn't care less if it lives or dies. I'm just bringing it up for discussion in light of the duplicate article's creation so any tomfoolery can be nipped in the bud.
Second, is the problem lack of notability or lack of sources? There's the source from the Jerusalem Post and a simple search on the google has articles from SPLC and others.
Third, the subject is an influencer and runs in the cirlce of the manosphere with the Andrew Tate's and the Nick Fuentes's. I think it's important to document hatred so that an audience can identify these bad actors and hold them accountable. HYTEN CREW (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HYTEN CREW: With all due respect, that goal is not shared by Wikipedia. Information is not the sort of weapon you imagine it is for this purpose; a Wikipedia article could just as easily find him potential new fans. Second, I view the issue as both dodgy sources (chaff choking out the wheat) and being notable only for being a manosphere Socrates (though the AfD has turned up four good sources to use, two of which you already cite). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HYTEN CREW We record only that whcih is said in reliable secondary sources. Wikip4dia documents nothing unless it is already recorded 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Toblerone101

[edit]

What do I need to add Toblerone101 (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toblerone101 A rejected draft cannot proceed further unless you can liaise with the rejecting editor to lift the rejection. It may be a matter of WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toblerone101 To be clear, I am not the rejecting reviewer. Petitioning me on my user talk page serves no purpose. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:47, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Natan Consigli

[edit]

I need help to make this article more neutral and formal of tone. I tried a few times but seem not to understand how to do it well. Help is much appreciated. Thanks! Natan Consigli (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Natan Consigli, some things that stand out:
- "recognized for his use of fire in creating artwork" < recognised by whom?
- "played a role in shaping his later explorations in visual arts, providing him with a foundation in imagery and composition that would.." < simplify this to something like "his career in advertising and graphic design influenced his compositional style and artistic development"
- "he produces vibrant, textured works" < who says they are vibrant and textured?
- "become emblematic of his style and has garnered widespread recognition" < says who?
- The entire "Legacy and Impact" section can be removed, as it is unencyclopedic. Qcne (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
/
Hello (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natan Consigli (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "recognized for his use of fire in creating artwork"
Added reference here https://www.jamesmagazine.it/art/le-opere-enrico-dico-milano/ -> With recognition also by Vittorio Sgarbi (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vittorio_Sgarbi)
and here https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cultura/dic-combustioni-pop-art-italiana-1446182.html
I attempted a correction on the rest of the sections
Thanks you for your answer. Let me know if there's something else I can improve Natan Consigli (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 15 October 2024 review of submission by LegacyMediahse

[edit]

I don't understand why Theroadislong rejected my post LegacyMediahse (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your draft twice because it is unsourced and promotional with zero indication of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 15 October 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:3177:B010:D2A9:8B9C:22AC:B7F2

[edit]

Were almost into 2025 and I felt like this is the Time 2600:1700:3177:B010:D2A9:8B9C:22AC:B7F2 (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's far WP:TOOSOON. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_15&oldid=1252366705"