Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 October 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 17 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 19 >
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 18

[edit]

03:05, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Coincollector4500

[edit]

I'm struggling as to why this is meeting the guidlines. This has dozens of reliable sources and is very independen from the orginal source. Can some kindly explain to me what the issue seems to be. Coincollector4500 (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coincollector4500: it does not have "dozens of sources", it has 14. This includes the company's own website, and that of its founder's. One source, New York Post, is not considered reliable. Three (Morningstar, Fox Business, and CBN) do not work. At least one is based on a press release. And a couple are about rare bills and coins, not about the company. This leaves a few, which may or may not count towards notability per WP:NCORP, but "dozens" they emphatically are not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coincollector4500, the quality of your sources is far more important than their quantity. For the purpose of establishing notability, it is essential that the sources be fully independent of the topic. Low quality and non-independent sources waste the time of reviewers and obscure rather than highlighting notability. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in addition, Coincollector4500, there are multiple copies of at least one of the press releases, [1] and [2]. Surely it must be obvious that these are not different sources? --bonadea contributions talk 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea, I think a lot of beginners see citations as a box-ticking exercise, rather than understanding that they are the foundation on which the very existence of an article depends. From that point of view, the identity of two sources will not be of any consequence. ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:29, 18 October 2024 review of submission by TANVIR MAHMUD JIHAD

[edit]

Why the article isn't publicing ? TANVIR MAHMUD JIHAD (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TANVIR MAHMUD JIHAD: because there is nothing to suggest that you are notable enough to be included in a global encyclopaedia. Please note that this is not social media where you can create your own 'profile' and tell the world about yourself; for that, you need to find an alternative platform, like LinkedIn etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:26, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Bollardant

[edit]

Hello, I would like to know which references do not provide a good coverage, so I can target them, and replace them with more sources that provide a wider coverage. Thanks! Bollardant (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bollardant: I haven't checked the two offline sources, but most of the ones you're citing offer only passing mentions of the hippodrome in the wider context of the excavation. The book (#4) is obviously a solid source. Possibly also the paper (#6), although it's not clear what sort of paper it is, and in any case it's by the same author as the book, so arguably only counts as a single source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response! I’ll look into it. Bollardant (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:43, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot

[edit]

according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events) : Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.

Tromanale was a an event over a wide region. Visitors from Spain, France and even from the United States came especially for this events. For 2 years it was the officlal Counter Event to the Berlinale (international Filmfestival in Berlin) Tromaggot (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tromaggot: that's not a question; did you have one in mind you wanted to ask?
Also, just to say that an event doesn't have international "impact" just because it receives visitors from other countries. That would make pretty much any event notable. There was a violin recital in our village hall the other day, which had in the audience people from at least three other countries. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the fact that the Tromanale was the official counter event to the Berlinale make it a notable event? Tromaggot (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tromaggot: in a word, no. Not in and of itself, at least: it may, however, generate sufficient media coverage, which in turn could make it notable (in the Wikipedia sense of that word). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article / reports in the "Berliner Zeitung", "TAZ", "Gory News", PRANKE-Magazin are not enough? How reports needs a festival? Tromaggot (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tromaggot: I'm not commenting on whether or not the sources cited in this draft are enough, as I haven't reviewed it. Note that it's not enough to cite a source, even a reliable and independent one; that source must also provide significant coverage of the subject, not just passing mentions.
But to answer your question in a general sense, we usually require 3+ sources that fully meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so I got this source from the Berliner Zeitung that provide significant coverage of the subject:
BERLINALE - Now the Berlinale also has its counter-event.
And the screendaily article.
So I just need to find a third one?
Was wrong with the Gory News Report? Gory News was a German magazin comparable to fangoria magazine? Is Gory News? Tromaggot (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Meghana348

[edit]

about meghnana 

Meghana348 (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meghana348 What help do you feel you need with respect to creating an article? Please stop opening multiple threads here. One is sufficient 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Bhuvan mg

[edit]

about college(VDH) Bhuvan mg (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhuvan mg What help do you feel you need with respect to creating an article? Please stop opening multiple threads here. One is sufficient 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Meghana348

[edit]

to publish about our clg Meghana348 (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meghana348 please do not open new threads. Please reply in the original thread you opened.
Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meghana348: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia isn't social media and we aren't interested in contextless/contentless "articles". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Thewiko

[edit]

Can you give me some suggestion for better source articles than web-links about an obscure game?

Any response would be apreciated. Thewiko (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the game is "obscure", it almost certainly does not have the coverage needed to merit a Wikipedia article at this time. For video games usually sources include reviews of the game by professional reviewers(not just users of the game). 331dot (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By obscure i mean that It does have rewies by proffesional sites (like Metacritic and some more) and critics but it doesn't have much info that's 100% verifiable or in moderate depth, I think that it deserves an article because it has a sequel and decent player numbers, but that's subjective.
Again, any advice? Thewiko (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reputable game journalism websites that have covered the game in some detail is what we're looking for. Not MetaCritic, not from Slitherine (as they're the publisher so not independent), and not from Steam. Qcne (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If you have no sources with in depth coverage and the sources you have do not have in depth coverage, the game would not merit an article. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic, there has to be sources to support an article. Yes, player numbers contribute nothing towards notability- it could have five players and be notable, or five million and not be notable.
The draft currently doesn't have any discussion of reviews by professional reviewers; it mentions its Steam rating, but that is compiled by players rating the game, not professional reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh!
Understood then thanks for the replies and the advice.
Ill leave the draft as a draft for now, or until the sequel gets some atention or some reliable and proffesional rewies.
Again thank you for the replies. Thewiko (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 18 October 2024 review of submission by 77.77.218.177

[edit]

Added Sources who was compteted in national pageantary! 77.77.218.177 (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a strong personal investment in this general topic. Are you associated with it? 331dot (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:26, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Caeid

[edit]

Hello, We want to submit a new draft for our page but there is no button for that, can you please help us in this regard. Caeid (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeid: there is no resubmit button, because after multiple declines this draft was finally rejected outright, therefore it will not be possible to resubmit it.
Who is "we" in your question? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by one individual only.
Or if you're referring to yourself and the creator of this draft, Qdacyme, as "we", then can you tell us how you're connected? I'm asking as Qdacyme has declared a conflict of interest in this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:27, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Ombisen18

[edit]

Hi, I need help understanding why you rejected my page when I have written it from a neutral point of view. Also, the reference links are active and from well-known sources. What else do you need? Could you please assist me in making this page live? I am open to adding or removing any content you suggest. 

Ombisen18 (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ombisen18: the draft is written in corporate buzz speak and peacockery throughout; I wouldn't call it 'neutral point of view'. And the sources do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. These are the reasons why it was declined (not 'rejected'). You may be able to resolve the latter issue, lack of notability, if you can find better sources. But if this is the most 'neutral' you can write, then you may not be able to get around that hurdle.
I would also suggest that you take a look at WP:REFB for advice on how to reference correctly using the preferred method of inline citations and dynamic footnotes. That makes it much easier for reviewers to see where each piece of information comes from, and how much of this remains unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, Ombisen18, but consider these phrases that you wrote:
leveraging its deep industry knowledge to meet client needs across various sectors
and
was established to address the increasing demand for specialized IT services and talent solutions in a fast-evolving digital landscape
and
an expanding portfolio of solutions that meet the needs of global enterprises
That is not the tone expected in an encyclopedia article. That's all vapid corporate PR jargon very similar to the writing style used by 10,000 corporate marketing departments. It is entirely devoid of any useful information about the company for the readers of an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not unambiguously promotional because similar companies have Wikipedia pages (e.g., Randstad NV, Robert Half, etc.). If Wikipedia is biased, I will stop following and donating to it, which I do regularly, and I will advocate that this is a biased platform with its own rules and regulations, lacking transparency.
People are searching for NLB Services; its brand name has more than 10,000 searches monthly, and many are impersonating this brand and deceiving users. It is necessary to keep this page live to educate users that the company exists and to confirm that this is the correct entity.
So, it is my humble request that you please approve this page. If there are any lines you believe are not appropriate or promotional in nature, feel free to delete them; I am okay with any necessary adjustments.
Thank you for your consideration. Ombisen18 (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ombisen18: whether articles on "similar companies" exist is neither here nor there (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); this draft will only be accepted if and when it meets our required standards.
Whether or not you donate money to Wikimedia Foundation is entirely your business, and has no impact on whether this draft will be accepted. It also has nothing to do with any of us here; we're all volunteers and don't see a penny of that money. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:15, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Zakoriko

[edit]

Is it completely impossible to get he page up-and-running without completely neutral references? Zakoriko (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zakoriko: it is completely impossible to get a draft accepted which doesn't show that the subject is notable, which in turn is evidenced by independent and reliable sources. It is also impossible to get a completely unreferenced draft accepted, which this now is, since all the references (such as they were) have been removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but my sources are BreakIt and Expressen, which are well-established. The thing is that it's the company representative that provides the quotes. Zakoriko (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakoriko And that means the quotes are not independent. Wikipedia has no interest in what company representatives wish to say about the company. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zakoriko Are you associated with this company? 331dot (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So for instance, this is not considered neutral? https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/ryssar-som-vill-fly-soker--sig-till-malmoforetaget/ Zakoriko (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakoriko: this is the company's CEO commenting on something (Russians trying to get around the various travel restrictions). It isn't really about the company, and it also isn't independent as it's based on an interview of the CEO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're planning to ask about each of the sources in turn, perhaps I can pre-empt that by referring you to the previous discussion here on this same draft: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_September_12#12:13,_12_September_2024_review_of_submission_by_176.10.136.162
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakoriko Usually a rejection is the end of the road for a draft. If you can prove that the company meets WP:NORG let me know and I will take another look. Qcne (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Zhenghecaris

[edit]

Could someone help me add to this draft? I can’t find many sources and I also have a problem with all the links since some of them I can get in outside Wikipedia but none of them work inside Wikipedia. Zhenghecaris (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do co-editing at this help desk. If you are unable to find enough appropriate sources to summarize, the topic would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time, no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Rishabhwiki897059

[edit]

Why are you declined Rishabhwiki897059 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message at the top of your draft, this gives the reason. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:24, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Ramanjot2024

[edit]

page is not published yet Ramanjot2024 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramanjot2024 No. It is awaiting a review. The current likely maximum wait is 6 weeks. Please commune to improve it while you wait 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Gmkarve2024

[edit]

Gautam Karve is an Indian journalist and media personality currently serves as the Editor-in-Chief of World Media Organization. Under his leadership, World Media Organization has expanded its international media presence and enhanced its coverage of major global events. Gmkarve2024 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Mr. Karve? 331dot (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Work7663

[edit]

i didn't get why my article is being rejected each time. i've put all the links & cites , use all correct information & references. please help me what else i can do? Work7663 (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Work7663 There is simply no indication that Shekhar Bhojraj meets our notability guidelines, he therefore does not merit an article at this time. Qcne (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 18 October 2024 review of submission by 2600:1004:B08A:FE6C:9519:7A37:A82F:4FDF

[edit]

Why did my article get declined? 2600:1004:B08A:FE6C:9519:7A37:A82F:4FDF (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to hijack a redirect is not how you write a draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:06, 18 October 2024 review of submission by JanaFerrume

[edit]

Hi I have edited the article, and would like for someone to kindly review :) JanaFerrume (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, not just declined, and the article was previously deleted twice. The new unreliable or primary sources that were recently were added are not helping the fact that this artist is simply not wiki-notable, meaning she does not meet the bar set by WP guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I'm very sorry if that is not the answer you were hoping for. Netherzone (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Julia Ohela

[edit]

Hi there, I am struggling to get this draft approved. I am working for Ballet Bond Productions as a manager and thus the content will be similar on the website and Wikipedia. How can I please get this draft approved? Julia Ohela (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julia Ohela: as stated in the review comments, you must rewrite the content without copying or closely paraphrasing any copyrighted material. Even if you yourself wrote the content on the Ballet Bond website, you can not reuse it here, unless it has been explicitly released into the public domain under a licence compatible with Wikipedia, typically a Creative Commons one. There is no evidence of this on the said website.
As for your relationship with the subject, you have a conflict of interest which must be properly disclosed under our terms and conditions. I queried this on your talk page four months ago but you have not responded. A more specific query, that of paid editing, has now been posted on your talk page. It contains instructions for how to disclose. Please act upon this without delay. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Julia Ohela: To clarify what DoubleGrazing is saying, copyright is granted automatically upon publication - registration only affects damages in a court case - and all-rights-reserved standard copyright irreconciliably conflicts with our content licences such that it's impossible for us to use text still under such copyright, even if you wrote the original. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Material on your website is extremely unlikely to be appropriate to a Wikipedia article, because 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) 14:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your advice. I am not getting paid by Maria Baranova, so there is no incentive for me to write this article. This is simply a pro bono project of getting her Wikipedia page up in English (as it already exists in Russian, Finnish and French). If I remove all referencing to Ballet Bond Productions - would the article then be of publishable quality? Or would a translation exercise from another language article be a suitable option? Thank you all for your help, this is my first time editing on Wikipedia so I am keen to get this right and published ASAP. Julia Ohela (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_October_18&oldid=1253460413"