Help desk
< September 11	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 13 >

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.

September 12

00:55, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Fjavaherchi

Fjavaherchi (talk · contribs)
- Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PingPod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I saw your message in my notifications. Yes I am new to article creation. I'm wondering if you can point out any specific things in my article that stands out as "promotional language" or "improper sources" or anything else. I was rejected twice. Thank you! Fjavaherchi (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fjavaherchi, your draft has not been rejected, which means "this is the end of the line". Instead it has been declined, which means "make substantial improvements and only then resubmit". Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Tayyab121

Tayyab121 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Mushq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Want some guidance on what is missing or wrong with this article as this subject is well know pakistan clothing brand

Tayyab121 (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tayyab121, your draft is overtly promotional, and promotional content is not permitted on Wikipedia. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and it is mandatory. Nobody cares if this company is well known in any country. Your draft must meet the stringent standards at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which are taken very seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Faridgurbanov3

Faridgurbanov3 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Living-Off-the-Land (LOTL) Attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello ! I would like to know what exactly problem is about my article ? Faridgurbanov3 (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked daily(see above) I presume by you- this is getting disruptive. You have been given the answer. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will start reverting off further requests for this draft as disruptive. You have been repeatedly told what the issue is and have refused to read the replies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:50, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Asim Dayani (Muay Thai Fighter)

Asim Dayani (Muay Thai Fighter) (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Asim Dayani (Muay Thai Fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I Have Created My Article by following all rules and regulations and in positive manner but my article is not accepted please help me with this issue .

Asim Dayani (Muay Thai Fighter) (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asim Dayani (Muay Thai Fighter): you say that, but self-evidently you haven't followed "all rules and regulations", given that the draft is insufficiently referenced. Far too much of the content is unsupported, and some of the few sources are not reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 12 September 2024 review of submission by 176.10.136.162

176.10.136.162 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Avionero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I get my submission declined when creating the page "Avionero". My sources are Expressen, Travel News and BreakIt. Could you please help me understand what the issue with these are? 176.10.136.162 (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think this is too far off from being acceptable. We normally require three solid sources that squarely meet the WP:GNG standard, although in the case of companies and other organisations the bar is a bit higher.

The issue with the Expressen piece is that it's more about russians circumventing travel restrictions, in which context Avionero comes into play. It's also Avionero's MD commenting on these matters, rather than the reporter writing about Avionero. It's not a useless source, but it's not quite 'solid' enough, IMO.
The Travel News one seems to be based on an interview, which is again the subject talking about itself. Useful for some purposes, but not for establishing notability.
The Breakit article seems the strongest to me, although I'm not familiar with the publication so can't comment on its editorial standards and other reliability considerations.

TL;DNR = find at least one more solid source (two wouldn't be overkill!), incorporate them into the draft, and resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the Breakit article is actually based on a press release, so it is also not useful for showing notability. --bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh is it? Well there you go, then. Three flaky sources, out of three. That much further away from acceptable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. What do you think about this source: https://www.pcforalla.se/article/1705014/billiga-flygbiljetter-resor.html

Also, is references a requirement to have a company page on Wikipedia? 2001:9B1:4128:E300:79C6:B2AD:1A8E:F45F (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of these product comparison, 'ten best widgets', etc. articles, because they're often just click-bait affiliate marketing scams. This one seems like it's based on actual product tests by an actual journalist (of sorts, at least), so it's probably okay-ish.

Not sure what you mean by "is references a requirement"? We need to see where the information comes from, so that it can be verified. So yes, in that sense citing your sources (if that's what you mean by referencing) is a core requirement. And at least a few of the sources must also meet the WP:GNG standard in order to establish the subject's notability, which is another core requirement for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks for the reply. As it happens, I don't believe there is a reference that is considered independent in that sense, since for instance Expressen and BreakIt wasn't enough. How can I go from here? Can I link to avionero.com as a reference in some acceptable way? Appreciate the help. 212.247.166.254 (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Hoptimist5

Hoptimist5 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Robert Eddison (aphorist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received feedback from an editor stating that the layout needs work and the references are not presented properly. I am struggling to amend the article because I do not understand the help pages. This is my first Wikipedia article and the formatting instructions are overwhelming. Can someone please help to correct the layout and references? Thank you very much. Hoptimist5 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hoptimist5:, might this guide be of any use? It's an attempt to summarise and explain how to present sources, and why it is necessary to do so. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoptimist5. I'm afraid that that is a common experience of editors who plunge into the challenging task of creating a new article without having spent significant time "learning on the job" how Wikipedia works. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bonadea and ColinFine. I believe my article does meet the criteria of verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources and notability. The only issue is the formatting of the article and the formatting of the references. I will look again at the guidance again regarding formatting. Hoptimist5 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 12 September 2024 review of submission by Emmanue!EH2

Emmanue!EH2 (talk · contribs)
- User:Emmanue!EH2/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Thank you. Thanks for your patience. Its my first time and I am trying to understand all these details. I will work on this and check the links you provided and then resubmit. If I am still having trouble I will follow protocol and connect with you again for further assistance. Many thanks. Emmanue!EH2 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Hi again. I have talked with the Dr Claude Mariottini and asked him for further documentation and links as you require. The documentation of being born in Brazil and coming to US in 1963 is from the person directly and stated clearly in his blog bio which I documented and linked. Is that still not acceptable? His published books on Amazon are linked to Amazon. Is that not sufficient? The other publications of articles, etc., seem to be older and the links are buried in secondary sources so my guess is that is not acceptable. Also you say he is not notable. So his creditials and resume are old since he is retired. So how do I document those? I am trying to help Professor Mariottini, so do I just tell him we dont have enough documentation and he is not notable so he cant be listed? Not sure what my next step is. Please advise. Thanks so much.. Emmanue!EH2 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Emmanue!EH2 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmanue!EH2: We don't cite Amazon. We cannot use the subject's own words, written or otherwise, for any claim that could be challenged, and this includes age (blame Hollywood). Out of curiosity, have you read WP:NACADEMIC? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]