Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 21

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< January 20 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 22 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


January 21

edit

Why has my article for VIYCE been refused?

edit

I fail to grasp this. I made a movie over the course of two months. It is a movie about George W. Bush. It is a movie. I chose to write an article about it. It has been refused. Why? It exists. I cannot provide reviews for it, from any big newspapers. This is because no big newspaper knows it exists. The movie exists, however. This is why I wrote an article for it. It should be published. I wrote the article because Wikipedia does not yet have an article about it. Fraction7 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poster indeffed for advertising/promotion. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:29:25, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Aaron Justin Giebel

edit


I think that this article is relevant, because millions of people use kiddle (it's not my site) and they might want to know what it is. It needs to be writen. The articles were 2 years after it launched. Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron Justin Giebel. Critical articles from The Independent, BBC News, and The Next Web are a good start, but all significant coverage seems to be within a few weeks of the service's launch. To show notability, there needs to be attention from independent, reliable sources, over a period of time. It may be WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:57:20, 21 January 2019 review of draft by Tigerfan5150

edit


I'm writing to get more information about why my submission was declined.

According to the message, "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." However, every factual statement made in my article was cited and referenced a live, clickable primary source.

The message did not indicate if certain sources were not reliable or if all. I am mainly confused because of the number of articles allowed on Wikipedia that have no sources at all.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Tigerfan5150 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tigerfan5150. There are many citations in the draft, but not every statement cites a source. That's a problem, but one that easily could be fixed by removing the unreferenced material. A more serious problem is, if you're close enough to the subject to know personal details, what are you doing writing about them, and what aren't you disclosing about your connection?
Most serious is that the subject doesn't appear to be notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Wikipedia is looking for what independent sources have written about Guerin. The cited sources are almost entirely what Guerin has written or are by entities that have a vested interest in promoting her: her school, employer, publisher, and a venue where she is reading. The draft cites only two independent sources: msnbc.com and bestnewpoets.org, and both are trivial mentions, not in-depth coverage. The Best New Poets anthology is a glimmer of hope, but for now it is WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce. Thanks for the response. I have to admit, I'm now even more confused. The original rejection was for the type of sources. You say that if I remove the unreferenced material, that would take care of the problem. But then you say that the subject is not notable. So, if I make the changes, will the article still be rejected since the subject is not notable? As to any connection with the subject, I'm not sure what "personal details" you mean. All of the information in the article was available on her university website or blog, or these sources led to other information through fairly simple Google searches. Again, any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
@Tigerfan5150: Yes, the draft will still be declined. It has multiple problems. Some could be fixed, but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. The unsourced information in the draft is marked with {{citation needed}} tags. Perhaps you saw the information somewhere and simply neglected to cite where you saw it (although I notice that you didn't answer the question of why you chose this topic and whether you have a conflict of interest with regard to it). In any case, remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Again, thanks for the response. Sorry if I seem irritated as that's not the tone I'm meaning to convey. You actually didn't ask why I chose the topic. You asked "if" I was close enough to know personal details about the subject, why was I writing about her. I thought I addressed the "personal details" in that I didn't think they were that personal since everything was on her university page or Google. Since you've asked, I've taught some of her poems in my classes on contemporary poetry. Also, I've actually been interested in giving writing for Wikipedia a shot and thought Guerin would be a good test case precisely because she's an up and coming writer and it wouldn't be a long entry. I also chose her, as opposed to other contemporary poets I teach, because she was selected for the Best New Poets anthology this year, so I thought she would be a good choice. She's also mentioned on another Wikipedia page that I found when I did a search to see if one already existed for her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jang_Seoknam. The irony of all of this is that one of the reasons I've considered writing for Wikipedia is that so many articles are poorly written on a basic grammar/syntax level, and that many of them cite few or no references. These are two of the main reasons why I, and my colleagues, tell students not to use Wikipedia as a source. This back and forth has made me realize that there does seem to be some attempt at due diligence, but it makes me question why so many poorly written, poorly sourced, and non-notable entries are on the site. I'm sure editors are constantly updating the site to remove these articles, but how did they make it on in the first place? Sorry for the rant, but again I was first told I was rejected due to unreliable sources, then to remove the unreferenced material (though literally thousands of Wikipedia articles have few to no references), and then I was told it doesn't matter what I do, you won't approve the article anyway. I guess I just wish there was consistency in your guidelines and decisions. Thanks again for your time. Tigerfan5150 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:35:34, 21 January 2019 review of submission by DanGBE

edit


Following up on my changes, secondary sources added such as from the official Thailand Ministry of Education website and 'Which School Advisor' and other publications.

DanGBE (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:10:50, 21 January 2019 review of draft by Rdoboyouh

edit


My submitted was rejected, what do I need to include to get it approved? Rdoboyouh (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rdoboyouh. See the big pink box on the draft or the corresponding big yellow box on your talk page. You may also find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY useful. Most likely there's nothing anyone can do to get the draft approved. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:33, 21 January 2019 review of submission by 2605:E000:214B:E700:D88C:DD08:7082:7EAA

edit


2605:E000:214B:E700:D88C:DD08:7082:7EAA (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2605:E000:214B:E700:D88C:DD08:7082:7EAA: hi there. Unfortunately the reviewer was correct to reject this - until he has created multiple notable works or has otherwise satisfied notability (which requires multiple in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources) he isn't a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:40:54, 21 January 2019 review of submission by 184.166.187.64

edit


The latest revision should address your concerns.

184.166.187.64 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@184.166.187.64: - Hi there. A couple of notes:
1) AllMusic is good, but you can't pile up the same provider multiple times - i.e. you need a non-AllMusic review. Two is better because it makes it easy for the reviewer in case they're not sure about one of them.
2) Once you've made those edits you need to resubmit your draft so it can be processed. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help. 184.166.187.64 (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:29, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Aaron Justin Giebel

edit


I updated the sources to a whole bunch of different times: 2019, 2018, and added more information. Please take a look! :) Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Justin Giebel: - hi there. I would say there probably sufficient notability here, so feel free to resubmit. I've not checked it over on the various other grounds to see whether it satisfies those. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:39:27, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Paymanadibi

edit


I want to know why my article rejected?!!! I did any corrections that you suggested in guideline. please help me Paymanadibi (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paymanadibi: It was deleted by an administrator who considered that you were using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion, which is against the rules. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:16:39, 21 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Arushij94

edit


I am trying to publish a Wikipedia page but my draft for the same is being repeatedly declined by the worthy editors for different reasons. I need assistance as our efforts on writing Wikipedia page for Artisan Furniture requires definite direction. I strongly feel that it belongs to the Wikipedia family but I am somewhere missing out the important steps and ways to justify the same. I direly seek to have a proper channelised approach with which I can justify the relevance of this article on the valuable Wikipedia platform and the guidance to make it a better piece of reading.

Arushij94 (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arushij94: - hi there. It was actually declined on two different grounds - the latter two were both failure to demonstrate notability (it's just that "decline" means it doesn't currently satisfy notability and "reject" is a belief by the reviewer that it can't, at this time)
The problem is that a company has very strict corporate notability ccriteria to be included in wikipedia. The sources used to prove notability (obviously you can have other sources to prove individual facts) have to be in-depth, reliable, independent and secondary. The last rules out the company website. Industry magazines are often suspect as they have a bias in supporting businesses within their industry. Reading through the other two sources, they both seem to fall afoul on reliability/independence grounds. As such, the article is currently far off the multiple high quality sources needed for corporate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:21, 21 January 2019 review of submission by MansaMusaRw

edit


MansaMusaRw (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hey there, how do i edit my draft incase it was deleted?

@MansaMusaRw: Your draft was deleted due to it being used for advertising or promotion, and because of copyright violations. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:29:59, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Kjsopro

edit


Kjsopro (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are just test content - you're welcome to write them in your sandbox, but please don't submit them to AfC which is for drafts believed to be ready for article status.
Additionally, there's no need to resubmit help requests. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:18, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Kjsopro

edit


Kjsopro (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjsopro: Your draft has no content apart from the words 'Ayub moalim'. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:57, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Kjsopro

edit


Kjsopro (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:10:55, 21 January 2019 review of submission by BalaKPN

edit


BalaKPN (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the content not being suitable (I think you've tried to make an infobox, which is great, but it would still need significant prose content), the sourcing is far from sufficient. corporate notability rules are very strict, requiring multiple sources that are: secondary, in-depth, independent and reliable. The latter two sources are not secondary, and the former is just basic company details - far from in-depth. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:26, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Woleking

edit


Woleking (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:15, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Woleking

edit


Woleking (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Why would my truth information and work ethics be rejected. People love the work and so do I.thanks Woleking (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:03, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Your suraj

edit


1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IME_Group There is a page about this in Wikipedia. My page (project) is also related to that same company. IME_Group has not even provided enough references/ citations. I have provided as much as I can. Both are of equal value in my country and both are notable. Since IME has a page in wikipedia. I thought City Express Money Transfer also deserves to be in wikipedia. In a way, I am helping Wikipedia by giving information. I have no personal gain from this. This is only a part of my project in college. I am, in a way practicing writing articles for Wikipedia so that I may/ may not contribute more in future.

2. Also, I have seen some not so notable companies of Nepal listed in Wikipedia. There is no question about notability of my subject. Please trust me on this one. I have also provided strong references. I am not trying to promote or exaggerate anything. I am telling what the references are telling.

3. You can also suggest me to remove/ changes or edit that are preventing my article from being approved. Please do not delete my article. Please re-consider. Notability is not an issue, please trust me.

Your suraj (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Your suraj. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they are welcome. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
I take no position on whether City Express Money Transfer is notable or not, but the draft fails to demonstrate that it is so. It doesn't cite a single independent, reliable, secondary source containing significant coverage about the company. If you wish to help Wikipedia, I recommend against creating new articles, especially ones about current companies. There are millions of easier and more helpful things you can do to improve the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to get involved. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:01, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Martins12345

edit


FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING A RE-REVIEW ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}}

Martins12345 (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is not written in English and appears to be a blatant advert so has no chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:47, 21 January 2019 review of draft by BalaKPN

edit 


i am trying to enter common data about my small scale industry/company . i am not sure why its rejected frequently . Please advice what details i missed or what details your expecting

BalaKPN (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate request - I've answered above Nosebagbear (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:08:57, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Rj Akash Empire

edit


Rj Akash Empire (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rj Akash Empire: - this is functionally (part of) a CV, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:19:27, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Klinton Edvan

edit


I have given evidence about whatever article I wrote, if you refuse me, what can I do? You have only got the wrong information about me. See, I have been troubled by giving evidence about my article again and again, but you are just stuck on your own point only. If there is a mistake in an article before, I would like to know its solution, not about myself, but here showing the dishonesty itself. This will be a crime, if you have trouble me again and again without any reason, than i'll be sad. I was threatening in the chat room but they (Volunteers) do not want to write the article through myself which i want to write. Misrepresentation is being given against my wishes, so you are requested to see the process of correcting it by looking at my article and not repeating the process and not creating problems again and again. please Help me please. i gave citations too, is they are fake.--Klinton Edvan (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Klinton Edvan (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are still saying that I have not done any changes about my article yet. How can you say that? What was in my article first and see, what is now . i sure you will be find a changes definitely. You do not intend to get my article published. Without any reason, you have rejected that, which is injustice and I will definitely speak against it and go to the Public Complaints Forum. So talk about the issue, and not bother me. irequest you again.. please and i am really Sorry if you hurted from me. Klinton Edvan (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klinton Edvan. If English is not your first language, you may be more comfortable writing for another language variant of Wikipedia, such as Hindi, Tamil, Kannada, Marathi, Telugu, or one of the many other languages of South Asia. See meta:List of Wikipedias for a complete list of choices. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:31, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Aaron Justin Giebel

edit


please take a look Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also a duplicate request - please see above.
For the future, we're pretty quick on the help page (usually within about 6 hours), but please give us at least 48 hours before posing another question, we're only human! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:34, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Franklin187

edit


Hi everyone, I just removed the SPS and UGS. Can you pls tell me where I should take the three best sources as User:Buidhe said help desk. Where is that exactly? Thanks in advance.--Franklin187 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Franklin187 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Franklin187. This is the place to bring your WP:THREE. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_January_21&oldid=880387557"