Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 June 22

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< June 21 << May | June | Jul >> June 23 >
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.


June 22

edit

02:19:31, 22 June 2020 review of submission by 76.89.243.88

edit


Updates have been added- including a new citation from a trusted news source for the entertainment industry in which Terissa Kelton is named. Her profile as a producer continues to grow and is being reflected in major entertainment industry trades like the ones cited.

76.89.243.88 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:38:25, 22 June 2020 review of draft by 2405:204:1090:2164:38DB:9EE8:18D4:E3F4

edit


It has many days since I created this page, kindly look into it.

2405:204:1090:2164:38DB:9EE8:18D4:E3F4 (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:07, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Pallis and Pakodas

edit


Hi,

I wanted to know why my content has been rejected. I followed the process correctly. MAHAPRASTHANAM is our home production movie and i gave the source links as well. Please, tell me how do i get my content published. Pallis and Pakodas (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "our"? Youtube is not a reliable source. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:26:23, 22 June 2020 review of submission by UKArchaeologist

edit


Despite my conflict of interest with this draft article, my goal has always been to create an archaeology-related encyclopedic entry that conforms to Wikipedia's high standards of quality (and I have enjoyed contributing my knowledge/references to other archaeology pages). I therefore appreciate all the rejections and subsequent helpful advice I have received.


I now believe the Draft:John_Moore_Heritage_Services page is ready for re-review.


IMPROVEMENTS:

I was advised that the article read like an advertisement:

  • I have made significant NPOV edits with the aim of achieving an encyclopedic tone.

I was advised that the article did not provide sufficient evidence of notability:

  • Added newspaper articles discussing work done by the company. The articles contain significant, independent coverage of John Moore Heritage Services (JMHS), some of which are also reliable, secondary sources.
  • Added reference to reliable academic journals which contain very significant coverage of JMHS. Many pieces in academic journals are primary sources and therefore do not prove notability. However, I have included the Oxoniensia chapter from Hugh Coddington and Richard Oram who are not (and have never been) JMHS employees, who provide a synthesis and interpretation of the work done by JMHS in 2013 (similar chapters appear in many of the more recent Oxoniensia volumes, but not all are available online so I thought this would be a nice one for reference).
  • The other references included in this draft are significant, independent, reliable, AND/OR secondary, and may or may not prove notability (I’ll leave that to you who has more experience than I do).


Thank you for your time and consideration. Regardless of your ultimate decision, any further help/advice/feedback is always appreciated.


UKArchaeologist (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:21:39, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Faatehsyco

edit


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faatehsyco (talk • contribs)

@Faatehsyco: I have fixed the question for you. instagram is not a reliable source. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:14, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Gogonowski

edit


I can add more information to make this submission more notable. An example of what I can add will be:

HLS has the advantage over legacy streaming protocols in that it is more reliable, offers higher quality, and is less expensive to stream for both the content provider and audience. It does not use expensive conventional specialized streaming servers that legacy streaming protocols require. Instead, HLS segmented streaming uses either a simple web server or inexpensive cloud storage to deliver live or on-demand streams. This kind of traffic appears on the network to be the same as web browser traffic, which is what the Internet was designed for. All the major video content providers and streamers have moved to segmented streaming for these reasons, so it only makes sense that audio should follow to enjoy the same benefits and improve the audience experience, especially on crowded mobile networks.

Until fairly recently, there has been very little development in improving streaming audio protocols. StreamS provides both high performance professional encoders as well as the StreamS HiFi Radio App with full 100% Compliant HLS. GOgonowski (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Notability for the special meaning of notable on Wikipedia. Your page currently has zero reliable sources. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the article is written like an advertisement. It is full of marketing phrases, and calling SHOUTcast or Icecast "legacy protocols" can be called outright lying at best. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion and every article must be written from a neutral point of view, based on verifiable facts from reliable sources. Furthermore, the conflict of interest guideline discourages editors from writing articles about themselves, their products or companies (and WP:SHAREDACCOUNT says that accounts on Wikipedia cannot represent groups).—J. M. (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:46:52, 22 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Charhurst

edit


Hi I was wondering if I could ask for some feedback around why my Chalky Teeth page got declined due to referencing that does that comply with WP:MEDRS.

There are a mix of primary sources including journals and secondary sources within the sources list. I felt the thed3group.com was considered a secondary source as it has a summary list of all the research behind this subject to date. It is the only online site with up to date accurate and true information about the Chalky Teeth condition out there. We are aiming to educate the public more on this condition and therefore felt a Chalky teeth page was a way of doing that. I would be really grateful for some guidance on how to improve this page to be reconsidered for submission. Thankyou

Charhurst (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've left what I hope you see as a useful comment on the draft itself Fiddle Faddle 16:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:27, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Faatehsyco

edit

I had lack of information and links in previous article review. I have updated it according to the review faults. Please review it again.

Not yet. For the sources in your draft:

10:50:59, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Gogonowski

edit

I have added more material to this as well as references. I intend to add yet more, but I think this should be sufficient for starters. Please advise. GOgonowski (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gogonowski Your draft has been rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further as in the opinion of the reviewer, it has little to no chance of being improved sufficiently to meet Wikipedia standards. Potential article subjects must have significant coverage (beyond brief mentions or routine coverage) in independent reliable sources showing how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, and the article should almost exclusively summarize only what those sources say. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:35:53, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Faatehsyco

edit


I am re requesting because the last time i did the article wasn't holding sufficient information and links. Now i have completely updated it. So please look on to it. ~~Faateh ahmed~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faatehsyco (talk • contribs)

See above. @Faatehsyco: There is no need to create a new section each time. There is an "edit"-Laink next to each header, which will allow you to edit that section. Add your comments to the bottom of it, intendating your comment with one : more than the previos one, and sign your post by typing four ~ at the end. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:43:10, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Muneralmafi

edit


I am re requesting this article because previously it was rejected for having less information but i worked on it and did bit of edits. So please look on to it. ~munerMuneralmafi (talk)

Muneralmafi Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Were you asked to come here by someone? 331dot (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:33:15, 22 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Vishal.r.vaja

edit


i need to create article on Baroda global shared services ltd

i added company profile and refrences.

still article got rejacted please guide me step by step for this. i am not able to find from your given sources

Vishal.r.vaja (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal.r.vaja Please read the advice you were given at the help desk. Wikipedia, frankly, has no interest in(what I assume is) what your boss or superiors have tasked you with doing here. This is an encyclopedia and not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, that is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about an organization, and only ones that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. You are free to use social media or your company website to tell the world about your company. Feel free to show your boss or superiors this message. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Of Baroda is already availbe in wikipedia

and Baroda global shared services is subsidiary of bank of baroda

thats why i am asking for more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal.r.vaja (talk • contribs)

Vishal.r.vaja Please don't remove prior messages that have been replied to. In order for a subsidiary to merit a Wikipedia article, it must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources on its own. Otherwise, it will need to be mentioned in the article about the larger company if it doesn't merit a standalone article. Please review the advice you have been given, and comply with the paid editing policy before you edit anything else; see your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:10, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Elemental Knight

edit

I'm trying to bring this article's references up to snuff; however, I'm confused on the angle that the references I originally included did not meet the notability guidelines. The first reference provided is independent of the subject (IE not written by him), does not require additional research to understand its context, and directly references and explains the subject (it's a short biography, but one nonetheless).

I understand if that might not be enough; I've added two additional sources to the article. But I would appreciate further guidance as to how to make it very clear that this subject is, indeed, notable, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Elemental Knight (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi {u|Elemental Knight}}, in my humble opinion you need more sources of the quality like the first one at least. The two ones you added are just mentioning the poet or quoting him. Did you have a close look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources ?! It might be of help. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:05:12, 22 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Dereena

edit


hello all, please help me to create an article for an organization named "Boopin". My submission is deleted and I need help from experience wiki writers.

Dereena (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dereena Your draft was a blatant advertisement loaded with opinionated promotional language("Boopin is one of the top 15 advertising agencies in the middle east"; " Boopin designs the ultimate digital experience,"). Wikipedia articles should be written very dryly and without opinions. Wikipedia articles should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, either directly or indirectly- such as with press releases, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, or other primary sources. Wikipedia is only interested in what others say about your company.
If you work for this company, you must read and formally comply with the paid editing policy before you do anything else here, you should also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:53, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Chris.cornerstone

edit

It has been several months since I last edited my Wikipedia entry for Cornerstone International Group. This is because of the time needed to research and acquire supporting media articles to attest to the notability of the subject. (Members of the organization are in 37 countries).

I now have that material. I wish to modify the text, include the references and resubmit for consideration.

I am not sure whether I can do that. I no longer see any action to SAVE or PUBLISH new changes.

Please advise me how I may proceed. Chris Allan


Chris.cornerstone (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris.cornerstone You would simply click the "edit" tab at the top to open the edit window, as you did previously. Before you get that far, I will point out that your draft was rejected, meaning that there is little to no chance that it can be improved enough to meet Wikipedia standards. Please review the comments left by the reviewers. If you truly think that you can address those concerns, you will need to start a fresh draft. If you are associated with this company, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:59, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Ehsan Nasiri Director

edit


Ehsan Nasiri Director (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Nasiri article declined

I tried to be clear and direct to the point, plz review again my article and tell me where is the problem and how can I fix it. that is my brief biography and filmography. of course that I am a novice-guy and my article is not like a pro. thank you in advance

Had you persevered with Draft:Ehsan Nasiri and paid attention to the comment there you might have had a far better experience. Instead you launched an autobiography into article space. Do you pass our criteria?
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 16:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a pragmatic view, genuinely on your behalf, though it may not feel like that at first. I've nominated your main space article for a deletion discussion. It is likely to be deleted for lack of so much that Wikipedia requires to bring it up to standard. Ive asked that it can be recreated easily in the future
If you now work in the Draft: article to bring it up to standard there is a likelihood, but not a certainty that it will be accepted in the future. I hope you see the virtue in this. I'm trying to help you to learn how to edit and to create articles here Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:58:26, 22 June 2020 review of draft by Legendofthebend

edit


Hello!

I'm trying to publish a page for Blue Label Labs but it was tagged for speedy deletion and I believe removed. After was previously taken down and I worked with the editors SeraphimBlade and DragonFlysixtyseven who provided critiques on the language which I addressed in the current draft.

It's not a promotional page as it is as factual as any other business page and doesn't offer any leading statements that would qualify it as promotional. I did include "mentions" at the bottom as I was originally dinged for not providing notability. I also included a short bit about going to the Webby Awards which I feel is a notable enough experience such that any developer who makes a product that manages to get that much recognition should be enough experience for Wikipedia. For example, if a new artist were to make it the Grammy Awards, this would be viewed as a notable experience and enough to justify a page for such an individual.

It seems this is a highly subjective process so I believe this needs more than one set of eyes.

Legendofthebend (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You already had two, User:Amkgp and Jimfbleak. Please see WP:OSE for why it is not acceptable to use other articles as an argument for the existence or not-existence of your article. Note: You state that Blue label labs is a client of yours, but I cant find where you have complied with the mandatory paid editing disclosure. This is a Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable if you want to edit here. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legendofthebend An article does not have to have "leading statements" to be promotional, nor does it have to actively solicit customers or sell something. On Wikipedia, merely telling about something is considered promotional. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a business wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:38:19, 22 June 2020 review of draft by Bestinshow1917

edit


Bestinshow1917 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please let me know what needs to be done to publish this page. this is a very renowned and famous person. all the links have been added to this submission. and, yet, it has been rejected multiple time. please HELP!!!


18:59:46, 22 June 2020 review of draft by Canirinyana

edit


Canirinyana (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I am requesting assistance because the article I submitted for review was rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canirinyana (talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That page was deleted as a copyright violation. Never, ever, copy stuff from elsewhere onto Wikipedia If that external page belongs to you, you could theoretically donate the Material to Wikipedia but in this case its probbably useless because the material was also promotional, and Wikipedia may not be used for promoting or "generating awareness" of something. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:20, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Tomusange

edit


Tomusange (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:22:42, 22 June 2020 review of submission by Gogonowski

edit

What do we do next? This is our first submission. GOgonowski (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gogonowski: There is a difficulty here. The word "our" implies either that you are editing on behalf of an entity or that your account is shared use. Neither is appropriate under Wikipedia's rules. You need to clarify that, please.
Coming here for advice is the correct thing. In the first instance you may wish to ask the reviewer who rejected the draft for their rationale, and their direct comments. All reviewers are able to justify their rationale on request to those with an interest in hearing it. Fiddle Faddle 20:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you could actually read and acknowledge what other people have already said. This is your third request on this page today, you have already received several relevant replies, and completely ignored every single one of them. You won't get the answer you want by repeating the question over and over.—J. M. (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:18:33, 22 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Gogonowski

edit


We are attempting to get StreamS HiFi Radio article accepted. We have made numerous changes at your request. What do we do next?


GOgonowski (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gogonowski Your topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia and Wikipedia accounts are for single person use, whilst you keep referring to "we"? Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a prime example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:NOTHERE. The user keeps spamming this page with identical requests, ignoring every single reply they get (no, they did not make any relevant changes to the article). This can be really considered disruptive editing, and, if it continues, the user should be blocked from editing.—J. M. (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_June_22&oldid=985275550"