Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 October 4

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< October 3 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 5 >
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 4

edit

02:43:40, 4 October 2021 review of draft by Howdyfreshhhhh

edit


Hello,

Would like to know if any edits are necessary for draft to be accepted. Thank you.

Howdyfreshhhhh (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:29, 4 October 2021 review of submission by 117.193.136.129

edit

I do not know why every reviewer of this draft gave the comment that it is not notable as it is not really possible to give only show reviews as a reliable reference because not every Indian newspaper gives only reviews about the tv shows in their articles. It will always have to do with launch dates, actors and other short descriptions about the show. Why are the reviewers so adamant about the draft to be having only reviews to show notability that and they don't give the article any chance? Does that mean this show Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana does not even deserve an article in Wikipedia? This show has been on-air for the past two months and has satisfied both WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG but the reviewers gave some or the other reasons and kept declining the submissions. There is also a additional claim that the people are paid and are promoting the show. I really don't know about the others but I'm neither paid nor do I want to promote the show but I am a fan of the show. Can please do something about Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana. I can understand the issues of disruptive editing but for that can't the article be protected once it is published? Or can you atleast reduce the page protection required for it's creation given to atleast the extended confirmed users than the administrators? Because no administrator is interested in contributing to the creation of this page. I humbly request please help with Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana. Thank you--117.193.136.129 (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, and as such will not be considered any more. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject. This does not include routine announcements such as casting decisions or announcements of production. Please read other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I totally get your point about other stuff exists but believe me this show has much more reliable sources than those given in it's draft Draft:Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana. To be frank, I really don't get why Wikipedia does not want this article to be included. This show does have everything required for any Wikipedia article of it's own. Please I request again, please give a chance. Atleast make the protection of creating the page to extended confirmed users because I'm sure the extended will surely create the article respecting all guidelines of Wikipedia, there are some really good extended confirmed users of WP:TVSHOW articles like Shinnosuke15 and Mann Rocks whose editing track records you can check. Otherwise, atleast suggest some admin who can help with creating the article. Anybody from India and once they create it then please give the article ultra-level protection such that nobody will cause any mess in that article but for that you have to give one chance please--117.193.136.129 (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is your connexion to the show? (Also, "ultra-level protection" is not a thing and we do not use protection to enforce content, we do not and will not enforce locality restrictions, and Shinnosuke15 and Mann Rocks, as far as I am aware, do not review drafts). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano *What is your connexion to the show? The only answer to this question is that I am a really ardent fan of the show. You know that special feel which you get when something touches your heart. I get the same with this show and I feel really sad that this is only show in Star Plus which does have any article in Wikipedia while one of it's upcoming shows like Dance Plus (season 6) has a Wikipedia article with "just three sources where one is not even reliable" which makes it clear that it has not at all fulfilled WP:GNG. I don't know if I can ask this but then why is the Wikipedia admin so careless about such articles as Dance Plus (season 6) but are very strict not to have an article for Zindagi Mere Ghar Aana which has the potential to fulfill both WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG? Not trying to offend anyone here just asking.
"ultra-level protection" is not a thing and we do not use protection to enforce content Isn't there any other way out such that an proper article is created on the show while protecting it so that no disruptive or paid editing is done? That is what I asked.
Shinnosuke15 and Mann Rocks, as far as I am aware, do not review drafts No I don't want them to review drafts. I want them to create a proper Wikipedia article for this show. As of now only an administrator can create an article which as far as I know none of the admin is interested to contribute. If the article creation access is given also to the "extended confirmed users" then the very best editors and article creators of Indian Shows which as far as I know are only Shinnosuke15 and Mann Rocks can create the article with what Wikipedia needs in the article. I'm 100% sure that Shinnosuke15 and Mann Rocks will value all that the Wikipedia needs for a good article on WP:TVSHOW. You can check their edit history, they always have created the best articles of Indian Shows or even better if they are eligible give them the admin access to create this article.--117.193.136.129 (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there any other way out such that an proper article is created on the show while protecting it so that no disruptive or paid editing is done? No. Protection is reactive. We don't protect a page in anticipation issues will arise; we protect pages in response to issues already occurring - such as repeatedly re-crating an article while disregarding the deletion debate that resulted in its initial deletion. I don't want them to review drafts. I want them to create a proper Wikipedia article for this show. We will not compel users to write about articles that they do not wish to write about; historically any such compulsions for editors have been due to outside influences and not an editorial mandate. Given the history here, I would be very surprised if they wanted to try their hand at this without drafting the page first. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand thank you for taking your time and explaining everything:) Jéské Couriano--117.193.136.129 (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:02:04, 4 October 2021 review of submission by Weatherforyou

edit

I have added 8 refernces to the article already. 3 of the references(story published by newspapers) have their own wikipedia pages. All the 8 refernces directly target the person or refer to the person(actually all 8 have published a story of the subject in their newspapers, separately from 2 years, as you can check the date of the articles, among which 3 newspapers have their own wikipedia pages in which the subject's story was published. The last time I included around 15 news media portals/newspapers (in URL form) that have taken forecasts from the subject, one of the reviewers told me there is no need to mention it as the subject is enough notable and would obviously be in the newspaper. So, I removed the list. Should I add all of them again? or you would allow publishing of the wikipedia page. Please take a look into this. Thanking you in anticipation. Weatherforyou (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weatherforyou Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. The draft article was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The sources you offer seem to mostly be interviews with him; this does not establish notability as interviews are a primary source. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own, not based on any materials from the subject or brief mentions, to say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:07, 4 October 2021 review of submission by Laveatein

edit


Laveatein (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:05:35, 4 October 2021 review of submission by Laveatein

edit

Hello, Would like to know if any edits are necessary for draft to be accepted. Thank you. Laveatein (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:52, 4 October 2021 review of submission by Gyan.Know

edit

Hello. I am a reviewer at Afc. Accordingly, can I myself review my pages, and approve my drafts? GyanKnow contributions? 12:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:37:06, 4 October 2021 review of draft by Akshaypatil510

edit


I resubmitted my article after making it a simple read and not any sort of paid advertisement. But still the reviewer rejected it. Please do suggest me how else can I change the article to get that approved. Akshaypatil510 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing using your own name and have yet to declare your clear position as a paid editor here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What name should I use then to edit ? Also please let me know how to prove that I'm not a paid editor. Because honestly I'm not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaypatil510 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are in the employment of A5E_Consulting, so you are deemed to be a paid editor and need to make the mandatory disclosure on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will that solve the problem and the article be approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaypatil510 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also as suggested can I knowhow to do mandatory disclosure, I'm bit messed up and can't find where to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaypatil510 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akshaypatil510, making disclosure is not going to help in your page being accepted. But it is mandatory requirement to disclose the information in question. Kindly read: WP:COI GyanKnow contributions? 14:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Akshaypatil510 COI issue aside, the draft lacks independent and reliable sources. The first is a self-published source. The second reads like a PR. The third is just a list of nominated companies. Not certain how is are the companies shortlisted on that, but erring on the side of not reliable as with Forbes' 30 under 30 listing. – robertsky (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:32, 4 October 2021 review of submission by Sajidnasar4

edit

Hi, Greetings for the day.! I've removed all the unnecessary information from the draft. Request you to kindly review the same once more. Sajidnasar4 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sajidnasar4, your draft was rejected and cannot be reviewed again. Please make enough substantial changes, take your time, and then try again. Happy to help. GyanKnow contributions? 14:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:44, 4 October 2021 review of draft by Howdyfreshhhhh

edit


Please edit article and give feedback for submission. Thank you. Howdyfreshhhhh (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Howdyfreshhhhh: Per WP:NCRICKET playing for minor-league and U## squads doesn't grant any presumption of notability. Box scores and game recaps are routine coverage and don't help for notability either. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:08, 4 October 2021 review of submission by Michaelse2002

edit


Michaelse2002 (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:06, 4 October 2021 review of draft by Mokbul7000

edit


Hello, Would like to know if any edits are necessary for draft to be accepted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokbul7000 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mokbul7000 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deleted, user blocked, request moot. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:57, 4 October 2021 review of submission by Gyan.Know

edit

I am a reviewer at Afc. I created this page. I need some other editor to accept it on my behalf, because I'm finding it immoral accepting my own pages. GyanKnow contributions? 17:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:57, 4 October 2021 review of submission by Spncrinc

edit


Hello. The draft (link above) was deleted speedily, even though I contested it, so the link will only take you to a blank "new document" page. I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 12 years, but have not created a brand new article, yet. I am well acquainted with Wikipedia markup, etc.

I have been hired as a freelance writer by a company, FlexTeam, who has a client who feels that their large company "Happy Returns" is a notable company and they would like an article on Wikipedia. I have declared paid conflict-of-interest in every possible section as I have worked on the draft.

I understand that the article was not admitted because of section G11 criteria and I would like your advice on how to create a simple article for Happy Returns company which just states facts, cites many accurate sources and does not appear to be an advertisement. Might I just create a draft with a company infobox? My understanding is that Happy Returns is a fairly large player in the consumer industry and would therefore be a notable article for Wikipedia. Please, let me know your advice. Thanks. Spncrinc (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spncrinc (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: User:Spncrinc/sandbox/HappyReturnsCompany_Draft6
@Spncrinc: I am going to answer based on what appears to be the most recent incarnation of the draft in your sandboxen. This draft reads more like an advert rather than a neutrally-worded encyclopaedia article that explains what a subject is, what they do, and why people should care. I will also refer you to the top table here.
Of all the sources you use, only two are acceptable. This dog ain't hunting anytime soon. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a general heuristic, articles about notable companies and organisations generally include some criticism or negative coverage (which is correct, as Wikipedia is written in a neutral point of view and does not care if the coverage in sources is good or bad). The spin-off articles Criticism of Apple Inc and Criticism of Amazon should give you some idea of what to expect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano:   Thank you and :@Ritchie333:   Thank you

That was super helpful! Exactly what I needed to know. Thanks again for taking the time to go through it and explain it to me. Spncrinc (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Courtesy link: User:Spncrinc/sandbox/HappyReturnsCompany_Draft7
@Jéské Couriano: I removed the references that wouldn't work for Wikipedia and kept the 2 good ones. I searched on the Internet myself for a few more references. I found one by Yahoo and one by MSN. Are these two sources (Yahoo and MSN) considered reliable? I tried to rewrite the article relying upon the newest set of citations. Please, let me know your thoughts when you get a sec. Thanks. Spncrinc (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spncrinc: Yahoo and MSN are both essentially news aggregators, so we would assess them based on where they originally came from. The Yahoo source is marked as coming from Cision/PRNewswire, which only ever publishes press releases. The MSN source is from Women's Wear Daily, and is borderline - it has a substantial lede, but other than that it's an interview. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:02:08, 4 October 2021 review of draft by Howdyfreshhhhh

edit


Requesting help as both drafts have been declined. Thank you.

Howdyfreshhhhh (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Howdyfreshhhhh: I refer you to the response given above. Same issues, same answer. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:30, 4 October 2021 review of draft by Market News 101

edit


How are my sources not reliable? All of my sources referred to the actual websites.


Market News 101 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Market News 101, People keep using "reliable source" incorrectly. In this case, they mean "no significant coverage in reliable and independent sources". User:Uncle G/On notability is worth a read. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Market News 101: The page is also promotional, and seems to be more focused on selling (Redacted) to readers than actually being a neutrally-written encyclopaedia article. If you have any connexion to him or his ventures, you are obligated to disclose this per the ToU. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:14, 4 October 2021 review of draft by Howdyfreshhhhh

edit


Need help with citing references. Thanks.

Howdyfreshhhhh (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Howdyfreshhhhh: You need help finding references, more like. Again, minor-league and U## squads do not grant notability, and box scores, stat lines, and bleacher reports are routine coverage that don't help for notability. Pleaseactually read what others have told you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:02, 4 October 2021 review of draft by Howdyfreshhhhh

edit


How do I improve this article? Thanks.

Howdyfreshhhhh (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Howdyfreshhhhh: You need help finding references, more like. Again, minor-league and U## squads do not grant notability, and box scores, stat lines, and bleacher reports are routine coverage that don't help for notability. Pleaseactually read what others have told you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Howdyfreshhhhh I'm the reviewer for you Draft. The state in which your draft currently is, there's no way it is going to be accepted. You need to work a lot to find credible independent secondary sources. Otherwise, the draft is going to get rejected. GyanKnow contributions? 01:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:47:42, 4 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Marukome1981

edit


Hello there I need some assistance on editing my article since I am still un familiar with wikipedia's format

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.


Marukome1981 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marukome1981: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim about a living or recently-departed person that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong, in-depth, third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing about such topics on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:16, 4 October 2021 review of submission by SavetheTreeSBro

edit


SavetheTreeSBro (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

                             ``You Were rude Why cant There be Another It was Kind of you not to just Decline and not Leave a message it was ruude though mine was about the local area of ovedio so its kinda rude of you to just shatter my WHOLE ARTICLE under no circumstances So Can you please Allow me to ``  -Dear SL93 -
  Courtesy link: Draft:The Townstead of Ovedio
No sources, no article, no debate. In addition, this is already covered in an existing article in a considerably more legible and less promotional fashion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SavetheTreeSBro: re-signing due to botched ping —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_October_4&oldid=1049293559"