Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 March 28

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< March 27 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 29 >
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.


March 28 edit

04:20:20, 28 March 2022 review of submission by TandinPeday edit

I have tried to submit this article since last year. It keeps telling me to site sources, which i did. But some of the sources have to be cited from our own website as information has been collected by our team. What should i do to help this article get published? TandinPeday (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:06:07, 28 March 2022 review of submission by 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:1067 edit


How come KMN doesn’t have its own page? 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:1067 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because every single source basically uses Kale My Name as a prop and isn't actual coverage of the company, and none of the edits since I've last seen this draft have addressed that problem at all - if anything, they've only exacerbated it by including unsourced claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some concerted effort to get this establishment on Wikipedia? This comes up every so often(and it's not easy to find a draft unless people know where to look). 331dot (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be two-faced if the company hired a PR firm or contractors off a headhunting site to try and get a Wikipedia article up, but whether that is actually the case or not I'll leave to the philosophers. There's also an aspect of misdirected racial justice here, too; look at the archived discussion I linked above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:19:24, 28 March 2022 review of submission by Banasbank1959 edit


Banasbank1959 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Reviewer,

Please share what's wrong in our article , So we can change and update it


-- Best Regards The Banaskantha District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd

As you were told, it was blatant advertising. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:28:33, 28 March 2022 review of submission by Euaanmill edit


Hello

Regarding notability, in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music), in the section "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", it states that:

"Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria."

It then subsequently lists a series of criteria, and states that the claim to notability must be "properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials."

Of these criteria, the following are true of the subject of this draft Wikipedia article:

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."

We have backed up, through multiple revisions of the article over the period of more than a year, in line with [note 1] under the above criterion, the coverage with specific examples of independent, published articles referring to the music duo covered by this proposed Wikipedia article from reliable sources such as major, reputable UK newspapers and radio/televisual sources none of which are blacklisted in Wikipedia's list of deprecated sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources

These are the stated reasons for rejection under point 1 above, NONE of which are true in the case of this draft article: "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases."

And:

"2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."

This has been shown, with reference to the UK's officially recognised national music chart compiled by the Official Charts Company, as listed by Wikipedia, as published on 25 December 2020.

We are therefore needing advice on what exactly your editors remain sceptical about, as we are totally confident that the subject of this draft article does fulfill the criteria to merit such an entry.

Thankyou in advance.

Euaanmill

Euaanmill (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are strictly single person use, please also disclose any conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - the use of "we" is purely habitual... I work at home with my partner together on a number of projects. This article is my work, barring the revisions Wikipedia editors have suggested. Can I in turn, though, please ask for a reply to my specific points above which I believe show I've proven the article does meet the criteria for inclusion laid out by Wikipedia?
Many thanks again.
Euaanmill Euaanmill (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I wonder could I request a reply as per my last entry above? Thanks in advance. Euaanmill Euaanmill (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:01, 28 March 2022 review of submission by 2.136.247.119 edit


2.136.247.119 (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC) My new entry for 'Yacht Agent' has twice been declined on the basis that the topic/subject is covered by 'Yacht Broker'.[reply]

It fundamentally is not. We are a consignee, port agent and superyacht agent; no element of our business crosses over with brokers in our industry. Yes, both are concerned with yachts, but we are government licensed and authorised to represent vessels to port authorities. Brokers do nothing of the kind.

By all means, ask for more details, query the submission, or request further explanation of how our segment differs from brokers' activity. Per example, we belong to a global association of yacht agencies, AYSS, to which not a single yacht brokerage belongs. Most yacht brokers belong to associations 'LYBRA', 'MYBA', 'YBAA', 'IYBA' and 'APSA', to which yacht agents *can not* belong.

Happy to expand further, but please, do not dismiss the submission on grounds of duplication.

Thanks & regards, James van Bregt

Who is "our"? If you are writing about your field of business, please review conflict of interest. It might help if the draft was less of a mere documentation of this profession, and it instead summarized what independent reliable sources state about this profession. I'm not sure that I disagree with the last reviewer as these professions seem close enough that they could be mentioned on the same article; just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:45, 28 March 2022 review of submission by ChiserYT edit


ADHD and i hate speedy accusations of bs ChiserYT (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it not worthy of an aticle. i've seen far shorter and less informative article about lesser topics. This is a defunct company that i've spent hours researching. This deserves notability. --ADHD and i hate speedy accusations of bs ChiserYT (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChiserYT Please read other stuff exists. That other poor articles exist does not mean more can be added. We simply have not addressed them yet. If you would like to help us out, you are welcome to identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We can only address what we know about.
Regarding your draft, the sources you have offered do not have significant coverage of this business. Not everything that is old and defunct merits an article. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:33, 28 March 2022 review of draft by Alex42 edit


Hello everyone.

The corporation Draft:Adevinta is relatively unknown, since only founded 3 years ago, but with a turnover of 1.66 billion US dollars not exactly small. According to Financial Times it is the largest owner of online classifieds portals. (First reference in the article.)

Does the article have sufficient and significant coverage, or is this company to small to meet notability guidelines?

--Alex42 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:03, 28 March 2022 review of draft by Wsrdevices edit


Wsrdevices (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wsrdevices You don't ask a question, but you just submitted some text which had no reliable sources to support it and was not really structured as an encyclopedia article. Please read Your First Article. I might suggest that you spend some time editing existing articles first, before attempting to create one yourself- which is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:21, 28 March 2022 review of draft by 98.151.219.183 edit


I do not understand why my resubmission was rejected.

Please compare my resubmission with the Wikipedia entries for our two sister conferences, the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB) and the Research in Computational Biology (RECOMB). I *very* closely modelled my resubmission on their entries. Are you saying that these two existing Wikipedia entries, if they were submitted today, would be rejected?

All three conferences (ISMB, RECOMB, WABI) are over 20 years old, all three cover the same general area, all three Wiki entries (the two existing ones and my resubmission) are mostly about history, structure, and current people in charge, and all three feature a list of past meetings with their proceedings -- and these past meetings and their proceedings comprise 90% of the references in all three entries. There is no advertising (these are non-profit academic conferences), just facts -- the kind of information that researchers look for when checking out a research meeting. I have run that resubmission by a number of my colleagues in Europe and the US and received only positive feedback about content and completeness.

If your objection is triggered by my use of the word "success" (it appears twice in the entry), let me know -- I used it to explain why the meeting went from a one-time event in 2001 to a yearly event and again from being always in Europe to alternating between Europe and the US, but I can easily remove it.

98.151.219.183 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the independent sources? We don't care what a subject has to say about itself. And honestly, at least one if not both of the other articles could be subject to a deletion discussion as it lacks secondary sourcing. Regardless WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never an argument for inclusion. Please find WP:THREE independent secondary sources to establish notability. Additionally, as you said "our", please read and comply with WP:COI and/or WP:PAID as applicable.Slywriter (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment, about references. Except for the wabi-conference.org web page, none of the references cited was produced by the submitter (as alleged in the rejection) -- the proceedings references are to the sites of academic publishers, the links to past meetings and the next meeting are to web sites set up by the respective meeting organizers (who are not associated with WABI), the links to the founders are to entries created by the Association for Computing Machinery for its senior members, etc. Again, exactly the same is true for Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB) and for Research in Computational Biology (RECOMB). I kept the text of the references very short (just WABI 2xxx), whereas the ISMB entry uses very long descriptions (Proceedings of the...) in more standard academic style, but the references are to the same material. So the complaint about citations is simply wrong -- perhaps the reviewer was not familiar with the academic world? Again, please look at the wiki entries for ISMB and RECOMB and compare. If these two entries were good enough for acceptance, so is my resubmission.

98.151.219.183 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See above for answer.Slywriter (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_March_28&oldid=1082163424"