Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 7

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< July 6 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 8 >
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.


July 7

edit

02:56, 7 July 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:6782:3F:B969:1F46:64BD:615C

edit

This page edits has improved and will be releasing in 5 months on 22 December 2023. 2600:1700:6782:3F:B969:1F46:64BD:615C (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if it gets released, and there is meaningful media coverage of it, you can come back then. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:39, 7 July 2023 review of submission by Arun Yesubalan

edit

The content was updated with the most relevant information, Kindly restart the process. Arun Yesubalan (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arun Yesubalan: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:00, 7 July 2023 review of submission by Sampierce98

edit

to help prove it being notable seeing as it has been featured in a few independent sources and has famous people involved and was filmed at famous locations. Sampierce98 (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sampierce98: I'm not sure what, if anything, you're asking, but at any rate this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh i meant is there a way im formatting it wrong i dont think im quite using the right sources or citing them right. Sampierce98 (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What DoubleGrazing is saying is that there is no point to further editing, as the draft was rejected. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampierce98: for future reference, the citations are structured more or less correctly, but they shouldn't be all piled at the end, they should instead come inline after the content they're each meant to support (see WP:REFB for advice). More importantly, however, the sources you're citing are of no use in what comes to establishing notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for the help alot of the sources though are independent from the company but i understand what your saying and i appreciate the info. Sampierce98 (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:48, 7 July 2023 review of submission by Geetamehrotra

edit

Can anyone help me in providing some reliable sources link that? Geetamehrotra (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Geetamehrotra: in short, no. The onus is on you as the author to find the necessary sources – or rather, you should only ever be summarising what reliable published sources have said, which gives you your sources. Besides, this draft is likely to be deleted shortly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 7 July 2023 review of submission by Realamangautam

edit

Why rejected? Realamangautam (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Realamangautam: because this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. Promotion, including self-promotion, is not allowed, which is why you've also been blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:18, 7 July 2023 review of draft by 1010Art

edit

I am creating and editing the Jason Gramath article linked above. I have been told multiple times that the secondary sources are basically no good. It is not clear how I should proceed because I am being told e.g. CBS article coverage is not independent or significant, etc., and editing / adding new sources gets me banned, apparently. Thanks for any suggestions or advice. 1010Art (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a paid editor I suggest you do your client the courtesy of learning how Wikipedia operates by reading some of the links that have been posted on your talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful. I read that many times before, and read it again also. 1010Art (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1010Art a source needs to meet all four criteria to contribute to notability: reliable, secondary, independent and cover the topic in-depth. The CBS source fails independence because the article relies on what an affiliated party says about Gamrath, in this case a gallery representative. The source is fine to use to support the exhibit (verifiability) but not useful for notability. See WP:42. S0091 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, well, with all due respect, ... the problem is ... what you are saying is not true. The article has some quotes, but it's not composed only of those quotes. I think some comments here forget that I'm here to make a contribution as well. And people putting up roadblocks that slow down this process for no valid reason, or for one we have to dig for -- and tiptoe around and guess -- aren't just detrimental to my goal but also themselves, and Wikipedia's goal. You seem to only be justifying the terse and vague position of the other editor, from my perspective. It's a typical article about an exhibit, with an attached video (that might be too old to load; maybe deleted off their servers...) It does fit the criteria for being independent and significant. 1010Art (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1010Art: this is quite something. Your edit history is two weeks long, with 55 live edits, and yet you're insisting that multiple editors with years and years of experience, and tens of thousands of edits to their name, often with advanced permissions, are all wrong in interpreting the notability etc. guidelines, and you alone are right.
In this case, S0091 wasn't saying that the CBS piece is only made up of quotes from the gallery rep, but that it is a non-independent source, because it clearly has been written based on what the gallery rep had said. You can cite it to support a statement that such an exhibition took place, but not rely on it for notability, as S0091 said already. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 55 edits or whatnot, but I was not "born yesterday". It's not being solely relied on for notability. It's one of many sources. 1010Art (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, well, really again, no. They went to the exhibit and described it in their own words as well. And they presumably had a video at one point. 1010Art (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1010Art: why this adversarial approach? Do you realise that, because of your paid-editing status, you cannot publish this article yourself? So unless you start to work with, rather than against, others, the article may never get published. My advice – which you're obviously free to take onboard or ignore, as you see fit – is to stop seeing everyone else as an enemy, and start taking the advice that is being offered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing oh wow. I see now on their talk page what you are referring to. Yeah, their attitude is certainly not helping. S0091 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically then it seems I have to thread the needle on this. Every source seems to be flawed in some way. Have multiple perfect sources where they don't quote the subject at all, and where the publication is nationally recognized. That seems to be what I'm getting. The overall view from the sources in my opinion creates the necessary conditions for publication. But nitpicking destroys any one source. I don't think these sources that I've found are any different for any other modern niche artist (in this case, giant art glass flowers, where he has developed the biggest ones in the world). So now what? 1010Art (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources are not there, then there is nothing more you can do. Not every person merits a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:18, 7 July 2023 review of submission by MD ALAMIN SHAK

edit

Sir please accept & publish my article. My dream is to publish articles on Wikipedia MD ALAMIN SHAK (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MD ALAMIN SHAK Wikipedia is an encylcopedia, not a social media or a means for you to promote yourself. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:24, 7 July 2023 review of submission by Game maker d

edit

why did it fail and how can i fix it. have a nice day Game maker d (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Game maker d it seems you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia which is be an encyclopedia and is not a social media site. Or maybe you did not mean to submit your sandbox as draft for an article? If all you meant to do is write notes for yourself about what you want to do on Wikipedia, clicking "Publish" is all you need to do to save your changes. No need to "submit" it. I will leave you some additional information about editing Wikipedia. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:43, 7 July 2023 review of submission by Matthew Tailor

edit

Hey there, I’m currently working on a draft about the music producer and composer “Fifty Vinc”. I do have a question about sourcing YouTube. In general, YouTube is not a reliable source, but what about videos, uploaded by an official, verified artist channel or an official, verified organization channel where the subject is credited for example as the producer, or with original music? I know there are some few cases where YouTube can be sourced, but I’m not sure about this specific thing. Hope someone can help me with that. Thanks in advance. Matthew Tailor (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's at best a primary source; the way you describe it is probably fine if there's a use for them, though I'm not sure what encyclopedic use as a citation they would have that can't be covered by a better source. It's really an "avoid unless necessary" situation. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Skarmory, thank you for your clarification! I asked because there are some records / songs by notable artists where the subject produced / composed the songs, but they were only released digitally. Unfortunately, I have not found any sources other than Spotify or YouTube in some cases. The same goes for some official productions by notable organizations that were only released on YouTube. Matthew Tailor (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 7 July 2023 review of submission by SVtrustee

edit

I am trying to further understand the criteria for rejection of the proposed article on Parade Technologies. The proposed article is rather similar in tone and quality of citations and notability to existing wikipedia articles for similar organizations. for instance: Marvell Technology MaxLinear SVtrustee (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SVtrustee We don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia article, simply place the title of the target article or page in double brackets, as I've done here.
Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply unaddressed yet, and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Your draft was declined, not rejected, meaning resubmission is possible if you can fix the concerns of the reviewer. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does, you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia wants to know what sources see as significant/important/influential about the company, not merely what they say it does. If you are unable to find appropriate sources, you will have to disappoint those that hired you. Feel free to show them this message, as well as this page. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed response 331dot. The key issue seems to be the notability of the company that is the subject of my proposed article. I have modeled my submission on a Wikipedia:Good articles for TouchWave. Like my proposed article, this 'good article' relies exclusively on citations from the trade press or company press releases as sources. Not every article on wikipedia is sourced with a write up in the New York Times. Is the trade press not considered sufficiently reliable and independent for wikipedia? CNET, DigiTimes and EE Times--among the media cited by my proposed article--are very well-known and respected within the technology media.
I appreciate your further guidance. SVtrustee (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SVtrustee, TouchWave is a pretty bad example for a good article. It was promoted 14 years ago, when standards were much lower. In fact, its AfD shows it might not be notable like you suggested. There is probably an example of a technology company that has an actually good good article.
For the second part of your response, many of your references are routine coverage or passing mentions, meaning there is no substantial content about Parade. For example, DigiTimes and DigiTimes both contain a mere sentence, and EETimes lists off Parade as one of many touch controller makers. More significant coverage is necessary. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Sungodtemple for taking the time to respond.
As a wikipedia newbie, I must say that the continuing existence of literally thousands of articles about mid-sized companies like MaxLinear and Marvell Technology, and the continuing existence of wikipedia-acknowledged good article TouchWave (yes, despite the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TouchWave debate about its inclusion) makes it appear that the evaluation and application of notability guidelines can be rather arbitrary.
I would also mention that the two Digitimes citations you mention above are not 'mere sentences'--Parade is featured in the headline for both articles. The full Digitimes article texts (beyond the inital single sentence) is behind a paywall (just like all content at The NY Times and most other respectable publications). But the inclusion of Parade in the headline clearly indicates that the entire articles are about Parade.
I was hoping that there might be more debate about the Parade submission instead of a 'decline' decision by a single editor. That said, how do I keep the proposed article alive for re-submission and review on wikipedia as we gather additional citations? TIA for your guidance. 76.132.79.227 (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you edit the draft, that will keep it active. Inactive drafts are only marked for deletion after six months of no edits(and can be restored even if deleted).
As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, this can make it appear that the application of policies is inconsistent. Standards have also changed over time so that what was once acceptable is no longer. We do the best we can, but we will miss things. If you would like to help us in that regard, it would be welcome.
Parade announcing its expected revenue is a routine business activity that does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for further clarification 331dot, and for the reminder to login!
I would submit that Parade announcing expected revenue may be a "routine business activity" (as you state above). However, the independent editorial decision by Digitimes to devote an entire news article to that announcement is, in fact, evidence of notability.
You advise that editing the draft will keep it active. How then should I interpret the comment by the original editorial reviewer that: "As such, this would IMO be a candidate for A7/G11 deletion." This remark strikes me as being unduly harsh and prejudicial. While one might debate the degree of notability (A7) of Parade Technologies, clearly there is some credible evidence of its notability as evidenced by multiple news article that either reference the company or feature the company as the core subject of news coverage. The Parade draft also adheres rather strictly to a just-the-facts neutral tone (supported by citations) that does not appear to violate G11 (again referencing TouchWave as a model of neutrality, even if that article's current notability is in question). SVtrustee (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that your interpretation of the notability guidelines is incorrect- just because an outlet chooses to publish an announcement does not make the company making the announcement notable. Often these are press releases or otherwise written by the company, making them (in those cases) not independent. If there is some notable aspect about the company revenue, then that aspect should be discussed, not necessarily the revenue announcement itself. Every publicly owned company(in the US, at least) is required to release its revenue figures. This sort of thing is discussed at WP:ORG, under "examples of trivial coverage".
I cannot guarantee that someone will not nominate the draft for speedy deletion, but such things can be challenged, both before a speedy deletion is carried out(via "contest this deletion" in the deletion notice) and after(at Deletion Review). 331dot (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:32, 7 July 2023 review of submission by 2001:1AE9:10FA:800:65AF:4622:CDFA:2A5E

edit

The draft shouldn't violate your terms anymore, so it could be published. 2001:1AE9:10FA:800:65AF:4622:CDFA:2A5E (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is completely unsourced, so you do not understand what is needed for the most difficult task of creating an article. Please see Your First Article, but this draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. "Rising" singers do not merit articles, a singer must have already arrived and established their career so that they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_7&oldid=1165120159"