Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 14

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< November 13 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 15 >
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.


November 14

edit

00:09, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Tdlin

edit

One of the comments left by the reviewer who declined my article was that I needed to cite date of birth. The subject was born in 1931 and I've been unable to find any articles that cite his date of birth? How do I resolve that issue? Also, I understand that my sources are somewhat obscure (e.g. the Hearing Journal); but the subject was involved in a narrow, yet important, technology sector of the 1970s not widely covered by large organizations or outlets that have digitized their records from that era? How do I work toward developing more reliable sources when much of the information comes from hard copies of articles written in newspapers and journals that do not have an online presence? Tdlin (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tdlin. If you cannot find a published source for a date of birth, you must remove the date of birth from the article. How did you know he was born in 1931? Do you know Scott?
It is completely fine to use offline sources (hard copies of books, magazines, journals, etc). The only criteria for sources is that they are published and reliable (i.e., not a random Facebook post discussing this person). It looks like Scott may indeed pass our WP:NPEOPLE notability threshold if you say he was covered in multiple newspapers and journals. Just cite them offline and make sure to cite every statement. If you can't find a citation that backs up the statement, the statement should be removed. Qcne (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Qcne. I will work more on the offline sources to properly cite information in the article. Tdlin (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:37, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 크로스픽쳐스

edit

We don't understand exactly what is more needed for this article. The answers that we've got in the Talk's Page is too vague. 크로스픽쳐스 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@크로스픽쳐스 check the film criteria at WP:NFILM. You need multiple independent secondary sources that discuss the film. I actually think your draft is borderline acceptable, it just needs one or two more sources that are independent. Add them and re-submit. Qcne (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Geetamehrotra12

edit

Please someone help me editing this draft! Geetamehrotra12 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how can i contribute much to this draft but i guess it should be published to wikipedia so can anyone help me! Geetamehrotra12 (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Geetamehrotra12 you've not actually submitted the draft for review yet. You need to click the blue Submit the draft for review! button.
However: it is pointless to submit it for review as your draft is not appropriate for Wikipedia in it's current form. Only organisations that pass our strict WP:NORG criteria may have articles written about them. Ezee2Host does not pass this criteria. The draft is also written in a promotional way which is prohibited: please advertise this company on Facebook or something, not Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 14 November 2023 review of submission by StrangeBrotherhood

edit

Hello, the draft of this page was rejected several times, but we have no idea what is missing? We think we have provided all information needed to fulfill the requirements. A more specific reasoning would help to improve. The current situation is disappointing because it only leads to people offering their help and they ask for money. Is this a business model? One guy rejects and then the next offers paid help?

Please let us know why it was rejected?

Many thanks and kindest regards. StrangeBrotherhood (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @StrangeBrotherhood. If you have been contacted outside Wikipedia and offered an article review for money, please be aware this is a scam. Please read WP:SCAM. Wikipedia does not operate on this model - everything here is completely free and no one will ask you for money. Unfortunately organised scamming groups target users like you.
Onto your draft: it has been rejected as there is no evidence it passes our WP:NTEAM criteria. Have a read of that criteria. If you believe you can prove notability using sources that are independent, secondary, and reliable, then please contact the rejecting reviewer @M4V3R1CK32 and appeal to them to have another look at the draft. Qcne (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be perfectly clear. I have NEVER, and will never, offer to pass an article through AfC for money, for anyone. Period. Your post sounds like I contacted you outside Wikipedia for paid help. I did not, and there are strict rules against doing so. There is an insinuation there that I do not care for. @StrangeBrotherhood please be careful about how you phrase things.
As an addtional note, you repeatedly used the words "we" and "us". Wikipedia accounts are for one user only, per the one user per account policy. Please be aware that shared accounts are not allowed. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I mean the original post, not Qcne's reply. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 14 November 2023 review of submission by StrangeBrotherhood

edit

Why is it not notable? Are you kidding me? StrangeBrotherhood (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. Qcne (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 27.33.233.138

edit

How to get this article to be accepted 27.33.233.138 (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to appeal to the reviewer @Pbritti directly. Qcne (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Ashvin29

edit

I have a Wikipedia editor free service, my page updated this time. attached my imdb here link Ashvin29 (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ashvin29. I do not understand your question, could you rephrase?
I have declined your draft as there is no evidence you meet our special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia articles are not like LinkedIn or other social media websites. Only people who meet this special definition may have an article written about them. Qcne (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Thebackgammoner

edit

Hi editors. My first time creating an article, hoping to get a pointer. I rewrote someone else's draft with a neutral POV. My submission was declined because of insufficient citations.

I've Googled lightyear and they've had coverage in other papers like AltiFi, irish times, cityAM, etc. I can see these publications are cited in the articles for Freetrade, Traderepublic, etc - should I add some of these as sources? I've so far avoided citing their blog or VC press releases, in favour of secondary stuff - is this the right approach? Thanks Thebackgammoner (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thebackgammoner. My issue with some of your sources is that they are regurgitating press releases - you can tell as they all include something like "CEO stated...", "Cofounder told...". I wonder if you can find a couple of sources that offer analysis/interpretation/review/discussion of the platform? Those would be more suitable. Definitely don't cite their blog or the actual press release, but really the sources you've chosen are just the press releases one step removed, so not really adding much value. Qcne (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thebackgammoner How did you discover this draft? It's not easy to find a draft unless one already knows it exists. Before this, you hadn't edited since 2017. The draft was the only edit of the editor that created it, who seemed to create their account specifically to do so. If you are connected to Lightyear, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest. If you are employed by them or receive any form of compensation from them, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just did an advanced search for 'lightyear' (i.e. drafts ticked) and it was the first result. Seemed easier than writing it from scratch. I'm not connected to Lightyear, though I do use it. Fair enough about the citations - I'll have another look at some point, see if there's anything suitable. Thebackgammoner (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thebackgammoner You must immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons(that you uploaded). You did not provide copyright information- and Commons cannot generally host logos. Logos must be uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. "Fair use" does carry some restrictions, like being unable to be used in drafts.
In any event, images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about adding the logo until the draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopdia. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I believe that this logo falls into the very small category of logos that are acceptable to Commons. I can't bring the place this is specified to mind right now, and am open to correction. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lightyear logo.png where I have suggested it is likely to be appropriate there.
@Thebackgammoner It would always benefit from formal permission and the discussion may disagree with me. Discussions on Commons can be swift or protracted, for no apparent reason. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, @Thebackgammoner Found it. See Commons:Licensing § Simple_design. A little arcane, it surprised me when I saw it first. You can see why it's a very small subset of logos that are appropriate. Fair Use on a local language version of Wikipedia (this is one such) is simpler. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, very helpful. I nominated logo for deletion, but also added the Simple Design license info as suggested. I've added additional citations to the article too, but think I'll leave it for someone else to take from here. Thebackgammoner (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Intmig öa

edit

Dear Reviewers, I'm relatively new to writing Wiki articles, but my first article on the same topic which I wrote in German was accepted without any interventions and now I don't know, what's wrong with the article in question. The comment to the last rejection wasn't completely right, since I did change something, what I supposed to be incomplete, which was the tags for the article. But obviously, something else is missing or not right and I would like to understand it. Any of your help is very appreciated. Kind regards Johann Intmig öa (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intmig öa Please understand that the German Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies, and what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. Here, it is insufficient to merely tell about an organization and what it does- an article here must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Intmig öa I think this was probably rejected too soon, so I have undone the rejection by @Jovanmilic97 Qcne (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne I think upon a review you are probably right about it being too soon, but at that moment I felt it was appropriate as literally *nothing* has been changed since the decline. I know the OP here says there was a change, but the page history says otherwise. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about it, I've done the same. Qcne (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jovanmilic97 Excuse me, if I wasn't precise enough. I added the tags to the article as I thought it could be the problem for it not being accepted because of being incomplete. I don't know, if such changes appear in the page history. I hope you understand, that I didn't mean to deceive anybody. I'm new to editing here and appreciate an indulgent and patient communication. Intmig öa (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Intmig öa All changes that are made successfully appear in the history tab. This is the way the software works 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thank you for the info. In this case, @Jovanmilic97 may have oversaw my first changes, which were at the same time obviously not the changes expected from me. Intmig öa (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Intmig öa Oh, I understand now what you mean! But my point was that you didn't change anything in the main draft page after the 1st decline, be it text or sourcing. You only added page tags on a talk page, which is cool and appreciated, but not exactly making the main part of the draft itself passing the guidelines. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful reply. Intmig öa (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Elfredsoon

edit

how do i make it a official page？ 

Elfredsoon (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elfredsoon: this draft has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. We don't have "official pages" here. We have articles about notable topics that receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Jamesinhere

edit

This draft submission was rejected multiple times due to the following issues:

1. Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Monster.com instead. Answer: In 2018, Quess Corp acquired Monster Worldwide’s businesses in Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions. With ownership change and lauch on new brand, I feel foundit can have it own page.

2. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Answer: I have further updated information and added credible sources so that someone can further review it. Jamesinhere (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesinhere Fundamental is the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Monster.com. What is the question you are asking, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Monster.com is still an active business entity in USA and in 2018 Quess corp bought Monster APAC and ME region business and re-branded it as foundit (from job portal to talent management company). Here foundit (formerly Monster APAC & ME) is a different business entity (under Quess Corp) for which I have created this draft version and in other words monster.com is no longer active in APAC & Me region. Jamesinhere (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamesinhere I suggest you appeal to the reviewer who rejected it. Their rejection was for other reasons 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 212.154.22.50

edit

Hi, I'm part of an indie game studio which has a published game on Steam and we're trying to setup the wiki page of our game. Currently there are no references because we've written it from our first person experiences about what the game is about and how the process went down until publishing it. However since there are no references, the page is being rejected. Can you help on what can we reference to get the page approved? 212.154.22.50 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are a paid editor, as defined in WP:PAID. This must be declared, but, unless you have a static, the declaration is challenging. Do you feel able to create an account? However, if you cannot find references I suggest you abandon the project
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. 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 referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it work if we first publish our story somewhere else, on our website as a devlog for example, and then reference our website for what's written here? 212.154.22.50 (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Clef le Tete

edit

This perfectly valid entry has been endlessly amended in response to the instructions of your editors. Full author interviews and profiles have been submitted as per your policy, plus a long list of books with their ISBN numbers and selected reviews. Every time this entry is resubmitted a new disqualification is raised. This author and playwright has been producing works for forty years, and there is a great amount of verification available, but everything written and produced about him before Google appears to be discounted as too inconvenient for your editors. What can I do? Clef le Tete (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clef le Tete: what can you do? You might start by not attacking reviewers, who volunteer their time to help articles get published.
It is perfectly possible for a draft to be declined for different reasons each time, as a reviewer may decline for any applicable reason, they don't need to 'follow suit' with a previous reviewer, and do not need to choose decline reasons in any order of priority. If a draft has, say, five reasons why it could be declined, one is raised as the grounds for declining and this then gets addressed, the next time it will by definition be declined for a different reason. I wouldn't read anything more into that.
Offline sources (if by "before Google" you mean that) are perfectly acceptable, but they need to be cited with sufficient detail to enable them to be reliably identified and verified. Please see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
The last decline was for lack of evident notability. The sources you wish to use to establish notability must meet all the criteria in the WP:GNG standard, namely: multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing. I am not attacking anyone and understand that you operate on a pro bono basis. The entry for this author was initially accepted and published by Wikipedia where it remained for several months. Then it was removed without explanation. When I sought an explanation I received an apology and was told by the editor that the objection was "vexacious" and had been raised by an editor who was not qualified to be an editor and had since been barred from the site. You will appreciate that this has caused me some distress. If the author and broadcaster Corless does not meet 'notablilty' criteria I would suggest that a purge of the entire Wikipedia content is urgently needed as I routinely come across entries with far, far less 'notability'. So once again, I would ask for your help with this deeply frustrating and long dragged out matter. Thank you. Clef le Tete (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clef le Tete In your distress, you are complaining. That's not going to prove the subject of the draft to be notable. What would be appropriate is to read the notability criteria, WP:NAUTHOR applies, and prove that the subject qualifies.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me explain our referencing needs
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, in multiple secondary sources which are 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.
That final sentence is fundamental. There is work to do. Go to it with a will. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I am not complaining. I said I am not attacking. I am complaining. I have read and understood all your criteria. They appear to be applied arbitrarily and not evenly, and as you have yourself confirmed there seems to be an element of a lucky dip about the process. I trust this complaint won't have my resubmitted submission binned. 2A02:8084:E81:3600:4995:9729:6FAD:D2DF (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see nowhere where I mentioned lucky dip. Nor did I suggest that you are not complaining. I did mention what you had to do. Oh, and complaining? Waste of keystrokes. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clef le Tete Also please WP:ERB for how to add citations as many of them lack pertinent info. I updated a couple for you (see footnotes 23 and 29). Also you want to summarize what the reviewers said about his work and I would also suggest removing all interviews as they are generally unhelpful (more reviews, less of everything else). S0091 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 2A02:8084:E81:3600:4995:9729:6FAD:D2DF (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that we have thousands of poor quality articles that should be improved or outright deleted. We're a volunteer project and no one has gotten around to checking them yet. But we don't want to be adding more poor quality articles. Qcne (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of your article presumably is not a fan of wikipedia. Just do what everyone else does and use the move tool to move your article from draft space to article space. The admins rarely intervene. That's how 90 percent of wikipedia articles get published. 86.142.230.215 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Sundrummer

edit

Hello, I want to know if the changes made to this page address the issues brought up by editors. Or are there other changes to be made as well? Thanks so much. Sundrummer (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundrummer Submissiom for review will tell you that. If you have not done so already please do so n9w. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:05, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Rahulsinghnagi

edit

Why rejecting again and again Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulsinghnagi Do not remove previous decline and rejection notices. Your draft has been rejected as you have inappropriately sourced the article. IMdb and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Only people who pass the strict WP:NACTRESS criteria may have an article written about them. Qcne (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahulsinghnagi I would also like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:No legal threats- your edit summaries could be constituted as legal threats and will lead to your account being blocked. Please note that we are all unpaid volunteers and have no "employee ID". Qcne (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand i will remove those links and will not delete previous rejection and notices. Verfiy my id and address proof i am not harming anyone. Please try to understand i removed those because i think that it would be published with article. Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahulsinghnagi no one is accusing you of harming anyone, you simply have not properly written a draft that proves notability under our WP:NACTRESS criteria. If you can prove that, then let me know and I will take another look. Qcne (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Qcne,
Added the link of Sony Liv which she have did:
Crime Patrol
Aahat
CID
Mahabaali Hanuman
Tarak Mehta Ka OOlta Chashma Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Qcne You required the screenshot of the episode for proving this i will share. Send your email id or either we mention the episode the number Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahulsinghnagi you still have not proven notability I am afraid. We need to see significant coverage of Neetika in multiple reliable secondary sources. All you've done is linked show watch pages? That's useless for establishing notability. Qcne (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Example of secondary sources ? Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Review, discussion, debate, and analysis of her acting in entertainment magazines and newspapers. Qcne (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Qcne,
As discussed i have added newspapers and other data link. Kindly approve Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahulsinghnagi. I will go through your sources 1 by 1:
  1. indiatv: at first glance this source looks like it works, but it is the exact same as source #3 and the text is duplicated on source #4, which makes me think it is a press release
  2. jansatta: is an image gallery with no real indepth coverage
  3. indiatv: the exact same source as #1
  4. kashishnews: a copy of the text from source #1
  5. a trivial mention.
Therefore this person does not meet our notability guidelines. I have rejected the article. Do not re-submit. Qcne (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ii have also more article india tv jagran news india express and punjab kesari it works Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link me the sources you think you have? Qcne (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.indiatv.in/entertainment/bhojpuri/after-rocking-in-tmkoc-and-cid-now-neetika-jaiswal-will-rock-in-bhojpuri-film-will-be-seen-in-this-movie-2023-07-11-973722
https://www.jagran.com/lite/entertainment/bollywood-baap-re-baap-trailer-out-vikrant-singh-yamini-singh-bhojpuri-film-trailer-makes-you-laugh-23466602.html
https://up18news.com/neetika-jaiswal-is-not-averse-to-doing-bold-character-if-the-content-is-good/
https://www.lokmatnews.in/bhojpuri/neetika-jaiswal-says-not-averse-to-doing-bold-characters-if-the-content-is-good-b507/
https://www.etvbharat.com/hindi/bihar/state/patna/actress-neetika-jaiswal-in-bhojpuri-film-baap-re-baap/bh20230711151142068068658 Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. indiatv: the first source is the same source from your draft which I've already told you seems to be a press release.
  2. jagran: is a trivial mention.
  3. up18news: is an interview so cannot be used to establish notability.
  4. lokmatnews: is the same interview as above?
  5. etvbharat: is the exact same nonsense as the kashishnews source.
Therefore, no indication of notability @Rahulsinghnagi. Qcne (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok know I understand you need different articles with different concepts related to their work their bio. One more thing professionally. Which more important for wikipedia news article , debate or government of India official letter from pmo Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahulsinghnagi I don't understand your question? Could you please re-phrase. Qcne (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone from government of india official order you for approval on official letter head. After that you will give accept that or u give preference to news article Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be bribery and is illegal. Qcne (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the spirit thanks Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:25, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 2601:1C2:1801:49C0:91C1:4E96:FB0:1217

edit

Tell us why you are requesting assistance. 2601:1C2:1801:49C0:91C1:4E96:FB0:1217 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalise Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:36, 14 November 2023 review of submission by EarleofNola

edit

We've tried to add references that we feel meet all the criteria. When looking at competitor pages on wikipedia (Zscaler, force point, Palo Alto Networks, Cato, Rubrik, etc) we feel our submission is much more detailed in references from independent sources and far less brochure like. We can go back and add some additional independent media coverage but we are struggling to understand why competitive companies continue to have pages up (and continue to be updated) that are far more promotional and less referenced. We feel like the standard we are being held too is much higher than that for other companies. EarleofNola (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" please? User accounts are strictly single person use. Also see other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EarleofNola See other stuff exists. It's possible these other articles are also inappropriate and their issues are just not addressed yet, and you would be unaware of this. Competitors meriting articles (if they do) does not automatically mean your company does. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 2601:1C2:1801:49C0:91C1:4E96:FB0:1217

edit

I am requesting assistance with the 9 infinities, because I am wondering if that will be something real to remember when the time comes. 2601:1C2:1801:49C0:91C1:4E96:FB0:1217 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please just drop it, okay? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Leoleovich

edit

Hi team, I don't understand why this page keeps getting rejected. There are over 30 different sources including ITU and IEEE. Meta engineering articles (which are ok in different pages). This is a new technology which gathers 500+ people to watch during conferences. I am struggling to see why this is "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Thank you, Oleg. Leoleovich (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Leoleovich first it is unclear what the draft is about. The infobox suggests it is about a product (open sourced or not) invented by Meta but the article seems be, to an extent, about System time in general. Either way, those involved with the development of Time Card are primary sources and not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and should be only be used very sparingly. What you need are wholly independent (not involved), secondary reliable sources that have written in-depth about Time Card (not based on announcements, press releases or what those involved have written or stated, etc.). S0091 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @S0091 thank you for your response.
Let me try to respond to each point:
> those involved with the development of Time Card are primary sources
We understand the importance of the COI declaration which we did. This is indeed discouraged but not a blocking condition.
> The infobox suggests it is about a product (open sourced or not) invented by Meta but the article seems be, to an extent, about System time in general
Happy to rewire article, but I don't think this is the main issue.
> wholly independent (not involved), secondary reliable sources that have written in-depth about Time Card
We linked ITU publication [1] and IEEE publication [2] which are the most trusted standardization bodies in the world requiring careful vetting. Not even mentioning 10s of independent (without [Meta] involvement) articles linked. Did you have a chance to verify these?
As mentioned earlier, happy to restructure the draft, remove youtube references (as we did before with git and source code repos). We don't have any exaggerating statements (best in the world or whatever) and we have no intention to promote Meta with this page (there are enough pages). But we believe this hardware which is used and produced deserves a place on wikipedia.
Thank you. Leoleovich (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? S0091 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> Who is "we"
People who contributed to article so far. It involves people from Meta and Open Compute Project. Leoleovich (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 can I clarify something else? Please guide. Thank you, Oleg. Leoleovich (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what S0091 is saying- you declared your COI, they are talking about the sources used in the draft, which are primary sources. These do not establish notability(though they can be used for other purposes).
Wikipedia isn't about what is "deserving of a place". Wikipedia hosts articles about topics that meet the notability criteria. Many topics are deserving of public attention- that's not relevant here. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoleovich Neither of the sources contribute to notability. The ITU publication has a clear disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not engage ITU. but your use of the source is fine. The IEEE working group appears to be chaired by a Meta employee based on their profile. If that is correct the draft should state that as it is misleading but the source is fine to use to support the working group exists. In order for a source to contribute to notability it needs to meet all four criteria as outlined in the decline notices: secondary, reliable, independent (the publisher, author(s) and the content within the source) and covers the topic in-depth (follow all those links in the declines and read the material). This may be a case of too soon, meaning sources meeting the notability criteria may not exist today but may in the future. S0091 (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @S0091 for the reply.
The ITU publication was indeed written by us, but it was per request of "ITU news" and in particular "Director of Time Department". It was vetted by their comms team as they don't include random articles.
IEEE we are talking about 2 things - a Standard (where yes, Ahmad is trying to make Time Card an IEEE standard) and a public Article published under IEEE - https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9918379.
These are not an untrusted sources. In fact to get to these sources one needs to be invited to do so.
On the other hand we massive news coverage, techrunch, zdnet, cnet and a lot more. We didn't write these articles. Journalists and reporters wrote them.
The hardware is real, it is used and openly sold by manufacturers not affiliated with Meta [Safran] [3] and [oscilloquartz] [4] just to name a few.
I am hoping we can get your support here (currently it seems to be blocked for submission).
We are happy to rewrite an article, make it cleaner, no youtube, no github links. But it definitely deserves a place on wikipedia.
Thank you. Leoleovich (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoleovich I will try to explain once more. Material created or statements made by those involved is a primary source (read that) even if reputably published. For the news coverage, see churnalism. All were published on the same day (August 11, 2021), likely based on a press release or some other announcement by Facebook, and largely the content withing the sources are regurgitating what Facebook says (referring to "Facebook" because that is what the sources state *takes peek at Meta Platforms* given they are prior to the rebrand). More than enough volunteer time has been spent on this single draft (at least four volunteers) and I will not reconsider the rejection at this time, though your transparency is appreciated. S0091 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 we appreciate your time and all the volunteer really. 🙏
I am just trying to understand what are the next steps and when to come back to this.
Are we expecting new (not 2021) and independent (not "churnalism") articles to be written? There are plenty of them (fresh, not us and fist time see them in my life by googling):
  • Here is a random example somebody made an OCP summary [5].
  • Here is one by Nvidia [6] - also first time I see it.
  • Here is an ITU reposting the article (didn't even notify us) [7]
  • Here is the one from Broadcom [8]
I can go on and on.
In fact as you correctly pointed out we published the "Facebook Time Card". But searching "Time Card data center" yields plenty of independent (not involving us) results.
The point is - it's living own life now. It's in the media. Independent suppliers [9] produce and sell it. People use it, people publish about it. It's no different than plenty of other hardware here on wikipedia.
Please help me to understand what is missing and how can we fix it.
Thank you,
Oleg. Leoleovich (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:15, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Dbolwerk rec

edit

My draft page has been rejected twice and I'm looking for a specific reason why? The sources are in-depth (talking about the topic/Dairyland specifically), reliable, not from Dairyland's website. Can someone please specifically explain what the issues still are so I may resolve them? Thank you. Dana Dbolwerk rec (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been declined not rejected, it is stuffed with spam links to your company website and reads like an advertisement, you also need to disclose your paid editing status per the terms and conditions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for some more details. Dbolwerk rec (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:18, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Charmetric

edit

What is wrong with it, how do you fix it? Charmetric (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You resubmitted the draft and it is pending; the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_November_14&oldid=1186078393"