Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 23

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< April 22 << Mar | April | May >> April 24 >
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.


April 23

edit

05:27, 23 April 2024 review of submission by 김낙회

edit

Submission of this article has been rejected. I would like to know why my draft submission was rejected. I would also like to ask for advice on how to solve this problem. 김낙회 (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@김낙회: as it says in the decline notice (did you read that, by any chance?), the draft is insufficiently referenced, which is to say it is completely unreferenced, since the only alleged reference isn't actually a reference at all. Articles on living people must be comprehensively supported with inline referencing to reliable published sources; see WP:BLP for more info on this, and WP:REFB for advice on referencing. Appropriate referencing is also a requirement for notability, see WP:GNG, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:48, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Kaliper1

edit

A non-authorised move was done from Draftspace to Mainspace, by User:WC gudang inspirasi , done without the nesecity reviewing processes or done by an authorised reviewer (ie. admin, oth.) (See: history) The same user have done the same act with two other articles. indeed this would be a WP:AFCREVIEW case and thus not valid I assume, so i reverted and move my drafts submition back to Draftspace. Thus for my question is, would this affect my submission? Cheers. Kaliper1 (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaliper1: rest assured, that move or your return move, does not affect the AfC review process or the draft's prospects in any way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well thats good to know,
however my draft assessment still holds the id 'redirect' and the draft isnt appearing in my selected WikiProjects's Draft-Class Pages for review (that is in Architecture, Japan, and Indonesia). Is there a way to fix this? Kaliper1 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking into my draft's source editing to rechange the assesment scale. I then tried to re-add manually to the wikiprojects's drafts list for review. yet I cant seem to find a way to fix this.. I'm hoping its not permanent, is it? Kaliper1 (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaliper1: sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, what "draft assessment", and what "id 'redirect'"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing yes, I mean the assesments here if im not mistaken. When drafts are sent or submitted, its supposed to be a draft class article. Now due to the erroneous move by said user, what supposed to be the draft article becomes a redirect class article. Thus I fear that due to this, it renders the review process harder to do so since in wikiprojects, it would not show up in draft articles if im not wrong? (eg. when searching up the drafts class articles in wikiproject Japan, Indonesia, and Architecture for 'Hirohara' it doesnt appear. it did before the move..)
sorry for my wording. my first language sadly is not english. really sorry! Kaliper1 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I did ask for a review by the Assesment Department however. To change back to draft class. (WP:WPWP/ASSESS) Kaliper1 (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok really sorry for the confusion!
Update: I've managed to re-add my draft to the given wikiprojects after deleting and re-adding the tags. and Now for the Assesment, I think that would change after review process once the draft is accepted. Thus, problem mostly solved!
Terima Kasih! - Kaliper1 (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaliper1: don't worry about the ratings for now, they only become relevant if/when the draft is accepted. (And FWIW, I believe they were at draft class when I looked earlier, and are the same now, so look to be in order.) Yes, in theory adding WikiProject tags to a draft may draw some attention from the projects in question, but in practice this seldom results in anything, and in any case won't affect the draft's passage through the AfC review process. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've warned the user, asking them to stop moving drafts past AfC; turns out this wasn't their first one, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 23 April 2024 review of submission by IRKTC

edit

May I know the reason for the rejection of the submission due to being a company profile with referenced information? IRKTC (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IRKTC: this draft hasn't been rejected yet, only declined, although it will be rejected if you keep resubmitting without any attempt to improve it.
The reasons for the earlier declines are given in the decline notice, specifically inside the grey boxes.
I believe you are an employee or agent of this company. Please disclose your paid-editing status per the message I've posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IRKTC First, if you work for this company(I note you claim to have personally created the logo, more on that in a second) you are required by the Terms of Use to disclose that, see WP:PAID, and also WP:COI.
Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editors. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they do- we are interested in what others wholly unconnected with the company choose to say about it. This does not include press releases, interviews, announcements of routine business activities, or primary sources. The "vision" section is wholly unencyclopedic and should be removed.
You claim to have personally created the logo of the company- if you did, okay- but I assume that you did so just to upload it to Commons; by doing this you are indicating that you want to make the logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. This would mean that someone could take your company logo, print it on shirts, sell them, and your company would not entitled to any money from the sale of its own logo. If you don't want to do that, or don't have the authority to decide that, you should immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons. Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. That does carry some restrictions, such as not being able to be in drafts- but images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until and if the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and content like "We also cultivate a culture of Trusted Organization to meet the expectations and build confidence among stakeholders, ensuring sustainable growth." is totally inappropriate marketing speak. I'm surprised it hasn't been rejected already. Theroadislong (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IRKTC: All of your sources are unusable. We don't cite stock tickers and everything from the company's website is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I'll also echo my colleagues that this reads more like a brochure aimed at potential investors than a neutrally-written encyclopaedia article aimed at Ubon from Bangkok. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Amirdelv

edit

How can i improve this article Amirdelv (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirdelv: by addressing the reasons for the decline(s). Your referencing is pretty useless, and fails to both establish notability and verify the draft contents. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you suggest me some sites for movie or tv series reference? where i can search for this series. Amirdelv (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amirdelv: no, I cannot, as I've no knowledge of or interest in Indian television. You should be citing the sources where you got this information from, and if those sources aren't reliable (as is the case here), then we couldn't accept this draft anyway. Which is another way of saying that you should be basing the information on reliable and independent sources, and merely summarising what they have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you choose to create an article on a subject, then your very first task, before you do anything else, should be to find several reliable, independent sources, that treat the subject in some depth - see golden rule for the criteria you should apply to each source.
The reason that this should be your very first task is that if you cannot find such sources, then the subject cannot meet Wikipedia's criteris for notability, and the article will never be acceptable. If this is the case, then every single second that you have spent doing anything on the draft other than looking for sources has been time and effort completely wasted. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amirdelv is a paid editor so the value of that time depends on whether TRK Studios are paying them by the hour. It is definitely wasting the time of multiple reviewers, though. Belbury (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me some time to locate the source. Amirdelv (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 23 April 2024 review of submission by FF184

edit

I want to know what to do to exactly improve the article for publication. Currently all citation of evidence are correct and included. FF184 (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FF184: I couldn't understand when I reviewed this, and still don't understand now, what makes this person notable, ie. on what basis is notability being asserted? You need to show how they meet one of the defined notability standards, either the general WP:GNG or a special one eg. WP:DIRECTOR or WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Charlie

edit

I'm not really too sure how I can change this for it to be approved. 137.22.176.98 (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Usr TC17

edit

Good morning, I need help identifying a reliable source. In the first submission, I provided 50 sources, while in the second, I provided less than 10. Could you please provide me with an example of a reliable source from among these? I have many articles and interviews about Tenderstories in film magazines and online newspapers. Could you assist me? Usr TC17 (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usr TC17: I don't think the reviewer was saying that your sources are unreliable, but rather that the draft is not adequately supported by referencing, with much of the content without citations.
If you want to understand what we mean by reliable sources more generally, see WP:RS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ok if the citations from the sources are in Italian but translated in English? Usr TC17 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usr TC17: non-English sources are fine, as long as they otherwise meet the reliability etc. standards.
Having said which, I did wonder why it is that all the sources are in Italian, given that the company is UK-based? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company is UK-based, but its productions take place in Italy for films that are primarily released in the Italian market. Let me know if this is an issue. Usr TC17 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Not a problem, I was just being curious. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 23 April 2024 review of submission by 193.60.60.68

edit

We're having trouble understanding which sections need reliable sources and which sources aren't considered reliable. Could you provide an example? 193.60.60.68 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we", accounts are strictly single person use. Wikipedia has little interest in unsourced, promotional mission statements, activities and organisation details. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend finding 2 published independent sources that have in-depth coverage of Natural Resources Institute, put them in the article. If you find those and ping me and point them out I'd be happy to help. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Mantascool44

edit

Can someone make a description of the brand? I am the owner of the NANO GO brand, founder, 100% shareholder and director of NANOGO DETAILING. Mantascool44 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a business directory, so a company is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists. All topics must be notable by Wikipedia's definition to merit inclusion. In the specific case of a company, it must meet the notability criteria for companies and organizations. For this to happen, the company must have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. We have no interest in what a company wishes to say about itself, as this is an inherent conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for an answer. Mantascool44 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 23 April 2024 review of submission by 207.237.186.122

edit

Helping to clarify edits that need to be made. 207.237.186.122 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display. Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every link you provide for your citations are malformed and point to HTTP 404 errors. The sole exception is to a PR Newswire piece, which is useless for notability as PR Newswire only ever publishes press releases (connexion to subject). Fix your links. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the links myself to assess them (protip: "/amp/title" breaks URLs) the lot of them are worthless.
You need better sources across-the-board. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss Cabrera at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to rigourous editorial oversight, including fact-checking. Without sources that meet those criteria, we can't even discuss having an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 19:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 23 April 2024 review of submission by 45.62.186.1

edit

Hiii! I'm trying to understand which of the references are why this draft got rejected and why so I know what to change! Thank you! 45.62.186.1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for working on your article. The subject of separate articles needs to meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirement which can be confusing. To meet this it needs to meet either meet the requirements of an applicable special notability guideline (which IMO is not an option for your subject) or meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia's sourcing-based General Notability Guideline. So, roughly speaking, to meet that requirement you need to include two independent published sources (occasionally 1 will do) which cover the topic of your article in depth. So it's not about notability by the common meaning of the term, it's about finding two sources each of which meets all of those criteria. My suggestion is to look for and include those sources. If you are unable to find sources which meet all of those criteria, IMO it's best not to pursue creating a separate article for this subject. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Kaitlynnellis

edit

I am editing my draft page and want to know what portions need more references. Kaitlynnellis (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaitlynnellis: All of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 23 April 2024 review of submission by Fastbean

edit

I don't understand how these cannot be better sources - they are primary sources - announcements made by the CEO for the most part. Unless a company is large, it's executives in the media, or they somehow capture the zeitgeist, I'm not sure that there is much chance of independent sources that are not derived directly from the company of interest.

For example, here's a news story about the announced closure of Post: https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2024/04/22/post-social-platform/

That news story quotes the Post post that I used as a reference. Is this somehow a more reliable source? fastbean (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastbean Wikipedia may not base articles upon primary sources. Wikipedia is dependent upon secondary sources.
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.
We have no interest in what the CEO says about Post News. We need to know what is said by others about it. Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:55, 23 April 2024 review of submission by NWUCU

edit

Hello, could you provide examples of what primary sources are examples of reliable sources? I do believe that this article makes it clear that the subject has had a notable impact on the field of study, which should satisfy the academic-specific criteria at least in part. I am looking for ways to meaningfully strengthen the article before resubmission. Thank you! NWUCU (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NWUCU: Have you read WP:NACADEMIC? (Academics have a somewhat different standard since the vast majority of them, if they're properly doing their jobs, don't make the headlines.) The page explains how best to prove its various prongs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_23&oldid=1221288323"