Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 24

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< May 23 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 25 >
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.


May 24

edit

02:03, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Globeltime

edit

hey i re edited again this. Pls, tell me it's ok or not. Thankyou, Have a nice day. Globeltime (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Globeltime: no, it most certainly is not okay, far from it. Most of your alleged references aren't references, they're just external links piled in the 'References' section. None of your sources are reliable, apart from maybe the last one, which is also useless as it supports nothing in this draft. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and WP:GNG for the standard that your sources must meet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Globeltime, you wrote raised by honest teacher parents in a tiny apartment. In his 11 years as a student, he received many awards from local schools How do you know that? How can the reader verify that? What is your relationship with this person? Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2004 to 2016, Myanmar local school dose not used social media, or newspaper event. cause local school are poor. But I have aa soft copy of certificate these many awards. and I know him. He is my neighbor. We live government tiny apartment. . Globeltime (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Globeltime, please read No original research. Things you know through your own personal experience are not permitted on Wikipedia. Your have a conflict of interest about people who you know personally. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 24 May 2024 review of submission by 82.46.123.194

edit

Hi there,

Could you please let me know what we can do to get this published? I strongly disagree with the lack of notability point - we've included independent sources from household-name publications, like the Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Grocer. None of these are paid articles, and those listed by our competitor, Union Hand-Roasted Coffee, are less independent and 'notable'.

We've done everything according to the feedback of your moderators, and this is now nothing like an advertisement.

For full transparency, I work for Pact Coffee, but the initial submission was done by an independent writer, and this has been cleaned up by your business team - we just want to get this over the line.

Happy to work with you if you feel anything else needs clearing up - we just believe this to be unfair in the spirit of competitive business when our competitor is being held by far less strict standards. 82.46.123.194 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this draft has been rejected, if you wish to appeal the rejection you should in the first instance approach the rejecting reviewer directly.
You may wish to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before making your appeal, so that you don't rely too much on the arguments refuted in that.
Who is "we" in your message?
And finally, are you Asmith1990 (who has made a paid-editing disclosure)? If so, please log into your account whenever editing. (And if you're not Asmith1990, then have you made a similar disclosure?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Ejaz-Booni

edit

I am the employee of this organization, my article about this organization is declined citing I had not enough resources, my question, what I kind of sources, reference I need to put in, in the scenario when I am writing this on behalf of that organization? Ejaz-Booni (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejaz-Booni As an employee you must declare this under the terms of WP:PAID. I am about to leave instructions on your talk page assuming someone has not already done so. The reviewer perhaps ought to have added to their review:
"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."
This you now have the information you need. This is a volunteer project. Since you are an employee you are paid for the time you take to research what you need. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejaz-Booni I just   Declined this draft. You have work to do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 24 May 2024 review of submission by WikiSchlomo-08

edit

Thank you for your input and attention, Mr. Marcus.

I didn't understand the specific reason why my article was declined, as the explanation was a bit generalized and ambiguous. Was it because it was too short?

I look forward to hearing from you and working together to find a solution for the publication of my article.

Thank you so much, sir. WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiSchlomo-08 I'm not Mr. Marcus, but I suppose I'll answer anyway. The draft was declined for not meeting notability guidelines. Out of the 3 sources, 2 are from the company's website, and 1 is the software's docs. None of these sources can be used to establish notability. The draft needs independent, reliable sources that have significant coverage on the subject. And, after doing a quick Google search, no such sources were found. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as CanonNi put it, those are the reasons for my declination. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 14:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sir for your reply!
If possible, I would love to obtain the help of both of you to correct my article (with the aim of finding a solution for a future publication of the article).
Looking forward to hear from you again WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your Clarification Mr.CanonNi!
So, what would you suggest in order to solve the issue?
This Software is not very famous (because it is the first and only FOSS Android that was ever created, and it is only downloaded through F-droid).
I don't have much time to check it today... But so far, the only strong reputable sources I could find beyond F-droid (which is the Software Repository I did include), are:
1)Medium
https://medium.com/@xenovandestra/free-open-source-anti-virus-anti-malware-software-apps-for-android-os-4b2ca310d91c
2)Techno360
https://www.techno360.in/hypatia-free-open-source-malware-scanner-android/
3) Codeberg
https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/hypatia
4)FossDroid
https://fossdroid.com/a/hypatia.html
5)Alternativeto
https://alternativeto.net/software/hypatia-malware-scanner/about/
How many legitimate sources should be required to make a publication? There a minimum amount? WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
first and only FOSS Android antimalware* WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiSchlomo-08 we need to see at least three solid sources that squarely meet the WP:GNG standard. None of the ones you've listed here could be described as solid by any stretch of definition. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing the standards.
I did read it, and most of the sources seem to fail in the "Independent of the subject" parameter, as many of the listed sources either share the software or are its creators.
However, I did notice a source that I don't understand why it isn't considered "Solid"... Medium.com is a large and reputable news magazine with millions of viewers, and I believe it meets the criteria listed.
Although it is just one reputable source (two are still needed). WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I check again, and I also believe Techno360 meets the criteria (however, one is still needed - and I need some time to look better on internet) WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked* WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check that each one of your sources passes the triple criterion of reliable, independent, and significant coverage, as explained in golden rule.
Then, you need to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion!
Regarding the material I did write, there was any part that did seem a bit biased? If there was, I appreciate your constructive criticism to point me that out (because that will help me to improve the work already done - and possibly to make a better work in future publications).
Please, I appreciate any help you could provide :) WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiSchlomo-08: Medium is just a self-publishing platform, effectively a glorified blogging site, and is not considered reliable in the slightest because anyone can write there anything they want; see WP:MEDIUM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_(website)
According to Wikipedia's own resources, that classification isn't 100% correct.
The platform is an example of social journalism, with a hybrid collection of amateur and professional individuals and publications, including exclusive blogs or publishers on Medium. Although it is often seen as a blog host, it is internally regulated with strict guidelines (similar to how Wikipedia operates).
Therefore, it could arguably be considered a reliable source. WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. See WP:MEDIUM; self-published content is generally not considered reliable. The source in question seems to be written by a herbs expert, which has nothing to do with antivirus software. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have knowledge of the existence of this list - I actually appreciate the fact you shared this list with me (because I will be able to check different sources on it).
Thank you so much, you are actually helping me out a lot here! :D WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys!!!... I'm really sorry to bother you, but I need your help!
I tried to submit this article for review for a potential future publication, but I'm not sure if it was even submitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiSchlomo-08&oldid=1225776412
Please, if possible, could any of you have a look and try to help me out? I'm so sorry, I'm still a noob!!...
@MicrobiologyMarcus @CanonNi @DoubleGrazing @ColinFine WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MicrobiologyMarcus
@CanonNi
@DoubleGrazing
@ColinFine WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S I also want to delete this "hypathia" article - I couldn't find a source like I wanted, so this is a bad article to waste time. I want to just move on for another publications (but I don't know how to delete this one) WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiSchlomo-08 It is now at Draft:It's FOSS instead of on your user page. It is not submitted, but the submit button is present. If you feel ot to be ready click the button. I have not examined it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked that Draft:Hypatia (antivirus software) be deleted citing your request just above. An alternative would have been simply to abandon it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for bothering you with this simple stuff, I appreciate a lot the fact you are losing your time to try to help me... I'm trying to adapt to wikipedia the best I can, but I'm still a newbie and sometimes I have some trouble WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Jim0076899

edit

I do not understand why my article is not accepted when I see many others, very similar to mine, online. My company uses this MFA solution and I want to write about them to let others know about it. Can you please help me understand?

Thank you for your assistance.

Jimmy Jim0076899 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim0076899 please consider that the reviewer has said it appears to be an advert. I agree with them. Please read HELP:YFA and rewrite it. It looks like a brochure.
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what looks like an ad? I am just listing facts about the product? Thank you. Jim0076899 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the advertising. Wikipedia is not a product directory. Wikipedia wants to know what independent reliable sources say about a topic, with significant coverage beyond its existence and features- telling how the product is notable.
If you see other articles like your draft, that is only because we haven't addressed them yet. If you want to help us address them, please identify them so we can take action. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for the company that produces this product, the Terms of Use require you to disclose that, see WP:PAID. Note that "paid editing" includes employment. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim0076899: you say "[your] company uses this" – what is your company? It wouldn't be Draft:RCDevs Security SA by any chance, would it? I'm asking because you've written two drafts, one on this 'authentication solution', the other on the company developing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that you say I want to write about them to let others know about it. That is the very definition of promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Terry Phillips

edit

I created an article about Mark Bauman in my sandbox. Today, I attempted to move it to the main Wikipedia space. However, it includes several header messages: "This article, Mark Bauman, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. Please check to see if the reviewer has accidentally left this template after accepting the draft and take appropriate action as necessary." Terry Phillips (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Terry Phillips That was you. You left them there. It would have been wiser to await a review. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bauman where users may leave policy based opinions for or against deletion. Terry Phillips this includes you, your opinion carries as much weight as anyone else's and will be welcome. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Terry Phillips: What is your connexion to Bauman or any of the organisations he's associated with? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I met Mark Bauman while we were working as foreign correspondents for two different news agencies. He was at ABC and I was at CBS. Terry Phillips (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 24 May 2024 review of submission by 2601:204:F301:A330:14A6:1D0F:F32C:165A

edit

I don't really really know why you rejected it but I kinda need help 2601:204:F301:A330:14A6:1D0F:F32C:165A (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this with the editor who rejected it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article begins by finding independent reliable sources which discuss the subject of the article in some depth. Starting to write an article without having found these is like trying to build a house without surveying the site to check it is safe to build on, and without checking local building regulations. The chances of building something that will not fall down are slight. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:51, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Charlie Alexander Muir

edit

My article got rejected and I'm not sure why 

Charlie Alexander Muir (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlie Alexander Muir Please see WP:NOT 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:33, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Saraalutz

edit

I found a source for every single sentence and now when I submitted it, I got this error: An error occurred (ratelimited: You've exceeded your rate limit.

How long do I have to wait to resubmit? Saraalutz (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you managed to submit it soon afterwards, so I'll assume this is in order now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:49, 24 May 2024 review of submission by 24.191.217.79

edit

Can an editor please look at this revised draft and tell me if it has a chance of being accepted for publication if resubmitted or if more work needs to be done? (I mostly revised the footnotes and sources) And if it's the latter, what should be done to improve its chances for publication acceptance? Thanks. 24.191.217.79 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without analysing the sources in detail, it's not possible to say whether they're enough to establish notability. If you feel you've sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reason, then resubmit it and that way you'll get a proper review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it--thank you. 24.191.217.79 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_24&oldid=1226511769"