Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 January 4
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 3 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 5 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
January 4[edit]
15:16:24, 4 January 2017 review of submission by Samusaran[edit]
Samusaran (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Why was my article declined?
- A reason for declination should be at the top of your draft. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
15:25:41, 4 January 2017 review of submission by Oleg Sergeykin[edit]
Hello, I would like to know how to improve the draft to be approved. It was declined twice - November 25 by SwisterTwister and December 30 by Zppix. The reason for both declinings is "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia", although the text of the second version seems very neutral and encyclopedic for me and I provided lots of the extra references comparing with the first version of the draft.
The reviewer of the second version, Zppix also recommended me to post my question here about why it was declined. So please help me to find and fix these issues with my draft.
There were also some previous discussions about possible usage of ShrinkTheWeb service in Wikipedia with Beetstra and Billinghurst , see the links on the "Talk" page of the draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:ShrinkTheWeb Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oleg Sergeykin This Draft has only focused with what the company itself would advertise and the sources simply republished it, Wikipedia is not here to advertise a business listing for every company and what's in the Draft isn't even satisfying our basic policies and significance standards. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister "only focused with what the company itself would advertise and the sources simply republished it" - It is not true. Many of references also contain links and information about the company's competitors.Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but even then, such companies will name their competitors either as advertising or comparable pricing and other information. Specifically the information for this is still too trivial and is not significant for an article here, and basically simply means it:s company business announcements. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- All reference materials with mentionings of company's competitors are from respectable independent sources. I added lots of additional references to the second version of the draft after you reviewed it.Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but even then, such companies will name their competitors either as advertising or comparable pricing and other information. Specifically the information for this is still too trivial and is not significant for an article here, and basically simply means it:s company business announcements. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister "only focused with what the company itself would advertise and the sources simply republished it" - It is not true. Many of references also contain links and information about the company's competitors.Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oleg Sergeykin This Draft has only focused with what the company itself would advertise and the sources simply republished it, Wikipedia is not here to advertise a business listing for every company and what's in the Draft isn't even satisfying our basic policies and significance standards. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Please reread both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), then think of this from a top down position, thinking about if this is written ten years later in history. At the moment it seems like a focus in "now-ism" and "feature-ism", neither of which is encyclopaedic. That a company is on the web, or leverages the web, makes it accessible, it doesn't make it any more notable, than a business in the main street of a city, so whatever makes the company notable, and worthy of reading in an encyclopaedia is what needs to be the focus of the article. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have carefully read these guidelines while editing my draft. The draft was declined not because of non-notability.
- The primary criteria of notablity (for organizations and companies) is "A company ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." and those criteria are fulfilled in my case (see the reference section of the draft - the sources are really reliable an independent).
- Some of the references were published almost "ten years later in history" (more than 8 years ago, to be exact), so, the draft is not focused on the "now-ism".
- Another thing about "now-ism" and "advertisement" - is that much younger competitors (2011's Cloudinary and BrowserStack) already have their Wikipedia pages and the style of their pages is much more "marketing-oriented" comparing to my draft.
- So, I wondering why there are so different requirements on "appears to read more like an advertisement" (for different cases). And I need to know what exactly should I change in the draft's content to meet such contradictory requirements.Oleg Sergeykin (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jeanrichmond (talk · contribs)
If I substitute the photo that was the cause of the rejection, will the site be approved?
Jeanrichmond (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Jean. Your submission has been deleted because its text violated the copyrights of other authors/publications. The deletion had nothing to do with the photo. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)