Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 April 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 19 << Mar | April | May >> April 21 >
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 20[edit]

00:12:54, 20 April 2021 review of submission by Vsk6-cs342[edit]


My submission has been denied twice because "my sources are not reliable." I genuinely just don't understand why my sources aren't reliable and I'm not sure what I can do to fix it. The sources I used were the only websites I could find that had biographical information about this person, and they seem like reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject to me.

Vsk6-cs342 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsk6-cs342 yiu seem not to have understood fully the comments in the big pink decline boxes about references. You may find WP:42 a more digestible version. Each of the references you have chosen is an organisations "Flannel Panel" about Chapin, and is like provided by the person himself. These offerings often are. He owns the organisation that provided two of the faux references you have chosen. The book by Chapin is his work. His work can only be a reference in certain cases.
Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 05:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:29:59, 20 April 2021 review of draft by Wikiboi77[edit]


I want to be published on Wikipedia, I feel that my accomplishments and my work are worthy of being published here. I'm not sure what needs to happen to make it truly worthy to the publishers and I would like some help in doing so.

Wikiboi77 03:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:04:19, 20 April 2021 review of submission by Wikiboi77[edit]

I feel that Dallas' confirmation to the UM Supreme Court is worthy of being published in Wikipedia. You published an article on the Chief of Dallas' tribe (Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians) yet you will not publish his article. We are a sovereign nation and when our people accomplish things like being the FIRST NATIVE AMERICAN to be appointed, confirmed and serve on the SUPREME COURT of such a Prestigious University like the University of Miami it is news to us and many other Native Americans across the nation. I feel that that is wikipedia worthy. He is making strides for Native American Youth and blazing trails for young natives to get educated and better themselves. His story deserves to be told. Let the world see what a brave and bright young man that Dallas J. Bennett is.Just because his story and his success is not AMERICAN national news it is CHEROKEE national news and NATIVE AMERICAN National News. What's so wrong with letting him have a page on Wikipedia. Please reconsider your decision and please publish this article. It's not gonna hurt anyone. The second reviewer said it IS NOT notable and I do not believe that, the 16,000 people who belong to Dallas' tribe would beg to differ as well. I presented 2 reliable and independent sources that cover Dallas. I also presented one of Dallas' published works as an Associate Justice. I also included a quote from Principal Chief Richard Sneed commending Dallas and his accomplishments. He was recognized by the Chief!! His accomplishments are historical fo both the EBCI and The University of Miami. Please Reconsider your decision, this is not fair to Dallas or the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Wikiboi77 05:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiboi77: this is not the place to tell that story. If others not connected to the subject write about it and it has a lasting effect that can be supported through reliable sources, then maybe an article can be written. What I would recommend instead of trying to tell us how great you are, try editing other articles and become familiar with more of the policies such as WP:AUTOBIO, WP:RS and WP:GNG. Other then that the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:51:30, 20 April 2021 review of submission by JASWANT SINGH 07[edit]

hello author I'm writing for my company i got no payment in term to write article on my company. Why are you rejecting my article again and again please don't do it. JASWANT SINGH 07 (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JASWANT SINGH 07 If you are writing about your company, you are a paid editor since the company compensates you with a salary. You do not have to be specifically paid for your edits. Your draft was rejected and then deleted, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about companies, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use social media or its own website. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have blocked this editor for repeatedly creating this article at multiple locations. --Kinu t/c 08:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:22:15, 20 April 2021 review of draft by Serial33$[edit]


Serial33$ (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sasha Yelaun is a producer (top billing) on multiple films. All of his supporting citations have sites linked with evidence and references. His name is also listed on several film titles in Wikipedia (we did not reference Wikipedia as instructed not to) The films included the Vanished , Monstrous, and River Runs Red. Please advise as I am his publicist attempting to get this approved and it is a noteworthy submission with many mentions available in top sources in the entertainment industry including Hollywood Reporter, Variety, etc.

Serial33$ If you are his publicist, you must review the paid editing policy to make a formal declaration; this is a Terms of Use requirement. You should also review conflict of interest. You also posted that you are him, so which is it?
Your sources are all press release type stories or mere announcements, which do not establish that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:33, 20 April 2021 review of submission by MZatNgeeAnnAcademy[edit]

The draft was drafted factually, and opinions and adjectives were excluded, but it is deleted twice. And it was also drafted similarly to many of the higher education institutes' pages in wikipedia. Could you help me on refining the draft so that it is good for submission please? Thank you. MZatNgeeAnnAcademy (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MZatNgeeAnnAcademy. The draft must have been much more biased than you think to have been speedily deleted twice as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Having a close connection to the topic is a huge handicap when trying to write about it objectively. If you insist on continuing with the topic, try writing a draft using only independent sources, such as [1][2][3].
Ngee Ann Academy will not own any Wikipedia article created about it, and will not be able to control its content. If you don't write about NAA being a choice of students who can't get into public universities, and about NAA graduates having a harder time than public university graduates finding full time employment, then someone else will. Carefully consider Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and the essay "An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing", lest NAA come to regret that there's a Wikipedia article about them. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:15, 20 April 2021 review of submission by App09[edit]


App09 (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@App09 You do not ask any question - your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:28:37, 20 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Danielsuarez00[edit]



Danielsuarez00 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Danielsuarez00:, you didn't ask a question, so I will guess you just want more feedback. The first thing you should look through is WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR and decide which criteria of the inclusion policy they meet. Then read through WP:RS to see what we need for references to verify the claims in the article. Of the references in the draft currently they consist on 1 press release, 2 that are discussing a music video that don't mention the subject. The last is an interview and does not meet the WP:INDEPTH requirements of the general notability requirements. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to re-make an attempt for an Wikipedia article about an artist from June 2020: It was rejected and later deleted with arguments of notability and references. Before I waste my time again, I would like to ask whether an updated translation of an existing Wikipedia-article (German) of the same artist would be better way to proceed. As I can see, the German article is not really updated (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Kacunko)... I have also checked mentioning of the artist in some other notable artists´ Wikipedia-articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ari_Benjamin_Meyers), so maybe this would be a more appropriate way instead of writing a new, more ambitious article? Thanks in advance for your feedback, and kind regards, Gimmeldal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimmeldal (talkcontribs) 18:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gimmeldal To answer your question in short: No, it would be not more appropriate, the german article doesn't provide sufficient notability either. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:31:52, 20 April 2021 review of submission by Inspiress[edit]

*I have not gotten any help asking this question over a day ago. Please help me!

My article was flagged "reads like an advertisement". I have gathered evidence from all independent sources and many reliable sources and have written the article from a neutral point of view, I do not understand why my article is marked as "reads like advertisement".

I am not advertising anything in the article, and I am totally independent of this person I am writing about. I need help to revise the article so it doesn't sound like an ad, such as where I should reword, what I should add more, etc. This is a polite ask for help based on the review. I would appreciate it if any experienced editor can help me point out what I should change.

Thank you so much!

  • Note: I have gathered as much information about the person I am writing on as possible. As far as providing further detail on any topic, I am unable to gather more details about her.(reference ping:@DGG:)

Inspiress (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to this above so I will simply cut and paste the same text here. I can see why this was declined. There is a lot of WP:PUFFERY in the draft. Things like "She is known as the pioneer of Eldercare" Says who? Just her? The Career section is completely unreferenced and reads like that of a Resume/CV which is also a form of advertising. This is not neutral or stated by any source. Using her own articles as references to prove she wrote for certain publications is a form of WP:OR and can be considered advertising. Even listing each and every publication is a form of advertising, we generally don't care about newspaper or magazine articles they write unless they have made a major impact in her career. Listing highly cited academic writings may also be acceptable. This is the things I noticed from a precursory scan. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:46, 20 April 2021 review of submission by Abdullah Shawon[edit]


Abdullah Shawon (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdullah Shawon: You didn't ask a question the draft is flagged for deletion, and rejected it will not be considered further. This may help Wikipedia is not a social network as per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]