Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

Request on 03:23:46, 24 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jacobcflatter[edit]


We are creating a page for Bebcare, which is a well known baby products company making low emissions baby monitors. However, we receive a rejection message and would like to see what we can do to publish the page on Bebcare. Thank you so much!

Jacobcflatter (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobcflatter: Who is "we"? Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are Bebcare

@Jacobcflatter: Since the draft was rejected, there is nothing that you can do. You do, however, need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies for information on required formal disclosures you must make(declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement). 331dot (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:23:15, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Columbidae5[edit]

His co actors like Nissar Khan , Ujjwal Chopra have wikipedia pages. Columbidae5 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Columbidae5: Wikipedia is not inherited. And even when the other articles should in fact not exist, the existence of other inappropiate articles is not an argument to create another one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:29:29, 24 May 2021 review of submission by 23surajbohra[edit]


23surajbohra (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@23surajbohra You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:19:49, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Al nomanuix[edit]


Al nomanuix (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al nomanuix You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:34, 24 May 2021 review of draft by 41.35.255.93[edit]


Hi, I'd like to know why my article got declined and if there's anything need to be improved?

41.35.255.93 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a formatting error it may have appeared to the reviewer as a group of references, as the draft text was not displayed. It works now, but in looking at the draft it just tells about the person and what they have done. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please review Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:28:24, 24 May 2021 review of draft by Rakibnrt[edit]


Rakibnrt (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rakibnrt You don't ask a question, but your draft is completely unsourced. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. If you are attempting to write about yourself, please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:05:54, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Ajayprakashyadav[edit]

It got declined. I am not sure what may be the possible reason

Ajayprakashyadav (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajayprakashyadav The reason was given by the reviewer in their decline message, "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." 331dot (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:27, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Dalicnc88[edit]


Hello guys, my name is Dalila. Last year I submitted a draft for review about a duo of music producer that I love but has just been rejected. The comment I received is that does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. I just checked though and I believe the page does meet those criteria. The guys that I follow have got 2 gold records in Italy, they're last production for Ed Sheeran reached Silver in the UK and several other certifications around the world, so I don't understand why the draft has been rejected. They've also been grammy nominated musician for other work with Ed Sheeran. Can someone please help me or explain? I would like to move this page in the article space as I believe these guys deserved to be known.

This is the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PARISI_(Music_Producer)

Dalicnc88 (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dalicnc88 To be frank, Wikipedia is not interested in if people "deserve to be known"; that's a promotional purpose and not permitted. Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources state about subject, showing how they meet notability guidelines. If you truly feel that the reviewer erred in their judgement, please contact them directly and articulate the specific aspects of the notability criteria this band meets, and offer your independent reliable sources that support that. Most of your sources seem to simply cite the existence of their music, and do not have significant coverage of the duo. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your reply, I will contact the reviewer directly. I believe there are reliable sources that meets the criteria for the WP:MUSICBIO.

Hi Dalicnc88. The content of your draft makes assessing the notability for this topic very difficult. I might not have rejected it but I certainly would have declined it. (I only reject, as opposed to declining on notability grounds, if it's fairly clear the necessary sources are unlikely to exist out in the world, which for this subject would require me to look for sources myself). It's possible the reviewer of your draft did an independent search for sources, I don't know. More people should use rejection rather than declines, because we do a disservice to people to lead them on thinking that their drafts are "fixable" and to put more time into them, when the subject is (or very likely is) not notable, where no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Nevertheless, for this draft, If the topic **might** be notable, the draft does not demonstrate that at all well, and has other foundational issues. The rejection does not ultimately mean you cannot re-submit, but you would need to put in a LOT or work, with a lot better understanding, in order to overcome the current draft's issues, and that would only be effective if the sources we need actually exist, which the draft effectively demonstrated (in a way it does not right now).

Let's start with a chief "fixable" issue: the draft is a blatant commercial, and would never be acceptable given its promotion, i.e., extreme lack of neutrality (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch). They're "virtuosic"? Really? An encyclopedia would never properly offer such hagiographic, evaluative opinion. At best, it's possible such evaluation could be given in a quotation by a third party, marked as such, in a larger article with a criticism section, but even that might be a bit much, From that start, the biography section is rife with empty buzz words/market-speak/puffery. They "share a brotherhood immersed in music"? They have a "pioneering approach"? Am I reading the subjects' [shamelessly self-promoting] website, rather than an encyclopedia article? Whenever I see material like this in a submitted draft, my guess is that the submitter has no prior experience with an encyclopedia – has nothing to compare it to – to think it might be even approaching okay.

As to notability, the draft suffers from a variety of problems that make assessing notability difficult. What we're looking for are reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail, that are used to verify the information content. It's very difficult to evaluate the presence of such sources when there are numerous useless sources being cited that we would have to exclude to find if there are any being used that do meet our standards – and it becomes even more difficult when such sources are being used in improper manner.

Let's take that sentence with "virtuosic", and its cited source as an example. First, the source is the duo's own website, so it's a primary source (not secondary or independent of the subject). It contributes nothing towards establishing notability. It also violates the prohibitions on use of primary sources, since it is being used for evaluative purposes, and to boot, is very much "unduly self-serving". But there's a far more fundamental problem with the use (which is the same for some others): Even if it wasn't improper for verifying such material, it does NOT verify the majority of the material it is cited in relation to: not that their "virtuosic", nor "multi-instrumentalists" nor "producers" nor "remixers", nor that Jack's first name is actually "Giampaolo". Many of the other sources are just "listings", verifying some song exists. As I write at WP:NERROR: "Moreover, citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is a badge of a non-notable topic and, if good sources are actually present in the mix, they will be hidden among these others from those seeking to assess a topic's demonstration of notability."

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalicnc88: Damn. I've just discovered the plagiarism and copyright infringement in the draft. (I didn't realize when I wrote "Am I reading the subjects' [shamelessly self-promoting] website, rather than an encyclopedia article?, that I was.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:27:19, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Mridula Mukhia[edit]


Mridula Mukhia (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mridula Mukhia You don't ask a question, but the draft was deleted as blatant promotion. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mridula Mukhia It's unnecessary to copy your draft to here, it is linked to above. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been deleted because it does nothing other than tell of the existence of the organization. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something; it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:08:09, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Bijendrameel[edit]


Bijendrameel (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero reliable independent sources and no indication that you are notable, hence it was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:38, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Lisabeth234[edit]


Lisabeth234 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:19, 24 May 2021 review of draft by JohnH.Jackson VP[edit]


Hello! I hope I did not just miss the answer, but I sent a message on the 5th of May regarding a draft and it has been archived, I repost it here, hoping that it is fine:

"The draft of the page has been rejected due to a lack of objectivity, I tried to delete the words and paragraphs being subjective or implying a value, but I would like to know how I could improve the draft still. I took also a look at other similar pages (and also at the page about "other stuff exists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists to see the relevance of the comparison) to improve the draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_C._Vis_Moot & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_C._Jessup_International_Law_Moot_Court_Competition)

In the meantime, I added a few citations that are neutral (in a sense that coming from 1. not the subject of the article nor the people related to it and 2. relevant sources and entities) and continued with making the text more neutral to fit with the pillar n*2. For one of the comments made about the fact that it sounded more like advertising, I tried to delete the parts that were not purely factual, but I wonder if this includes the description of some technical aspects of the topic of the article?"

Many thanks in advance for your reply

JohnH.Jackson VP (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JohnH.Jackson VP I think you have a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia in that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. A Wikipedia article should summarize only what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) an event, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. The sources you provide are either associated with the event, or merely report some aspect of the event itself, they don't give it in depth coverage that goes beyond just telling about it. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:03, 24 May 2021 review of draft by Hunaniaeth[edit]


I have made an urgent enquiry of Bkissin – who first read my original draft – but have not had a response, hence posting my query here. I find that my draft article – Harry Holland (artist) – has been published on Wikitia, not in the latest revision, and Wikitia require payment for requisite editing. In the first place, I am perturbed as to how this has happened but secondly it is surely shocking that articles waiting to be re-reviewed can somehow be highjacked in this way. Does the history of revisions give a clue as to how the article has been taken? What is the Wikipedia stance on this? And can my draft article still be published on Wikipedia? Hunaniaeth (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Hunaniaeth (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunaniaeth It is still possible for the draft to be published if you resolve the issues raised. It's doubtful that the person who copied the draft and transferred it left an edit behind. It's fine for them to do so as long as they provide attribution(the terms of Wikipedia's licensing). If they didn't, you could complain, but it probably wouldn't accomplish much. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:37, 24 May 2021 review of draft by Barlingsouth[edit]


Any feedback on this please - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Higher_Education_Policy_Institute - I know I submitted it only a few days ago, but I have been trying for some time now, and really want to get this right!!! Thank you!

Barlingsouth (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick read, your sources are terrible. With the exceptions of itv (404'd), Financial Times (Walled) and the two HEPI-controlled sources (connexion to subject) all of your sources are too sparse to support an article on HEPI. None of them actually discuss the organisation in any significant depth, just summarising and analysing the conclusions of their studies. This isn't enough for notability, even for a think tank. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:00, 24 May 2021 review of draft by Mattstead[edit]


My Wikipedia submission was declined. It is an article describing a new open source format (MED) that is the next evolution of an existing format (MEF) for which there IS a wikipedia page. This does not make sense to me. I am the creator of both formats, but I was not the author of the existing MEF Wikipedia page.

MED == "Multiscale Electrophysiology Data" MEF == "Multiscale Electrophysiology Format"

Mattstead (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written more like a specsheet, not as an encyclopaedia article. We also don't do notability-by-osmosis. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_May_24&oldid=1043465521"