Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 January 23
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 22 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 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. |
January 23[edit]
00:28:15, 23 January 2022 review of submission by Sunil2404[edit]
Sunil2404 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I wrote an article about a crypto project and also provided the link of an article published on Postmannews but still it got rejected. Please help me to publish the article.
- Sunil2404, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. It requires independent, reliable secondary sources discussing the subject and must be written in a neutral tone. Additionally, it has been tagged for deletion as in its current state, there is no chance of it being an article.Slywriter (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Sunil2404: Care to take a mulligan on the topic area? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
06:15:05, 23 January 2022 review of draft by Deshabandara[edit]
- Deshabandara (talk · contribs)
My Article "Ruwan Fernando" has been rejected due to lack of references. Shall I put the youtube links of my released video songs? Deshabandara (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Deshabandara: No, because we shouldn't be citing music videos for anything (no editorial oversight/connexion to subject). We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
06:55:41, 23 January 2022 review of submission by 192.88.124.49[edit]
I have resubmitted much more information to Wikipedia in the correct format and would like it to be re-reviewed and aproved.
192.88.124.49 (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further barring considerably more and considerably better sources; we do not cite LinkedIn for anything. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I can understand there are long pending request but cannot expect rejection within 3 minutes of publishing my content.
Reference are from wikipedia pages itself.
Will request to review it again and I promise, I will keep updating the page.
Sachitj (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Sachitj: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. The article as written is also promotional ("is a respectable and acclaimed name in the world of short films"? Really?). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
07:58:20, 23 January 2022 review of submission by ArticleCompiler[edit]
Hello, I would like advice on how to improve my submission for it to be accepted. I have read the guidelines and advice but I am at loss as to how to implement the general notability guideline.
Thank you in advance.
ArticleCompiler (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ArticleCompiler: Absent more and better sources that discuss Tantei at length, this draft isn't going anywhere. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
16:53:57, 23 January 2022 review of submission by profjrhodes[edit]
- profjrhodes (talk · contribs)
The page got declined because of lack of reliable sources--don't know how to address this, since I provided official/public websites verifying claims...? Also, maybe my reference style is incorrect. Help! (Note: I have announced my potential conflict of interest here. I don't editorialize, just list verifiable facts. Profjrhodes (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
18:23:51, 23 January 2022 review of submission by Ugloud[edit]
Ugloud (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ugloud, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for promotional content. Articles must be sourced to reliable, independent sources.Slywriter (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)