Help desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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.

March 30[edit]

03:41:53, 30 March 2022 review of submission by Utilito[edit]

Utilito (talk · contribs)

Got your email that said my initial submission was disallowed. It suggested I go to articles creation for more info on why it was rejected, so I did that. BUT, the list of files that have been considered does not show a submission by me. SO, I can't what what considered lacking. I provided a footnote for every biographical fact, all from pertinent, objective sources. Without more info about the objections, I can't edit to fix those. What do you suggest I do ? /s/ Utilito (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Utilito: Two of your sources are basically content-free profiles and the third is evidently written by him. We either need in-depth, non-routine, independent news articles written by identifiable authors and published in outlets with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts, or we need some ironclad evidence he meets any of the bullets listed at WP:NACADEMIC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the draft to add links to faculty bio pages from the Ohio State University Law School website. Not sure about how to 'prove' military service - assist? Thx Utilito (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday chicken[edit]

i created an article that was meant to be joke so why my article gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holiday chicken (talk • contribs) 04:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday chicken, encyclopedia articles and jokes are very different concepts. Your submission was an unacceptable piece of garbage. Stop writing that kind of thing, or you will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:50:39, 30 March 2022 review of submission by TandinPeday[edit]

TandinPeday (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Trans Bhutan Trail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TandinPeday (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Hello! We have been declined multiple times as we did not have enough notable sources/references. I have just added a section of the press coverage Trans Bhutan Trail has been featured in - hopefully this is ok and can help us get this live? We can also add to this month on month as we are seeing a lot of press interest. Many thanks.[reply]

Draft:Trans Bhutan Trail was declined 7 times and now rejected, I suggest you find another topic to edit, this one will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TandinPeday (ec) Who is "we" and "us"? Only a single person should be operating your account. The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. The sources you have offered are simply not appropriate for establishing notability, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I have referred to "We" I represent the organisation of the Trans Bhutan Trail - a non for profit organisation that have restored this historical trail. The Trans Bhutan Trail is an important historical route of Bhutan and now restored, will soon be considered one of the World's Greatest Walks as featured in the World Trail's Network this weekend. Would it be advisable to wait longer when we have more sources to resubmit again? Many thanks. TandinPeday (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TandinPeday Please read conflict of interest. If you are compensated in any way(not just money or even anything tangible) for your work with the organization, you are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing declaration. If you are not compensated in any way, you do not need to.

Waiting is going to be a must- and it would be better if you simply allowed independent editors to take note of the trail in independent reliable sources and choose to write about it on their own without any involvement from your organization. Trying to force the issue yourselves is, as you can see, not usually successful. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TandinPeday Save your work, then start a new article from scratch. Use this source from CNN to write the majority of the article, and don't include anything else that isn't sourced. Don't include sources that don't have writers' names. Avoid anything that looks like it's a near copy and paste from CNN, including articles by non-journalists such as Forbes "contributors" or commercial sites that exist to sell tours. Especially don't include info that there are spirits on the trail as if this is accepted by everyone to be true. You can phrase it differently, such as "Locals believe there are spirits along the trail", but that also needs to be sourced. Keep looking for more media coverage. You'll need it, but there's hope. Also declare your WP:COI on the talk page, per 331dot. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:56, 30 March 2022 review of submission by Bill Skidd[edit]

Bill Skidd (talk · contribs)

Hi all, first-time contributor. I got declined and had a message from Numberguy6 that my article sounded too much like an advertisement. I modeled it after entries for similar companies (cryptocurrency exchanges). The first draft was a bit of a borrow from their material, but this one I thought I had pretty neutral. I welcome any advice on how to adjust to get the entry posted. Thanks!!

Bill Skidd (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a topic you're SURE you want to edit about? I would strongly recommend you abandon the draft and spend some time editing other Wikipedia pages outside of topic-areas under sanctions first. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Skidd: You need to first demonstrate notability of the company, and that comes from showing that media coverage or other reliable sources exist. See WP:NCORP and WP:RS. Avoid blogs and promotional crypto sites that make money steering buyers to companies. This is normally very hard, and crypto articles are even harder, due to the poor or limited sourcing editors try to use. Don't write anything that doesn't come from a good source. If you can't do this, then the subject simply isn't notable enough for an article. Don't get lulled by other poorly sourced articles that may have snuck in under the radar. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unlike actual money, crypto is worthless unless others are convinced to buy it, so we are extra wary about articles like yours, and require a high degree of sourcing. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you don't like crypto much. As a Series 7 and Series 55 financial license holder, I don't consider the $2 Trillion crypto market "worthless" nor do tens of millions of others. The "poorly sourced articles" you mention literally have millions of fellow nerd readers. I also referenced other sources including Yahoo! Finance and a global soccer publication (only for where I mention the $170 Million branding deal they did with David Beckham). $100 Million of crypto aid flowed into Ukraine while the U.N. is still discussing action. Perhaps the U.N. isn't notable.

The notability of the company is well known in the industry. With projects across the U.S., Europe and now Africa, I don't think it's irrelevant even to people who have zero interest in crypto. And C'mon man! Beckham!! :) 69.123.127.52 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fucking good reason why we don't like crypto much, and it's because of the constant promotion in the space by conflict-of-interest editors such as yourself. This is not a topic area new users to Wikipedia should be editing in, full stop. (BTW, their deal with Beckham is completely irrelevant. We do not do notability-by-osmosis.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]