Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 1 << Mar | April | May >> April 3 >
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 2[edit]

02:49, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Patemagnan[edit]

Hi, I created an article about a synchronized skating team "Nova Sénior" using template used by other teams in Canada "Les Suprêmes (senior synchronized skating team)" :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Supr%C3%AAmes_(senior_synchronized_skating_team)", "NEXXICE":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXXICE" and "Black Ice":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ice_(synchronized_skating_team). This way all teams have the same pattern. I used exactly the same references. In fact, my references are up to date and do not lead to non-existent pages (without being mean to others). Note, the page is a starting point with basic information for now. One objective is for other Wikipedia pages on ice skating to reference the team page instead of just naming the team. Ex:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Synchronized_Skating_Championships By doing it this way, I thought it would make validation easier. If ISU.org and Skatecanada.ca (the two organizations being the main references in Canada and around the world) are not good references, then all team pages should be removed. So why are references good for some and not for others? (I may have missed something here) Patemagnan (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Patemagnan: per WP:NTEAM, sports teams must demonstrate notability according to the WP:GNG guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. Even if you consider this draft a "starting point" only, to be accepted for publication we still need to see evidence of notability. As for other articles that may exist on similar topics (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), we do not assess drafts by comparing them to existing articles, but rather by comparing them to the currently applicable guidelines. (If you have found other articles which similarly do not demonstrate notability and/or which have other problems, you're welcome to improve them or to flag up those issues by maintenance tags etc.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I will add more info and references to demonstrate notability. It's a lot of work to gather the information, especially when you have to go back in time and the sources of information move the documents around. On the team's site, I have given up tracking documents that move. Maybe I should use the Internet Archive more. Patemagnan (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:34, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Online Professionals[edit]

how would I know that my article was submitted successfully? Since my last edit on March 28 I didn't receive any message regarding the submission Online Professionals (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Online Professionals: the draft was declined on the 28th, after which you made one edit to it, but didn't resubmit it. Therefore it is not currently pending another review; you need to click on the blue 'resubmit' button to send it for another review. That said, this isn't a viable encyclopaedia article draft, so if you were to submit it as it currently stands, it would be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you have written appears to be the start of an essay, which is a completely different thing from a Wikipedia article: see NOTESSAY.
In order to write a Wikipedia article on the subject of online professionals, you need to
  1. Find several reliably published sources that talk at length about the subject "online professionals" specifically.
  2. Write a summary of what those sources say about the subject.
Not one of your current sources even mentions the phrase "online professional", and not one of them meets the criteria for a source to contribute towards establishing that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Editobd[edit]

What type Source i should on there? Do you like to tell me? 

Editobd (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Editobd: you need to stop this. It has already been pointed out repeatedly that the subject is not notable, and if you keep recreating this promo piece you will sooner or later get yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 2 April 2024 review of submission by 176.37.54.3[edit]

Hello, my article was previously declined, but I've made some changes and added more citation Does it look correct? Any recommendations highly appreciated 176.37.54.3 (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you have addressed the concerns of the reviewer, please resubmit the draft- we don't do pre-review reviews here. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly better referenced than when I reviewed it, but there is still quite a lot of unsupported content. For example, the entire 'Early Life and Education' section is unreferenced – where is that information coming from? What source provides this person's DOB (because it's not either of the two sources cited in the 1st para)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 2 April 2024 review of submission by SComfy[edit]

My article was rejected and I'd need help with making it suitable for submission. SComfy (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SComfy: your draft was only declined, not rejected (which is a terminal option). Before resubmitting, you need to address the decline reasons, namely: you need to show that this person is notable (none of the sources currently cited even contribute towards notability), and you need to support the content with reliable sources throughout (now some of the sources are less than reliable, and quite a lot of the content is entirely unsupported). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with this individual? 331dot (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Chparveshtaak[edit]

i do not have much reliable sources regarding this topic, So please help me to add this page to wikipedia articles. Chparveshtaak (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chparveshtaak, I don't see any improvement since the last decline, and there's already sufficient guidance available on how to improve it for it to be moved to the article space. However, if you can't find sources to establish notability and back up the statements, it can't be moved to the article space as your subject needs to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG for inclusion on Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Roblox678956568[edit]

Please fix the error the submission date will be changed to 9999 Years please can u do that? Roblox678956568 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean about 9999 years, but I have reverted your edit and restored the AFC comments and resubmission.
If you think that it is not ready to resubmit, you are welcome to remove the resubmission, but you should not remove the messages from the previous submission. ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Gauravdelhi.wiki[edit]

What should we do now with this draft? Should we edit the article or leave it? Gauravdelhi.wiki (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gauravdelhi.wiki, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Also, it seems like multiple people are using this account since you referred to yourself with 'we.' Is this the case? – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time. where i am living, representing yourself as a "we" is vogue. Gauravdelhi.wiki (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response; that makes sense. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Montagneverte[edit]

Hello, my draft has been rejected on the basis of a lack of inline citations. I am puzzled because I have given a long list of footnotes in the article. Help please! Montagneverte (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 2 April 2024 review of submission by 108.41.0.192[edit]

Hello - may we know the reason that this article was deemed contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? 108.41.0.192 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "we" do you mean that you work for DLC.link? If so the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. The draft talks very little about DLC.link. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Jfashl[edit]

Review for Approval of Draft Jfashl (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Call2action[edit]

We would like people to be informed about the background and history of our new unique media company for the Real Estate industry. It seems standard practice for companies to be documented and registered on Wikipedia so I do not understand the comment "contrary to Wikipedia's charter". Please advise if we did not structure this correctly, thank you. Call2action (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Promotion is that the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gave them my standard deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - with all due respect, we are not documenting our company for promotion here as our audience does not reside here. We are merely documenting our progress as a startup as do many other companies see: HubSpot
What is the effective difference in these companies history vs ours? Is there a clear policy guideline here as again our intent is not promotion. Call2action (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Call2action You don't need the whole url when linking, just the title. Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles that themselves may be problematic(which you would be unaware of) is not justification for other articles to exist. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits.
The effective difference is that most articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. If you have evidence that HubSpot employees wrote that article without disclosing that fact, please see WP:PAID for how you can provide that evidence.
"Startup" companies almost never merit articles. A company must typically become established and recognized as an authority or player in a field by independent sources to merit an article. Wikipedia has no interest in what your company considers to be important about itself and what it considers to be its history- that's what your own website and social media are for. Wikipedia is interested in what others consider to be important about and the history of, your company and how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an employee, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure. Please also see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. Call2action (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Seeking absolute truth[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your review. This article was declined primarily because "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". But I have pointed to secondary sources like National Academy of Education, National Academy of Arts and Sciences, and New Meridian that do not just make passing mention, but has Henry Braun's full bio. I also included independent sources (like "American Statistical Association Fellows list" and "Complete list of fellows of American Educational Research Association") to prove Henry's fellow statuses and awards. So, pretty much everything I wrote about him can be verified from other sources some of whom seem to give significant coverage. Would you please point to any flaw in my argument? Or would you please let me know if you consider sources like National Academy of Education and National Academy of Arts and Sciences to be unimportant? Thanks. Seeking absolute truth (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seeking absolute truth, the reference are fine. The criteria for having an article about an academic are listed at WP:NPROF and only one of these needs to be met. Braun meets two, as holding a named professorship and as a fellow. Many reviewers are unfamiliar with reviewing articles about academics. But the article as written reads like the sort of profile posted at places like this rather than an encyclopedia article. Forget about the keynote speaker and committee stuff. Write about his work and research. He is known and influential for his work on education inequality, and needs to be covered here. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much StarryGrandma--that is very helpful. You seem to be so much better than the reviewers whose main goal in life seems to be rejecting Wikipedia articles rather than helping people write articles that would help Wikipedia readers :-) Seeking absolute truth (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seeking absolute truth, we are flooded with drafts about non-notable people and companies who want "profiles" for publicity purposes and reviewers get tired. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking absolute truth No reviewer's goal is to reject articles; our goal is to make sure sourcing, style, and notability are demonstrated.A draft being "helpful" does not play into it; spammers and marketers think that what they do is "helpful"- we are flooded with efforts at "profiles" and as StarryGrandma notes, it can be tiring to go through them. Please try to see our side, thanks. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 2 April 2024 review of submission by Hkc345[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if there is a way to hide/remove the "paid contributions" box at the top of the page? I'd appreciated it a lot. Thank you. Hkc345 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This board is for asking questions about drafts in the submission process, not articles in the encyclopedia. In the future please use the regular help desk. To answer you, the tag will eventually be reviewed by an independent editor. There is no way to speed this up. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_2&oldid=1217833353"