Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 November 22

= November 22 =

04:13:28, 22 November 2019 review of draft by 2604:2000:80C2:1000:534:A1E0:7C91:E07D
I'm unclear as to why my edits were declined. The sources that I cited for the Mei Messaging article were Wikipedia itself, which, to my understanding, is a verifiable source. Can someone kindly clarify?

2604:2000:80C2:1000:534:A1E0:7C91:E07D (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think what the reviewer meant is that wikis are not reliable sources, i.e. yourdictionary.com. They fall under user-generated content and thus are inherently unreliable. By the way, Wikipedia itself is similarly unusable, although for slightly different reason.
 * In any case, you need multiple in-depth sources, not just dictionary entries. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

05:38:23, 22 November 2019 review of submission by Melofors
Hey, there. This draft is undeniably notable with many notable sources from gaming sites and even from mainstream media such as The Independent and Newsweek, as well as a Pearson Education-published article. This by itself should be enough to convince someone that the topic is notable. On top of that, I believe that the draft is well-written and structured. As said, "At worst, the draft should have been declined with ample explanation of why multiple independent in-depth sources about the subject that are vetted at WP:VG/RS are not sufficient for GNG or how the topic at large is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose." Please consider my request, and thank you in advance. -Melofors (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have contacted the admin who protected the page in the mainspace so this can be sorted out. This was a horrific rejection of a draft that met WP:GNG (with a clear need of expansion but WP:NORUSH), maybe one of the worst ones I have seen. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

10:30:02, 22 November 2019 review of submission by LoveLearning55
Ok so I published my draft for the page Dyslexia Gold and it got declined on the basis of no independent sources. But I would have assumed that bdadyslexia.org.uk/shop/assured/dyslexia-gold is an independent source of Dyslexia Gold. What makes this non- independent? LoveLearning55 (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is just an advert for Dyslexia Gold on the The British Dyslexia Association website. Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an advert. It's BDA Assured which according to the BDA means "Assured products we believe are effective at identifying or supporting dyslexia if used as intended, developed from generally accepted and well-established science, and make marketing claims that accurately reflect what a user can expect – based on the evidence provided to us." so the BDA must have looked at evidence from Dyslexia Gold and said all the claims they make are backed up. --82.36.137.106 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Dyslexia Gold’s unique online programs develop the skills needed for reading. Based on the latest research, our structured programs improve phonological awareness and eye tracking" is absolutely an advert it's written by Dyslexia Gold and cannot be construed as an in-depth independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)