Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 10

= January 10 =

01:52:20, 10 January 2020 review of submission by Ghost finders
Because this micronation exists. Ghost finders (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not publish such content. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sourcing doesn't demonstrate notability. A made up place that only exists in Google places is not going to become an article. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

05:27:59, 10 January 2020 review of draft by Aashishlowanshi
For a think tank page, is it okay to take the content from their about us page? For the page that I am trying to create has a great detail on their about is page, rewriting it might not justify the context so have taken it from their website only. I am assuming this comes under fare use of the copyright, I request the reviewer to guide me with this. Aashishlowanshi (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In short, no. See also WP:COPYPASTE. Fair use does not apply here because you can easily reword and paraphrase the important parts of the content without actually copying anything. Besides, you should minimize any content you take from primary sources (i.e. their own website). Content should come from secondary sources and only the most straight-forward uncontroversial facts can come from primary sources. Usually, almost everything companies say about themselves is not usable for sourcing, because they are biased about themselves and only present their side of the story, so to speak. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

11:03:05, 10 January 2020 review of draft by KhalsaSarabjitS
Hi, I have submitted an article today "Sewewala Sahib", this article would help a lot spiritual seekers across the world as there is no information available on internet regarding this shrine. Hence I request the editors to review this article and make it live at the earliest. KhalsaSarabjitS (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I reviewed it. You need to have sources. Wikipedia does not publish articles without sourcing. There are many other places where you can publish your material otherwise. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

12:47:59, 10 January 2020 review of submission by Johandgiki
Hi there, Thank you for reviewing the page we submnitted. I am requesting a re review of our page because it was rejected for being contrary to the purposes of wikipedia. Our aim to to provide free, independent transparent information to consumers to help them live more sustainably and reduce their environmental impact. We have started with 280,000 of the most common UK supermarket products - we rate them (we don't sell them, or have any affiliate links, we are purely a free information provider.). We are funded through philanthropy and social impact investment. We have 3 staff, 2 of whom are not paid and work with multiple volunteers. Our purpose is to help solve the multitude of environmental crises facing our planet at the moment, bu enabling individuals and communities to understand and reduce their own environmental impact. We do not wish to use Wikipedia as a sales or self promotion platform, or vanity project, merely to enable people to find out more about Giki should they want to. Would it be possible to detail which of the five pillars we did not comply with and I try can address this. Thank you very much jo Johandgiki (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft violates pillars 1 and 2, and the conflict of interest behavioural guideline. Rejection is intended to convey that volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

13:31:40, 10 January 2020 review of draft by Sushi Roll
Hi, would like to know why my page got declined. We have entered 2020 decade and there should be a new list of Mediacorp Channel 8 dramas. Please do let me know if I missed out anything :)

Sushi Roll (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft fails to show that the topic meets WP:LISTN. It also begs the question of whether the community should delete:
 * List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series before 1982
 * List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2000s)
 * List of Mediacorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s)
 * List of variety and infotainment programmes broadcast by Mediacorp Channel 8
 * Whether the 2010s list should exist has been discussed once before, but the results were inconclusive. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree and have nommed them for deletion. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

17:19:12, 10 January 2020 review of submission by Thebeans120
I am trying to write a page on my school. I keep getting declined, and it wont let me try anymore. I am very sad. I don know how to see if a source is verifiable. And that is what I kept getting declined for. I tried to fix the problems every time. Now, they wont let me try and edit it again. Thebeans120 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Howdy hello! I know it feels bad to have your work rejected. But the reason here is out of your control. I'm afraid that most middle schools just don't meet our notability guidelines. Very few middle schools are actually well known enough to qualify for an article. I'm afraid your school just doesn't cut it. No amount of editing can fix that problem. Writing an article from scratch is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. If you ever want to write another article from scratch, leave a note on my talkpage, or at the friendly Teahouse to first see if the subject is notable. You are also to ask any question you have at those places too. In the meantime, I hope you stick around and edit some already existing pages. By fixing pages that are already deemed notable, you'll get a good feel for how Wikipedia works. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

17:50:41, 10 January 2020 review of draft by XinaZonos
xinadt (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I addressed the issues of the first decline on this draft by rewriting it to make the article more neutral and added more secondary sources for this company. I didn't realize that having links to plugin listings on other websites would be inappropriate. If I were simply to take those specific references off, would that be enough to get this article approved? Thanks for your time. If not, what else should be fixed?
 * The main issue is lack of reliable independent in-depth sourcing. If you can't add such sources, then no amount of editing will get the article approved. The links to purchase websites are just the worst examples in this case. At the end of the day, there are millions of companies and hardly any are notable by having good sourcing. It doesn't seem likely that there are such sources in this case (or I presume you would have already added them). — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I did a quick search and could only find a podcast [], a similarly bad source since it's primary. There doesn't seem to be enough media coverage of the company to show notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)