Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 6

= January 6 =

06:12:47, 6 January 2020 review of submission by Gscroggins
My article says it ways excepted, however when I look in up on google I do not find the article.

Gscroggins (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have replied to the user on my talk, explaining the issue. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

12:18:00, 6 January 2020 review of submission by OBJEnter
Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}}

OBJEnter (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC) I'm re-reviewing because my page was declained, Please approve my page
 * , I take it you refer to User:OBJEnter/sandbox. When we reject a page, we do so for a reason. The reason here was that it has literally no sources, and is purely promotional. Wikipedia does not exist to promote its subjects. If the subject is in fact notable, i.e. they have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, then you could write an article. If such sourcing does not exist, you cannot write that article.


 * Regardless, you will need to change your username first, as it represents a company, not an individual. Further details will follow. Your account will be blocked for a period until you change your name.


 * If you go back to editing, you must also declare any conflict of interest. If you have recieved compensation, or are an employee at the company, you must disclose a financial connection by following the paid editing guidelines. Failing to do so is a violation of the terms of service. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

13:08:17, 6 January 2020 review of submission by EnterprenuerPrince
EnterprenuerPrince (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , There are not enough reliable sources that cover the subject, thus it is not notable. Please focus on editing on some existing articles to get a feel for policies. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article appears to be a hoax. None of the sources mention the company, and the website address in thee infobox is dead. The draft should be nuked. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

13:17:08, 6 January 2020 review of submission by CCHPEN2828
CCHPEN2828 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , The article provided no sources, no credible assertion of importance, and was written in a promotional tone. You will need at least 3 (and usually more) high quality references that discuss the subject with significant coverage and that are reliable and indepednet. If such sources cannot be found, the subject is not notable. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

15:34:01, 6 January 2020 review of draft by Ninbelle
Hello! The draft of my page has been declined twice. I fixed the issue the reviewer mentioned the first time it was declined, so I'm not sure why it was declined a second time. The second reviewer did not leave any specific feedback, but said the draft read like an "advertisement." I do not understand what parts of the draft read as an advertisement. Would someone be able to provide me with more specific feedback on how I might improve my draft? Thank you.

Ninbelle (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - the main problem is that there is no media coverage of the group. Without proper sourcing, there's no indication that the organization is notable enough for an article. The advertising charge is probably because there's a lot of unsourced detail about how the group functions and how it chooses issues and causes to fund.  I did a Google search and couldn't find any media coverage of the group, which suggests that even if the tone was non-advertorial, the article would still not be accepted. You may find it more worthwhile to instead focus on putting information about the group on other sites that allow you more flexibility with the content, such as social media platforms. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

17:00:32, 6 January 2020 review of submission by 106.203.95.181
I need for re-review of this page because my developer is editing this page simultaneously and working on our wiki page

Kindly review again and publish this page

We do wiki edit and work here keenly 106.203.95.181 (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your developer? That is a conflict of interest and requires a WP:PAID disclosure. Furthermore, the page is against our guidelines. It is not in english. It is purely promotional. Thus it will be speedily deleted. If you want to contribute in a useful way, ask here how to do so. Otherwise, your advertising efforts are best suited to a venue that isn't Wikipedia. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

17:54:57, 6 January 2020 review of submission by Brona C Titley
I don't understand why it was rejected. I am writing a page that does not currently exist and all facts are true as it is a personal page. Brona C Titley (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles on people and topics that are notable, you have not indicated why you are notable enough for an article? Most of us are not notable enough for articles to be written about us. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

18:42:36, 6 January 2020 review of submission by Danyaalsabres
Individual has local credibility with the University of Nottingham. Danyaalsabres (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Well you've not yet shown that. You need at least 3, and preferably more, reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject with significant coverage. If such sourcing does not exist, the subject is not notable. It may just be WP:TOOSOON for them. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

18:49:13, 6 January 2020 review of submission by Michaelsutyak
I have made changes as set out by the guidelines, but the page has still not been published. It is very similar to other company pages I have seen published.

Michaelsutyak (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please be patient while waiting for a review. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and the backlog is quite long at the moment.
 * Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
 * Taking a look at your article, I see that it seems to be fairly promotional, and does not cover the subject from an encyclopedic perspective. I would still caution that you need better sources too. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at your article, I see that it seems to be fairly promotional, and does not cover the subject from an encyclopedic perspective. I would still caution that you need better sources too. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at your article, I see that it seems to be fairly promotional, and does not cover the subject from an encyclopedic perspective. I would still caution that you need better sources too. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

19:07:14, 6 January 2020 review of draft by Monmouth1946
Monmouth1946 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC) i would like to have an editor take a look at article before submission. i dont understand whybthe last two citations say to check URL. Also check to see if article Is written correctly. thank You, Nnmouth1946Monmouth1946 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is still some way from being an acceptable article. It isn't written in a neutral, encylopedic tone, and it doesn't have enough inline citations to indicate where the material is sourced from. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

19:30:24, 6 January 2020 review of draft by Ilovenoida
User:Ilovenoida/sandbox

why page is been declined ?

Ilovenoida (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the message on the draft page in the pink box? It says "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" and "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". Those are the (main) reasons. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

22:46:34, 6 January 2020 review of submission by Aejudy
According to the reviewers, the subject (Betsy Sullenger) might not be eligible for a wiki page because they do not have any online articles independently written about them. However, with the paper articles I have sourced, the subject (Betsy Sullenger) is independently written about. I have added online sources because it was stated those are required, but there are not that many online sources on her, as most of independent work she has done was written about in the paper articles many years ago. Therefore, I do not know what else to add to make the wiki page legitimate/ publishable. Please, give suggestions. Aejudy (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Aejudy (talk). I just did a search and added a reference from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, but it was the only valid source I could find. References don't need to be online; if you have independent articles that have been written about her you can use them to support her notability. See information about offline sources, here. JSFarman (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 23:53:56, 6 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Nizz
Dear helpers,

I'm a long time French wikipedia contributor and I just started contributing to the English sister. I'm here seeking your help regarding a submission about a Japanese securities firm that has ample coverage in Japanese reputable sources but my draft keeps getting rejected because the company doesn't seem notable and well covered in English. How do you usually deal with that? Here's the company in question JP entry btw https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%89%E7%94%B0%E8%A8%BC%E5%88%B8 and above my draft submission. I was planning to write/draft about many similar financial Japanese firms but I'd like to seek guidance on how to deal with notability especially when sources are not in English. Thank you very much!

Nizz (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * - hi Nizz, welcome to en-wiki. We're happy to use Japanese sources, so long as they pass our sourcing rules (reliable, independent etc etc), so use of the best of the sources from ja.wikipedia would probably be the best way to go. Using the translated source title/details, rather than a direct duplication, is preferred. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * - Thank your for your timely and useful hints. Will surely try again using non English notable sources with translated metadata as you suggested.