Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 July 21

= July 21 =

00:03:02, 21 July 2020 review of submission by 2406:3400:312:4E30:98E9:A81E:BF80:56D
I am not requesting to re-review, I am requesting to find out what I can do make this content as objective as possible to it can be approved.

We are not looking to use this as a form of advertising, we merely just want to establish a page that outlines who we are, how we were established and what we do and.

Or alternatively, can you point me in the direction of utilising a non-bias writer to produce the content?

Thanks!

2406:3400:312:4E30:98E9:A81E:BF80:56D (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You will need to review and comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. What you describe as your intentions here is considered promotional on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves.  This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to(in this case) meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization.  Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected to the organization have chosen on their own to say about it. The sources you provided are not significant coverage.  The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.
 * You can make a request for others to write about your organization on Requested Articles, but there are literally tens of thousands of requests and any request you make will likely not be acted on anytime soon, if ever. If you want to tell the world about your organization, you should use social media or some alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

03:30:06, 21 July 2020 review of submission by 6Lizardthewizard9
I am requesting that the page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Greg_Yuna be published as a notable person of interest. Multiple links have been added to confirm the legitimacy of the person.

6Lizardthewizard9 (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

04:01:23, 21 July 2020 review of submission by 2604:2000:12C1:4A:F109:3949:BCC2:8FB0
Hey, this page continues to be rejected after it has been accepted previously. The rejections are vague so it's hard what needs to be improved about the article. If it's an issue of notability, the reason I began the page in the first place is that there was a open request for the article here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_education/US_-_Yale. Curious what can be done about this.

2604:2000:12C1:4A:F109:3949:BCC2:8FB0 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . The draft was declined because its sources do not make clear that the subject is notable. The request page that you linked to begins with the disclaimer, in a red-bordered box "All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify."
 * The draft has many citations, so assume the problem is with their quality rather than quantity. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their subject. If you can't demonstrate notability with 3, you won't be able to with 49. Concentrate in particular on independence, you don't want things written by her, but things written about her by other people. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

06:41:20, 21 July 2020 review of draft by Diamond909
i created a wikipedia Articale then Submission declined this created with 100% wikipedia guideline with wiki rules please let us know y this article not been published need some help to be published in wikipedia thank you...

diamond plastic company (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft has no independent reliable sources A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself.  If you work for or represent this company, you must review and formally comply with the paid editing and conflict of interest policies. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is not "100% Wikipedia guidelines" nor it is 100% within Wikipedia Guidelines. As for the problems I see so far:


 * You use the pronoun "we". Wikipedia accounts are single-person only.
 * If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your edits to Wikipedia, you must declare that. This is a Terms of use requirement and not negotiable.
 * Your submission lacks any source for the information given. Please note that Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about itself, rather what independent people have written about it in reliable sources.
 * As it has no sources, it currently fails to indicate how this company meets Wikipedia's definition of a noteable company. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

07:24:30, 21 July 2020 review of draft by CareAtya
CareAtya (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I Want to know why you guys not given priority who are doing great things ... everyone not doing market ... Many of people doing great thing every day but no one know much more so its our responsblity to represent his quality world wide.. so my concern is give chance who want to devlope or want to support society..
 * Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about great things that are going on. This is an encyclopedia, which has articles that summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.  If you just want to tell the world about this company or the great things it does, you should use social media or some alternative outlet where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

07:50:46, 21 July 2020 review of submission by KKVinci
KKVinci (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * interviews aren't independent. Neither are the subjects social media channels. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

08:30:35, 21 July 2020 review of submission by B.n1995
Hi everybody! I have created the draft Lukas Meyer and have edited it according to claims made by other users. I am wondering what is still missing?

Best B.n1995 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . The lead should tell the reader in the first sentence or two why this philosopher is notable, which criteria of WP:PROF he satisfies. See, for example, Georg Cantor and Max Weber. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Worldbruce! Thank you for the advice. I have added that now.

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.n1995 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

09:07:03, 21 July 2020 review of submission by Diamond909
diamond plastic company (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This has already been addressed above. Please do not make additional discussion sections.  If you have additional questions, please add them to the prior discussion above. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

11:34:45, 21 July 2020 review of submission by Schanu
I have no connection with either Mark Janicello or his TV show, "The Finellis", but rather find him an interesting artist whose work should be written about. I am not particularly a fan, but have noticed his endeavors in various fields of art over the years. The reporting on "The Finellis" is no different in tone and content than for most television series. This is factual reporting with enough verifiable references, and I do not understand the reluctance to publish this page Schanu (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

12:01:23, 21 July 2020 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:9129:6211:83A0:1468
I'd like this page re-reviewed as we have updated it accordingly based on the feedback given last time. We'd like to get this published. 2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:9129:6211:83A0:1468 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who "we" is, but the draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that this person does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person.  The sources seem to be press release type stories, routine announcements, or other primary sources that do not establish notability.  A Wikipedia article must do more than tell about the subject and cite the things they have done; any article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how they meet the definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

12:57:58, 21 July 2020 review of submission by 216.174.67.169
This article is noteworthy I believe. It fits into the historical context of the Napoleonic Wars.

216.174.67.169 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, if you submit again, I'll approve. I agree that the persion is notable as has Flag Rank. And while the references can be improved, they have gotten better.Naraht (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

13:12:52, 21 July 2020 review of draft by AProGeek
I'm wondering if it is suitable to site a source that covers that topic but also another that does a little AProGeek (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

16:23:35, 21 July 2020 review of submission by Mujeebuddin1543
The page i am requesting for is a genuine application which has potential to help millions of unemployed youth out there and people has right to know the information if there is something that can change their lives and help them financially in this pandemic, i request you to kindly approve the page Mujeebuddin1543 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikipedia is not for advertising.  JTP (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 17:26:38, 21 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Evgeny Kandybko
Dear Sir/Madam,

My Wikipedia draft for International Cultural Diversity Organization (ICDO) has been declined with the explanation it looks more like an advertisement than an article. I would appreciate very much being directed more specifically about the parts that need to be revised or changed.

Sincerely, Evgeny Kandybko

Evgeny Kandybko (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well for example the very first paragraph contains this "The ICDO team includes multicultural and multidisciplinary experts from various fields that use their expertise to fulfill ICDO’s mission and goals to shape a future where different groups of people are able to embrace each other’s cultural differences." which is entirely advertorial, it is followed by a mission statement, which we have no interest in. Theroadislong (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)