Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 March 5

= March 5 =

Request on 05:54:00, 5 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Toorkhan Taj
Toorkhan Taj (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Is it possible to write a page for your own achievement or work. Which is already available on other internet platforms. Like Google play store etc. If not them is there any alternative? Or is there anyone can write it for me. Or why someone has to write a page about my game. Why not me? Why I get objection that is advertisement or promotion? In fact everything is written about anything is promotion or advertisement. Thanks
 * Wikipedia is not a platform for people to tell the world about themselves or what they do. That's what social media is for.  Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources state about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability.  Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about itself or its own work. You have what we call a conflict of interest. If you just want to tell the world about your work, you should use social media or some other alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

06:40:54, 5 March 2020 review of submission by DipSagarregmi12
DipSagarregmi12 (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

06:54:33, 5 March 2020 review of submission by DipSagarregmi12
DipSagarregmi12 (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

08:04:32, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Prajnadutta
I have removed your draft from this page, as it is not necessary to place it here. Looking at it, you seem to be attempting to tell the world about yourself- please read the autobiography policy to learn why this is not a good idea. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject, not what the subject says about itself. This is usually very hard for people to do about themselves, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

09:32:13, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Basilseo
Basilseo (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the advice you have already been given is quite correct. If Joboy is your client, you must review and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

10:52:49, 5 March 2020 review of draft by StephaniePolystream
I am trying to submit a new page on wikipedia, however, it has been declined. Please can you assist? I have added relevant references and hyperlinks to the page.

StephaniePolystream (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You were given some advice when you draft was declined. The sources you have offered seem to be press releases or routine announcements; these do not establish that this company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. What is required are independent reliable sources with significant coverage, written by sources that have chosen on their own to give significant coverage of the company itself(not just its products).  You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
 * If you work for this company, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

14:38:12, 5 March 2020 review of submission by DipSagarregmi12
DipSagarregmi12 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Why my article is rejected ?
 * I assume this refers to your sandbox- you were given extensive explanation there. Is there something about it that you do not understand? 331dot (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually i am new to wikipedia ...What i did not understand the reason from sandbox also DipSagarregmi12 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not provided independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing how this man meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician or a notable songwriter. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * User:DipSagarregmi12/sandbox was rejected because the topic is not notable. Nepalireport is a self-published blog, so not a reliable source. Saptahik is reliable, but that article appears to be churnalism, so lacking in independence. Nepali Times Australia is of dubious reliability. It does not appear to have any connection to the reliable Nepali Times. Self-published YouTube videos do nothing to help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

15:21:43, 5 March 2020 review of draft by Djblackwood
I don't understand why my page Draft:Rider's Harbour has been rejected when there are other similar pages such as Barton, Newfoundland and Labrador which have less information and no sources. These are both abandoned communities in Newfoundland. How is one different from the other?

djblackwood (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They aren't, so I have proposed the other article for deletion. Beware in citing other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see WP:OSE. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years.  We can only address inappropriate articles when they are pointed out. Any article must do more than describe the mere existence of something, reliable sources with significant coverage must also be provided; the article must summarize those sources. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There are hundreds of such pages (see List of ghost towns in Newfoundland and Labrador), that constitute a significant part of the history of Newfoundland. Simply deleting them all is a rather arbitrary and unreasonable solution. Once again Wikipedia'a arcane rules are driving contributors away rather than encouraging their contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djblackwood (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The applicable arcane rule (a.k.a. notability guideline) is WP:GEOLAND. Under it, even abandoned places are typically presumed to merit a stand alone article, so long as they were once populated and legally recognized. Any content, however, must be verifiable in reliable sources, and two of the three cited sources in Draft:Rider's Harbour were not reliable. You may be able to use the two paragraphs on page 597 of the Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador, volume 4, or some of the books in, to either bring the draft up to scratch or to improve Random Island, which makes many unsourced statements. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

16:45:39, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Keglemitch1
I didn't understand very well the reasons why my draft about kid unboxing is not correct. Is it a problem of references and sources? How can I adjust it? Keglemitch1 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , The concern is that there already seems to be an existing article at Unboxing which is essentially covering the same issue. I think that any useful content could be condensed into one or two parapgraphs and added to the Unboxing article, instead of being a separate article. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

17:12:16, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Antiques26
Hello, my draft of Draft:WorthPoint was rejected for notability and I'm hoping that I can get some additional feedback as to what kind of sourcing mistakes I've made. There are many more possible references out there, but I have read the standards and am not clear on why the existing ones fail so I don't know which others may be helpful to add. Thank you!

Antiques26 (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources do not have the significant coverage of this company itself that is required, they are all brief coverage of things the company has done, not of the company itself. One is an interview with the company CEO, which is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

17:46:30, 5 March 2020 review of draft by Adavolo
Hi, I'm trying to publish an article about one of the logistics company that is based on the blockchain technology, but my article was declined because of sources and the style of the article. I pointed out the sources as a website when indeed it was news. I want to know if I will rewrite the article and name those sources as news, will my submission be accepted? Adavolo (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Adavolo (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to answer you without seeing the improvements you wish to make. It's not just about naming sources, it's about the article content as well, as the article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. If you work for this company in any way, you must declare as a paid editor as well as a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

18:04:02, 5 March 2020 review of draft by SageMacG
Hello, I'm an brand-new user so I apologize in advance for being unfamiliar with the methods and systems here. I really appreciate the thorough vetting and dedication to good data, and value the time volunteers put into this platform.

I just had my first article rejected, so I carefully read the critique so I could make the article comply with Wikipedia's policies. However, I'm having trouble understanding how the critique applies to my article. The critique was "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." To address the latter first, all my sources were independent, reliable, published sources and the only material produced by the subject is the 'official site' link in the External links section. To address the former, I believe the only area that reads like an advertisement is "Reviews and Commentary" all of which are independent sources. I've seen other artists pages use this same technique, (for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kelly_(artist)) but I am happy to delete that section if it will make the page publishable. It would be really helpful if someone could point out specifics of how the content doesn't meet the guidelines.

Thank you so much in advance to anyone who is willing to volunteer their time to help me with this. I'm really trying to do this fairly in spite of my stated COI.

Thank you!

SageMacG (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

20:30:23, 5 March 2020 review of draft by MortgageGuru23
Hello! I was wondering if someone could take a look at my draft before I submit it. I feel like I have taken a lot of guidance and fixed many of the issues that other editors have mentioned. I have also confirmed that I am not being paid for my edits (see discussion on my talk page).

Let me know if there's anything more I need to do...

thanks!

MortgageGuru23 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

MortgageGuru23 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

21:05:52, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Guettli
My first reviewer told me this:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Canonicalization#Search engines and SEO. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

I think his reason is not valid since "Canonical URL" is not just important for search engines or SEO. It is important and used for intranets, too. Especially in intranets it makes sense to define canonical URLs. These URLs are the starting points for new employers to discover/learn a new topic.

I think "Canonical URL" has enough value for an own article.

Nevertheless, first reviewer provided useful feedback: It makes sense to provide a hyperlink from "Canonicalization" to the new article "Canonical URL".

Guettli (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

21:31:56, 5 March 2020 review of draft by Sbarclay000
Hi! I submitted an article for review but was declined with the comment "adv,bio" from DGG. What does this mean? What do I need to change? Please be as specific as possible. Thanks!

Sbarclay000 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've fixed the way the decline reasons are displayed on Draft:Adam Eli so that you can read all the details there. The short answer is usually that you need to change your topic - write about something else. Wikipedia has over six million subjects to choose from, and nearly all of them need improvement. See Community portal if you aren't sure where to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

21:49:40, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Aditya belnekar07
Aditya belnekar07 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

21:51:22, 5 March 2020 review of draft by Yesness89
I want to make sure I resubmitted my new draft. I cannot tell if I did.

Yesness89 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Yesness89, no you haven't resubmitted it - press the blue "Resubmit" button - then save with "Publish changes". KylieTastic (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

22:02:09, 5 March 2020 review of submission by 2409:4040:405:4E7A:24F0:C971:7F6:F66F
Help my client to create his wikipedia page 2409:4040:405:4E7A:24F0:C971:7F6:F66F (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

22:54:56, 5 March 2020 review of submission by Winston16
Hi, Please could you elaborate on the specific reasons why this draft was rejected as there are now enough reputable sources to back-up the information provided in the article. If any more sources are needed please could you specify which ones in order for me to be able to improve the article to a higher standard so that it will be accepted.

Thanks in advance, your assistance is much appreciated

Winston16 Winston16 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)