Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 December 2

= December 2 =

08:24:25, 2 December 2021 review of submission by Bannashree250
Bannashree250 (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is barely coherent and a long way from an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

13:37:15, 2 December 2021 review of submission by 117.212.24.77
117.212.24.77 (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will refer you to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
 * Unless Toy4you is the successor company to FirstCry - a claim the article noticebly does not make - https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/344451 is a non-sequitur and is being used to commit citation fraud.
 * " " " " " " " " - " " " " " " " " - https://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/business/firstcry-com-opens-outlet-in-srinagar/ " " "-" " " " " " " " ".
 * " " " " " " " " - " " " " " " " " - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/firstcry-acquires-mahindras-baby-care-franchisee-business-for-rs-362-crore/articleshow/54868369.cms " " "-" " " " " " " " ". Even if it weren't, we couldn't use it for notability purposes in the first place (routine coverage) as it's M&A news.
 * Unless Toy4you acquired or is the successor company to Nykka - which, again, the article noticeably does not claim - https://www.deccanherald.com/content/619105/nykaa-expand-offline-presence.html is again a non-sequitur and is being used for citation fraud.
 * https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/softbank-investing-rs-1055-57-crore-in-firstcry/1859335/ is more FirstCry cite fraud and is unusable on its own merits (routine coverage) as fundraising news.
 * https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/firstcry-mahindra-retail-consolidate-business/article9224266.ece is yet more FirstCry cite fraud and is, again, unusable (routine coverage).
 * Toy4you's own website is 404-compliant.
 * https://www.tollotoshop.com/ebay-vs-aliexpress-better/ is a non-sequitur.
 * https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/17/18679107/wish-shopping-app is cite fraud.
 * We can't use Livemint (No editorial oversight), but https://www.livemint.com/Companies/GmnyDEcjxafpbxQoiEJpGK/Nykaa-expects-private-label-revenue-contribution-to-double-i.html is still cite fraud.
 * I am tagging the draft for speedy deletion as a rather obvious hoax. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 17:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

14:56:44, 2 December 2021 review of draft by Graemesherriff
Good afternoon, I'm writign this article 'Eaga Charitable Trust' and have had the article rejected a couple of times on the basis of insufficient evidence/citations. The charity did exist (until 2019) and created a substantial 'archive and legacy' website at www.fuelpovertylibrary.info. This is the main source of information about the charity and contains downloadable versions of all of the research outputs over it's 25 year life. There are not a lot of other relevant references, but I have included those that are available - e.g. the closing event in the House of Lords.

Could you advise that more is needed in order for this to be published please?

best wishes

Graeme

Graemesherriff (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. An archive of materials put out by the organization is not independent. If no independent sources wrote about this charity, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot for your response. I understand the need for independent references and I will try to locate some more of these. The online library, however, is an archive produced by other organisations (Universities, charities, consultancies) and funded by Eaga Charitable Trust. They are not materials put out by the organisation as such, and the library was produced by a academic team at University of Salford and a reference group consisting of academics working on fuel poverty research. Would changing the text to somehow emphasise the independent nature of the archive website help to make the case for this entry to be published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemesherriff (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that the archive itself is independent, but- unless I'm not understanding something correctly- the materials it holds are not. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

15:31:36, 2 December 2021 review of draft by Skennedy98
Hello! I thought that I put credible sources in my article but Wiki is saying that they are not. Could you help me know what kind of web source I need to input? It's a professional racing driver. Do you need an announcement stating that he is a driver for a specific team? Or somewhere that shows his official results in a series?

Skennedy98 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

15:53:46, 2 December 2021 review of draft by Moores10
The post I am trying to publish has been put under review and I was told that there is not "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Therefore, I was wondering how many attempts I am allowed e.g. if I added in more sources but the problem is seen as not being resolved will it then be deleted?

Also part of the problem in finding corroboratory references for this article is that most references to the subject matter repeat a misleading assertion which can be proven to be false by reference to Companies House records but this cannot be referenced in a Wikipedia article and therefore I am unsure how to proceed, as some references can be used but they state misleading information.

Thank you.

Moores10 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no formal limit on the number of times a draft can be submitted. However, if you keep submitting it without addressing or at least making progress towards addressing the issues, it will eventually be rejected(meaning that it cannot be resubmitted). 331dot (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll need more than what's there. I think if you can find 4-5 more good sources, there's a chance.  I'd also get rid of any titles in the discography that can't be sourced or don't have an article of their own.  It bloats it and hurts your chances of success, since it's a stream of non-notable items.  You can always ping me again to review, but I'm not as frequently on the site as I'd like to be. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

17:30:47, 2 December 2021 review of submission by ZX2006XZ
ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Just letting you know that there is a new poster.


 * Please do yourself a favour, stop trying to get this rammed through, and wait until the discussion at WT:FILM has finished or the film has released. Power-posting here when someone in the studio opts for prosciutto over salami in their lunch is a waste of everyone's time and doesn't help your case a whit; if anything it makes all your protestations of having no connexion to the subject ring hollow. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 17:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

17:34:32, 2 December 2021 review of draft by AmirahBreen
Amirah  talk  17:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This hasn't been submitted for review, but it would be summarily declined if it were. This needs to be written as prose, not as a bunch of lists/cirriculum vitae. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * General references are allowed in articles, particularly if they are stubs. See CITETYPE Amirah   talk  17:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're close with the BBC coverage, but I prefer the earlier version TheRoadIsLong tried to help you with, without the small subsections. Better an flowing longer stub than a staccato disjointed one. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you are saying, but in one breath they are telling me to expand the sections and in the next to remove the section headers. There is no point in working backwards on it. For that reason I would rather go the route of expanding it. But when I try to do so they are accusing me of reverting their edits in which they removed the section headers. I have also considered abandoning the draft and publishing a stub with no section headers, which may get it published quicker, but the work on expanding it would still have to be done either way.  Amirah   talk  21:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)