Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 January 19

= January 19 =

02:26:37, 19 January 2021 review of draft by TipsyElephant
I was hoping to publish the drafts for some podcast awards so I created Draft:2019 iHeartRadio Podcast Awards, Draft:2020 iHeartRadio Podcast Awards, and Draft:2021 iHeartRadio Podcast Awards. I based these pages on 2019 iHeartRadio Music Awards and 2020 iHeartRadio Music Awards. All three of my drafts were rejected for having WP:ROUTINE coverage, but both the 2019 and 2020 podcast pages have more sources than the corresponding year for the music awards. Would it be possible to reverse the decision to decline my drafts or is there a way that I could improve the article so that they meet notability guidelines? If not then why are the music awards notable and if they aren't should I tag those for deletion as well? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

06:14:41, 19 January 2021 review of submission by ThatOddEditor
Hi I would like to request for a re-review and also some pointers as to why subject matter does not qualify for notability in this sense as mentioned person has significant works in his field of expertise. Please kindly advice how I could proceed to appeal this decision. Thank you so much! ThatOddEditor (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, profiles and spotify are not reliable independent sources and would need to be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

06:17:07, 19 January 2021 review of submission by Sadaf kashmiri
Please let me know the reason why my article has been rejected and what should I do for improvement Sadaf kashmiri (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted, your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. That purpose is to summarize what independent reliable sources state about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.  You essentially wrote a resume. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

09:35:50, 19 January 2021 review of submission by Pumpkinbanter123
Hello! I've taken the advice on the article published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pickupp and changed the content such that its much more factual than promotional. Can I check if this works better?

Pumpkinbanter123 (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a company and what it does. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your sources seem to be press release-type stories, announcements of routine business transactions, or announcements of what the company does.  Things like that, along with staff interviews and other primary sources do not establish notability.
 * If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

11:06:10, 19 January 2021 review of draft by Jin at Samsung Galaxy official
11:06:10, 19 January 2021 review of submission by Jin at Samsung Galaxy official

I've submitted my drafts several times, and I'll like to understand in a more specific indication to the article where I'll need to work on, to avoid multiple rounds of revision.Jin at Samsung Galaxy official (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you represent or work for Samsung, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you are required to make; paid editing is required to be disclosed per the Wikipedia Terms of Use.
 * Your draft just tells about the event you are writing about. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the event, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. Wikipedia is not interested in what the representatives of an event want to say about it, only in what others completely unconnected with the event have chosen to say about it.  YouTube is rarely considered to be a reliable source, especially if the videos are from the subject themselves. Press releases and routine announcements are also not acceptable for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

13:47:06, 19 January 2021 review of draft by Callmejones
Hello, I would like to get my Draft reviewed again. I don't understand why the OFFICIAL Social Media couldn't be used as reliable sources, I mean they were from the OFFICIAL VERIFIED CHANNELS, so they should work. As the person is a Social Media personality, it's obvious for him to have such sources. It's not just words either, there's literally videos of him.

Anyway. I removed major parts of the social media references except two. Please review and let me know if this works.

Thanks!

Callmejones (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , see WP:SPS. Self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability because they are not reliable sources, whether the account is verified or not. Statements on verified accounts can be used only in a few cases: see WP:ABOUTSELF.  Java Hurricane  14:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Callmejones (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

So, what could be done? The person ain't getting the page now???
 * , Notability on Wikipedia is determined by if the person has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Additionally there are other parameters for notability mentioned at WP:BIO. If you can demonstrate that the subject passes the basic criteria of notability for people or passes the other criteria at WP:BIO, the draft may be accepted.  Java Hurricane  04:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Callmejones (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have on him. I guess it's not enough. What do you think?

15:44:00, 19 January 2021 review of submission by Imtiyazrasoool
Thanku for reviewing tis article. I have made some changes please review it back Imtiyazrasoool (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was rejected and tagged for speedy deletion so it will not be reviewed again. Theroadislong (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

16:21:00, 19 January 2021 review of submission by David Waynans
I am writing an article about Cash Chat and this has been declined and deleted many times yet this is not promotional its actual and true content about Cash Chat and the history about how it started and how it has progressed with citations and references, How can i be helped.

here is the article:

Cash Chat, now mainly Known as CashChatApp, is a Ugandan Social Media, Digital advertising and Financial Technology App built for messaging, digital advertising and financial services merged in one platform. It allows users to Chat one on one,Live streaming, Make chat groups, advertise, send voice messages, make voice and video calls, and share media files. Cash Chat application runs on mobile devices accessible via only Android devices. The App service requires user to use their preferred mobile number for registering with the service.

The Cash Chat application was created by Cash Chat Limited located on Semawata Road Plot 146 Ntinda, Kampala, Uganda. The Application has options of accessing it world wide and with different user locations. However, this app services like financial services are strictly accessible by users from East African countries while other countries can only access live streaming, instant chats, advertising, Voice and Video Calls.

2017-2018 Cash Chat App was founded by Asher Namanya Asanasio a former Expert in Telecommunications, finance and technology and Roger Magezi commonly known as Tywan as a Software Engineer, these two first started as Bold Cashers which is the main wallet for financial services in early 2017 and as numbers grew Asher Namanya proposed an idea that would include financial services merged with social media and in 2017 December Cash Chat was introduced first as a web application to help bold cashers and ease communication between members and this product failed and did not work according to Asher Namanya, and thats when they started a mobile app version for ease accessibility and mobility.

In November 2018, Cash chat was launched in Nairobi where it was piloted before it could reach other countries, Uganda, Rwanda and other European countries. Cash Chat team has worked closely well with Vrinsoft Team to ensure quality product and development of the stable app versions since 2018-to-date.

Asher Namanya got the name Cash Chat, Cash to represent finance and chat to represent social media knowing that this would be easy for users to get attracted to finance and social media at the same time. Cash Chat first worked under bold cashers limited as a product and in 2020 December it has been incorporated as Cash Chat Limited to manage her own products and services and now bold cashers remains as wallet for merchants, and bulky payments and this has not ceased from operating within cash chat mobile app.

In February 2019, Cash Chat launched user earnings and digital advertising where users would benefit from the services by earning from user status, allowing users to benefit from the app by earning or sharing revenue from Ads sponsored by companies that advertise on their user status. Cash Chat has recently been upgraded upgraded to 1.19 version which has increased the number of users to more-than 500,000 within active users 250,000 monthly. Cash Chat levies some fees on using its financial digital wallet to access payments and only this is available in Uganda, rwanda and Kenya countries where by users can send money from the wallets to different Banks in Kenya, can make mobile payments to different merchants and also send money between themselves from wallet to wallet respectively. in December 2020, Cash Chat made 2 years with Expected Revenue 3.8 Billion Shillings per year and most this money comes from user wallet activations, advertising and merchant payments.

In February, Cash Chat appointed Anna Talia Oze the NBS TV presenter to be her Product Ambassador

References.

David Waynans (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

17:15:49, 19 January 2021 review of submission by 94.36.183.116
Really frustrating! I provided tens of links to independent articles and pages which talk about Space Renaissance as an organization, its publications, events, initiatives. Yes, i also inserted links to the SRI websites, papers and articles. So, please i'd like to know what is the main issue: a) there are too many references to the association's publications b) the independent sources are not considered good enough

btw, i had a look to some friend organizations wiki page, that were accepted, such as Lifeboat Foundation, the Mars Society, the Moon Society. More, i took such pages as a sample, to help my search for useful links on the web... However, their pages were accepted, the Space Renaissance International not. SRI exists since 2008, it is rather known at least within the space community, we have hundreds of published papers, and many of us use to participate to the International Astronautical Congress each year. Our papers hold a good reputation on Research Gate and Academia.edu. So, what's wrong with SRI?

Thanks for your help, dedicating your precious time to analyze our case. Kind Regards, Ad Astra! Adriano V. Autino, SRI, President

94.36.183.116 (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You must read the conflict of interest and paid editing policies for information on formal disclosures you must make. Other articles should not be cited as a reason for yours to exist; see other stuff exists. It is possible those articles could be problematic as well; as this is a volunteer project, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us.  We can only address what we know about. I would say that the primary issue here is "b".  A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.  Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, only in what others choose to say about it.  Most of your sources seem to cite the existence of papers or work you do; that's not what is being looked for.  Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I wonder if i can profit of your kindness for some more questions, to better understand the matter.

1) BEING PAID OR NOT BEING PAID I have already stated to the WP authority that i am not paid for what i do on the Space Renaissance International page. I am the president of this not for profit association incorporated under the Italian law, and the Italian law clearly forbids a president to be paid by his own association. Furthermore, i am throwing thhousands of volunteer hours into my association since its birth: I don't understand why i should want to be paid for this particular activity! Question: should i "disclose" any more proofs that i am not paid? Then i wouldn't know how to comply, since of course proofs could exist only if i were paid, the opposite is not possible.

2) SHOULD A PRESIDENT BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP THE WP PAGE FOR HIS OWN ASSOCIATION? Now, once we (hopefully) cleared that i am not paid, the next question is: am i having a Conflict Of Interest, just because i am the president and i am doing everything as a volunteer? This seems to be a stupid question, however, believe me, i didn't understand.

3) IS IT WORTH TO KEEP ON INVESTING OUR TIME ON A WP PAGE? - I provided many references to external sources that are writing about SRI on their own, without being requested to do that. Let's call them RT-01 (Ref Type 01) - I provided many references to external sources that are publishing, or re-linking our articles, pages and papers on their own, without being requested to do that. Let's call them RT-02 - I also added links to sources that are internal to SRI, but i believe they are needed, if we want to give a portrait of the association. RT-03 - Finally, we might have some links to sources that are external, but somehow "near" the association. RT-04 The main question: should we let live only the RT-01 items? Or, maybe, the WP autority is saying that none of our supposed RT-01 are really RT-01? If so, i should give up, waiting for some real RT-01 (or, better, items accepted by the WP authority) to exist. It is paramount important for us to understand whether we should keep on investing time on a wp page, since we have a congress this year, and things to do are overhelming. https://2021.spacerenaissance.space/

Thanks a lot for your patience. Kind Regards Adriano V. Autino — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianoAutino (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

17:28:42, 19 January 2021 review of submission by WriticBee
WriticBee (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)