Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 3

= June 3 =

01:18:54, 3 June 2021 review of submission by LordGriot
LordGriot (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Helpdesk, Since we cannot use Youtube links as they are not certain that they respect Copyrights. But is Spotify links acceptable? those have the rights to the songs they display? Asking for a friend?

Thanks in Advance


 * Youtube is generally not acceptable as a source because it's not reliable, or secondary, unless it's something like a bbc youtube news video. The same issues prevent Spotify links - they don't actually aid the sourcing process. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

03:14:18, 3 June 2021 review of submission by Askkaty2write
Hello! My initial submission was rejected by a Wiki editor, who was very very helpful in making suggestions on how I could make the page better, as was another person. I followed their direction and made their suggested edits, and think ended up with a good article on Center for Italian Modern Art (which I visited and was delighted by). I've asked them both to re-check my work but they've not been able to get back to me (understandable). I just wondered if someone would be able to take a look at it and see if I had made the correct adjustments. Thank you!Askkaty2write (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Askkaty2write (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * it's certainly a good improvement. Source 2 is obviously primary (as I suspect you know - your use for it is fine), and source 3 I don't believe is reliable (in the sense of having editorial control, as a forum). Sources 1 & 4 are good. As an organisation it does need to meet the higher sourcing requirements so I would suggest trying to find one more source in that vein, as currently it's a cusp issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I cannot thank you enough!!!!! I will keep looking for something reliable! Askkaty2write (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I found a second review of an installation from The NY Times that I think works nicely! If you have any time, I'd really appreciate another look and/or some advice. Thank you!!!! Askkaty2write (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * And one last question - does my article go back in the queue for review? Does it really take 5 months!? thank you!Askkaty2write (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * your article is back in the queue, although 5 months isn't the general wait time (though it's still depressingly long, we're well aware!) - that just happens to be the length of time the longest waiting draft has been there. The longest waiting ones are those which are a) ultra-borderline in being accepted b) on very difficult topics to assess (maths etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

06:17:57, 3 June 2021 review of submission by Bootkinero
Bootkinero (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

06:34:18, 3 June 2021 review of submission by Vanessa nkhethoa tsotetsi
Good day, my article was recently rejected because "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Please assist with this. Thank you

Vanessa nkhethoa tsotetsi (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where an article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.  To put it another way, Wikipedia is not interested in what people want to say about themselves, but in what others choose to say about them.  Please note that autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Being psychic, you should have seen this coming. Theroadislong (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

07:22:42, 3 June 2021 review of draft by AllenJossy
I would like you to help me out on the referencing, I have tried to adhere to the reviewer's comment but it seems I am still not getting it, and then I am stuck. The reviewer mentioned reliable source and not just passing comments, I would like an expatiation on that too because all the reference cited are from third parties and picked from their respective websites and to the best of my knowledge they are one of the most reliable sources you can have around here.Thanks AllenJossy (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the AkomolafeBlog one doesn't appear to be anything better. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

would you I rather remove them? and doesn't it mean blogs citations are not allowed?


 * Hi . Newspaper and magazine blogs may be as acceptable as content published by the same news organization in a more traditional format, but see WP:NEWSBLOG for cautions to observe. A self-published blog (such as oldnaija.com) may be used for uncontroversial descriptions of itself according to WP:ABOUTSELF, but otherwise is not a reliable source for facts. The Nigerian Tribune piece makes only passing mention of Wells Radio as the organizer of an event. Pacesetter News merely quotes a statement by Wellsradio about another topic, it is not arms-length coverage about Wellsradio.
 * Internet radio stations are not presumed notable just for existing. They are eligible for a standalone article only if they meet the WP:CORP or WP:GNG notability standards, which few do. Continuing to push for creation of an article about Wellsradio when they are plainly unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia will not end well. The draft might be deleted, and you might lose your editing privileges. There are millions of other topics to write about. Choose another, and forget about Wellsradio, or consider an alternative outlet for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

09:01:44, 3 June 2021 review of submission by NeilDavidB84
Hello - Neil From Wired - We'd love a wiki / feel notable enough to have a presence. I understand one of our team originally tried to create with support from a couple of our community mods. full declaration I work for the company. I'm keen to rebuild and resubmit, but completely understand the feedback that it reads too much like a product catalogue/sales text. Not the intention at all. I did submit a request a few years back for someone to help build a simple and Wiki, as we have many of our games already here. I'm more than happy to strip back the page, my team tells me they may have miss understood previous feedback and I think we just keep missing what is being asked.

I'm happy to edit/strip it and would more than welcome advice to ensure the page is suitable NeilDavidB84 (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First, you are obligated to formally disclose your relationship on your userpage; see WP:PAID for details. Second, the reason it keeps coming out reading like a product catalogue is almost certainly because of your (collective) conflict of interest, even the best writers let their biases show in their writing, and it is incredibly difficult to write neutrally with respect to something or someone you work for. This might explain the feelings that signals have gotten mixed. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 11:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree - I really don't want any sort of sales page at all, simple the better. If there is a way to pay for this service or having an unbiased edit that just related to the information that is of note, I would be happy to sort - clearly I am a novice and gone about this wrong for which I apologise. OR I'm happy to completely stip the page back. Please advise what is best. I will read the instruction on how to disclose my relationship. NeilDavidB84(NeilDavidB84 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC))
 * Paying for a Wikipedia article is usually a scam, if not in intent than in practise. (Asking about where to get mercs is also a very good way to torque us off, and they would also be obligated to disclose and would still have a conflict of interest.) My suggestion is to look at how featured-level articles are written, particularly those on businesses, and to review the manual of style for Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 13:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Jéské Couriano - You referred to "Asking about where to get mercs". Is that short for mercenaries, who are hired warriors?  If so, that is an appropriate way to characterize paid editors, who don't seem to care who gets injured as long as they get paid.  I wasn't familiar with that expression.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Am I safe to research more and complete a new edit on the page / submit as I did previously? What are the next steps I should complete once I review manual of style for Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your contribution and help. (NeilDavidB84 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC))
 * You can always do more research for better sources; having a conflict of interest doesn't preclude that. Your issues have primarily been with promotion, rather than criticism of your sources (though once that is addressed, I would expect your sources to be assessed almost immediately after). —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 13:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @NeilDavidB84 I've left a set of useful comments on your own talk page. Research is fundamental to article creation, and should be complete before writing your first word. Your existing, rejected draft may be abandoned. It contains nothing of true value for you.

Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 13:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Jéské Couriano Thank you for your input. (NeilDavidB84 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC))


 * User:NeilDavidB84 - Haven't you learned anything from your previous experience in getting your draft rejected? It was rejected because, first, it was a sales catalog, and, second, the disclosure of conflict of interest was lost or dropped.  And now you ask about paying for the service?!  At this point, in my opinion, the main reason you do not have an article on your company is that you and other employees have been too busy pushing to get an article on your company.  You would be better off to spend your money improving your web site, which is under your control, and then let a neutral editor write an article.  That is my opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Robert McClenon I will accept we clearly approached this with naive glasses on. But we have made edits in good faith on the advice or feedback given and it’s clear I miss-understood some of this. I wasn’t offering money in form of bribery but in service of having a page edited by an expert. Clearly, this isn’t something that is correct and I withdraw, again. I’m clearly naive. I learnt from User:Jéské Couriano who gave clear and reasonable feedback that has been very helpful. I’m using this help desk for honest advice to not just get a wiki page created, but to do so in the proper manner. Once again, I can only apologies as I have clearly offended you which was not an intention. (NeilDavidB84 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC))
 * User:NeilDavidB84 - No, you have not offended me, and you are still missing the point. You still have naive glasses on.  The problem is that you are trying to advance your objective, to write an article that presents  your company well, and we are trying to maintain neutral point of view, and when the two work in different directions, we, the volunteers, will prevail, because we are the Wikipedia.  Your further problem is that you have done self-inflicted damage by trying too hard, and such self-inflicted damage cannot always be easily corrected, even by asking for advice and by accepting the advice.  When a few editors working for a company break trust, that trust cannot be repaired, and the damage is not easily repaired.  There is a point where a company does more damage to its ability to work with the community than it can repair.  I think that you have passed that point, for now, and that no amount of honest cooperation will overcome your self-inflicted damage.  That is the way I see it, as just the way it is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Robert McClenon I'm sorry you feel this way. I've completely stripped back the page to a pure table of releases and the companies foundation date, I'm certainly not (advertently or inadvertently) trying to write an article that presents the company well and hope the latest edit shows that. Clearly, my team went too far in one direction and didn't understand the feedback, and I understand you see this as a break of trust, when we should have started here for advice. In the last rejection, there were instructions given to research more, which I've actioned and sought advice, which I've done in good faith or trying to ensure we can work with you, the community of Wikipedia. I don't want to take any more of your time and I'm certainly not trying to prevail over you or any other volunteer. I will resubmit shortly and understand everything you have said. Again, thank you, and I certainly wish I'd talked here sooner or understood more - which is my error. (NeilDavidB84 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC))

09:29:36, 3 June 2021 review of draft by Flavius AstraFilm2021
Flavius AstraFilm2021 (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

10:49:33, 3 June 2021 review of submission by Www.Vijay kumar.M
My pag is not coming in Wikipedia Www.Vijay kumar.M (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate (we do not cite images). —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 11:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

11:42:30, 3 June 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:1827:B415:0:12:50E0:7901
2402:3A80:1827:B415:0:12:50E0:7901 (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. None of your English-language sources are any good (I can't assess the Tamil ones due to the language barrier). —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 11:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: the Tamil sources are puff pieces/gossip and are useless for notability.  Java Hurricane  08:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

15:48:33, 3 June 2021 review of draft by 98.37.144.210
Hello, can you tell me what edits I need to make to this page so that it is not declined? Grand Rounds has had a wikipedia page for a number of years. I made sure to take out all of the advertising language and promotional language. I am also happy to take out any more language, but am curious what needs to be edited.

98.37.144.210 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:23:31, 3 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ashram molter
This article was rejected two previous times for reasons I understood and have tried to correct. But now this third time it has been rejected for reasons of “notability” and says there aren’t enough independent sources. I quote multiple journalistic articles that are solely about this musician, including in The Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, The La Crosse Tribune, St. Croix Valley Magazine, and more. Is that really not enough?? Can I get a second opinion? Thank you. Ashram molter (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Content like "Mayer’s songwriting explores the themes of spirituality, science, the natural world, the cosmos, and the meaning of life." "Mayer’s songwriting and fingerstyle guitar skills have garnered praise from critics" is not required, it's just marketing puffery. Performing in coffeehouses, churches, theatres, and concert halls is nothing notable, neither is releasing 9 albums on his own label. It's not clear how he passes WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

16:53:59, 3 June 2021 review of submission by UIExpert
I don't understand why this article is being rejected for a lack of reliable sources. I have included several sources. My best guess is that the problem is me writing a short version of the Steady Castle Tragedy. I could just take that out.

Michael E Duffy 16:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your draft was declined not rejected, I have edited it for neutral tone removing the shortened version of the story and other flowery prose. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

17:50:51, 3 June 2021 review of submission by Hamza Al Rehman
Hamza (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As explained in the large red boxes at the top of the draft, your submission was rejected because it did not meet our guidelines on the notability of companies. The draft will therefore not be considered further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

20:14:35, 3 June 2021 review of submission by 144.253.25.246
I believe this topic meets the criteria of notability with multiple independent sources. This draft is written from a neutral point of view (with nearly every statement backed by independent sources) on a notable topic. I don't understand how it's "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". From everything I researched, I don't see anything within this draft that goes against Wikipedia policies or guidelines. 144.253.25.246 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft is blatant advertising for a company. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a subject such as a company. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. A Wikipedia article summarizes 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. Significant coverage does not include staff interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions like the commencement of operations or the release of a product, press releases, or other primary sources. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)