Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 March 18

= March 18 =

02:03:18, 18 March 2021 review of draft by Wayne.oquin123
Can you help me identify which kind of sources are lacking or which ones are not independent enough from the primary source? Here is the url attached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wayne_Oquin_(composer) Thank you and I hope to hear back soon!

Wayne.oquin123 (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. It's not forbidden, but it is strongly discouraged in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. No information in the article should be cited to your website or official biographies of you from those orchestras you are associated with.  Most of the other sources simply cite what you do- Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable composer. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello 331dot,

Thank you so much for being in touch! You have clarified a lot with your response and was very helpful. I have since been going through and finding better sources and removing Wayne Oquin's personal website and other biased sources. I also wanted to clarify that I am not Wayne Oquin. I am just a fan and being new to Wikipedia I made a rookie mistake of putting that name in the username. I have since switched it to the more appropriate and private name composer.bio123. Looking forward to resubmitting, and thank you again for all your help!Composer.bio123 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

04:42:59, 18 March 2021 review of submission by Jagadeesh.sankaran
The submission has been declined on 17 March 2021 second time due to the same reason as on the first rejection. That is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published. But while on the second submission, I have added more relevant and secondary sources about the person available on the internet. Please help me to find the possible causes of this rejection and suggest me how to avoid this failure on subsequent submissions. Jagadeesh.sankaran (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As the reviewer notes, you haven't yet established that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. No amount of editing can confer notability on someone, you must demonstrate it. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

05:42:45, 18 March 2021 review of submission by IndrajeetISingh
IndrajeetISingh (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What can i do for acceptable to this draft?

IndrajeetISingh (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not see your initial posting above. Please only make one posting at a time; if you have additional comment, please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

14:06:14, 18 March 2021 review of submission by 124.43.39.245
124.43.39.245 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

15:41:20, 18 March 2021 review of submission by JCarr8Wiki
JCarr8Wiki (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerning Copyright problem: Clinical social work

I posted the following at: Wikipedia: Copyright problems/2021 March 18

I am a bit confused as I have been writing for years and have never had such a concern. All material was properly cited and referenced per academic standards. Additionally, The material is factual, and while paraphrased, cannot be altered from it reality. Nevertheless, in an attempt to resolve the issue, I have edited the article attempting to remove and/or edit any material that may have been of concern. Thanks so much and I look forward to your feedback.JCarr8Wiki (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope that I did the edit correctly as I hope this is resolved soon. Thanks so much! JCarr8Wiki (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have posted a rewrite for Clinical social work at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clinical_social_work/Temp. This is an effort to resolved the suggested Copyvio issue. I am a little lost in trying to resolve this issue and any guidance would be appreciated.JCarr8Wiki (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , This forum is not one to use for existing articles. We only deal with drafts. You should direct your enquiry to the editor who flagged the issue, please. There are also excellent copyright specialists here such as  who may be able to offer advice  Fiddle   Faddle  17:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much; will do. JCarr8Wiki (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

15:44:39, 18 March 2021 review of submission by VovATooL
For the last half a year, I've edited text and tried to add as many reliable sources as possible (including official Huawei, Intel and news websites). I'll be grateful for any advice and help to finish this article. VovATooL (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , in half a year one source added - your draft has been finally rejected and will not be considered any further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, there are many small changes I've posted in half a year, including text changes and at least 3-4 reliable sources. That's why I've asked for help in the first place. Is it possible to reconsider rejection? This is my first complete article on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VovATooL (talk • contribs) 09:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:VovATooL. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

17:51:48, 18 March 2021 review of submission by Mickyskidy
Mickyskidy (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

18:10:18, 18 March 2021 review of submission by SBLiveAlex
I understand that my article was deemed to "read more like an advertisement" than an encyclopedia post, but all of the statements therein were factual and verifiable via the citations I included. I also understand that, as a disclosed employee of the company, I'm not encouraged to write about the company. I submitted the article for review and instantly got a rejection, and I'm wondering if it was even read, or if it was automatically rejected. Either way, I'd like to know what parts sounded like an advertisement so I can remove them from the draft. I did my best to write in neutral language, and I do believe our company is notable in the industry, at least as notable as our competitors who have a published page on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help! SBLiveAlex (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is not for merely telling about a company and what it does. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Your draft is sourced to nothing but announcements of routine business activities that are little more than press releases, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then why does the article for MaxPreps exist? It seems to me like that article, for one of our competitors, uses the same announcements of routine business activities that are little more than press releases. I tried to use them as a template, so that's why I ask. SBLiveAlex (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too- and that other articles use inappropriate sources does not mean that you can in your draft.  As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. We can only address what we know about. In this case, the MaxPreps article itself seems problematic.  It's only sourced to its own website and two other sources with minor coverage- which is actually worse than what you wrote, so I've marked that article as having issues, if those issues are not resolved, it may be proposed for deletion. If you would like(though I'm guessing not) you are welcome to help us identify other inappropriate articles so they can be addressed, we could use the help.
 * Your competitors meriting articles also does not automatically mean your company does too. It depends on the sources.  Not every company in a field is entitled to an article. To be successful in writing an article about your company, you need to set aside everything you know about it, everything on its website, and everything that is a routine announcement, and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to write in depth about your company.  Ford Motor Company does not merit an article because they produce motor vehicles that get reviews, or close a factory, they merit an article because independent people have extensively written about the history of Ford and it effects on things like assembly lines, manufacturing, and labor relations. You may wish to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

21:51:27, 18 March 2021 review of submission by Javier Alejandro Herrera Carvajal
Hello there. I was making this draft about a home remodeling and real state company. I need help to recognize wich one of the references I used are worthy for this work. If someone with experience in the field can help me fixing the wrong things in this draft.Thanks in advance.

Javier Alejandro Herrera Carvajal (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

23:12:58, 18 March 2021 review of submission by A loose necktie
It looks like this article's subject was identified during review as not being sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. However, as I explained on the talk page of the editor who rejected this article, there appears to be an article for this subject in the Spanish Wikipedia, and that article has a dozen sources, suggesting to me that the subject is quite likely notable. That was 10 days ago and I have had no response. I realize this article is without references, and is badly written overall, but these do not mean it is not a notable subject. A loose necktie (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , wellcome to AfC help desk. I had a look at your draft and found it is unreferenced. Unreferenced drafts are likely to get declined. But let me inform you, your draft had been rejected, means it will not be considered further. Thank you!  Kammill  ⟨talk⟩ 08:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , and if you think there were dozens of sources about the article, why didn't you referenced them?  Kammill  ⟨talk⟩ 08:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that this is not an article that I wrote or have any vested interest in. I am just an editor who is noting that an apparently notable subject has been declined for an article on the English Wikipedia based on its [supposed lack of] "notability".  I have not gone and added the references, but I thought this wasn't supposed to matter, so long as those references actually exist, right?  (It isn't my article, it is Wikipedia's article!  If it is notable, then it is notable, isn't it??  Even if badly written, even if lacking good sources, even if written by a person whose first language is not English)  :-)  A loose necktie (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , The draft process is intended to increase the likelihood that a new article will survive an immediate deletion process. An unreferenced draft is likely to fail to survive. The onus is upon you to assert and verify notability.  Fiddle   Faddle  15:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dudes, from WP:GNG: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article... (my emphasis) Why do we have guidelines like this if we routinely ignore them? Doesn't the onus of rejection or of nominating an article for deletion depend on the page reviewer/ deletion nominator to know what he / she is doing, rather than on the page creator to know that he/ she is doing it "in the right format"? (and wouldn't a deletion nomination also be just as much a mistake, if the subject is notable, regardless of the extant sourcing?).  That seems like asking naivite to be more experienced, and knowledgeable and competent than old age, which is backwards, which is why the guideline was written that way it was, to prevent just that.  Wasn't it?   The point is, Wikipedia suffers if it denies the publication of articles on notable subjects just because they don't have the sources yet, no matter who writes them.  Who are we punishing here by denying this one? The author?  His bad grammar?  His lack of experience?  Or are we punishing ourselves?  In which case it becomes not "rejection" but spite, which cannot be the outcome we are headed towards, are we?  And moreover, why do I have to belabor this point with no support from any other editor?  Am I truly in the wrong here?  A loose necktie (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , well, we can test it. Despite it's having been rejected, I can accept it and then we can see what happens to it. No harm will come to any editor involved. The article may well be improved such that it will survive an immediate deletion process. It may well be deleted immediately. I will take no part in any deletion process.
 * But please don't call me dude. Fiddle   Faddle  16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, Sir!) Yes, I think it deserves a shot at a surviving a deletion discussion.  Also, I have no idea how to begin this from its current state.  Do you?  I will notify the original author.  A loose necktie (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , As I offered and said also in your talk page, I have accepted it. I will watch it with interest, but take no further part in its life. By contrast I see it as important, should it be sent for a deletion process, for you to do whatever you believe necessary withe the rules to seek to protect it
 * Thank you for de-duding me Fiddle   Faddle  16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And thus do I now consider myself appointed. Into the breach!  Thank you again!  A loose necktie (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for de-duding me Fiddle   Faddle  16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And thus do I now consider myself appointed. Into the breach!  Thank you again!  A loose necktie (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)