Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 March 21

= March 21 =

01:51:33, 21 March 2021 review of submission by 47.153.219.191
We've added sources. 47.153.219.191 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Do the sources include at least one regional, statewide, national, or international source, or are all the sources local media, or media of limited interest and circulation? See Notability (organizations and companies). --Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

07:51:17, 21 March 2021 review of draft by MMilanezi
Hello, the draft was declined once more, which I know is normal and part of the process to keep articles in wikipedia safe. I've followed the citation requirements but it seems like that is still the issue. I wonder if it would be possible to point specifically what remains to be cited, or which citations are being understood as insufficient.

Thanks for the help, Marcello

MMilanezi (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think two things are useful
 * read WP:NACADEMIC and determine for yourself that he passes
 * Ask about their review and their rationale
 * Having looked at a couple of the references I find the first two do not help your cause. The first does not appear to mention him, the second is not significant coverage.
 * For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * Academic papers can be useful, but not always. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely
 * Academic Biographies are always difficult to write and to review Fiddle   Faddle  12:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Academic papers can be useful, but not always. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely
 * Academic Biographies are always difficult to write and to review Fiddle   Faddle  12:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Academic Biographies are always difficult to write and to review Fiddle   Faddle  12:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Academic Biographies are always difficult to write and to review Fiddle   Faddle  12:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

08:39:26, 21 March 2021 review of draft by MR. CREATIVE JAIN
MR. CREATIVE JAIN (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Myself jainam Jain manager of JV super mega-market. Our company is not as big as other organisations but it's growing. we are having assets of more than 5 crore rupees. we didn't get any reference because we are not grown but we are growing. the article I had created is not for promotional purpose. i am new to wikipedia may be i don't know what is considers as promotional or neutral point of view. i request you to please review the article i had submitted and please let me know if i can make any changes to it.... MR. CREATIVE JAIN (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, promotion is not just selling something or soliciting customers. Merely telling about something is considered promotional here.  A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to state about (in this case) a business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business.  Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the business choose to say about it(so no press releases or announcements of routine business activities).  If there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your business, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

11:32:42, 21 March 2021 review of submission by Shreyas8129s
Shreyas8129s (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further Fiddle   Faddle  12:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Shreyas8129s: If you do not understand why it was rejected, please see WP:NOTDIR. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 12:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

12:02:59, 21 March 2021 review of submission by Noreen Akbar
I am completely new to wiki pages and need a lots of help. kindly guide how can I change the title of a wiki page Noreen Akbar (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , This draft has been rejected, thus changing the title is unimportant Fiddle   Faddle  12:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably "changing the title of a wiki page" means getting rid of the "Draft:" prefix here, but that will probably not happen. @Noreen Akbar: Please see WP:NOTHOWTO. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 12:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 18:44:55, 21 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Eliciapin
Hi there! I have written and re-written this page, removing all discussion of products and services, as well as removing clients and other information. I modeled this almost exactly off of Vimeo’s page in structure and content, which is an existing, approved page. Can anyone help guide me in this area as to why it is not being approved? It’s extremely frustrating since nothing I’m saying isn’t fact, talking about the company structure, past initiatives, and its leadership.

Eliciapin (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see my full commentary on the draft. We we require quality references. Interviews with the company personnel are pretty much useless in stabbing notability, nor are they any use in verifying anything other than simple facts.  But the real estate reference????  Fiddle   Faddle  19:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

23:19:08, 21 March 2021 review of submission by TomRoad-1
I am a SmartHome enthusiast trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage on the subject. As an expert in the field, I saw that List_of_home_automation_software is totally biased, incomplete and of mediocre quality. Any attempt to make it better (not only by me) have so far failed. I tried to comply to one of the reasons why my addition of a market leader was reverted (WP:WTAF was reverted even though this is controversial and it would have made the list less biased) by writing an article about it. I followed Wikipedia guidelines to my best knowledge and improved it after I got some editor reviews. However, I have the impression that blindly following very strict rules without even trying to understand the specific case is more important than writing a useful article. I never received any indication why my article's quality is lower than similar ones (like OpenHAB or Home_Assistant). I cite several independent, reliable, secondary sources. As everybody else submitting a new article, I have already stated that I have no affiliation with the subject of the article. Nevertheless, the editor leaves a new section "potential conflict of interest" on my talk page. Where is WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:BOLD and WP:IAR? If there is an inadequate reference, I'd like to know which one (or even better, be bold and fix it).

I do not know how to address the issues mentioned by the editor because they are:
 * subjective: WP:BROCHURE. This is an opinion, not a fact. What I describe in the article, however, are facts.
 * incorrect: should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed: check the references, half of them are not created by the subject. Those that are could also just be deleted (but it would make the article less useful, because they link exactly to the place where an interested reader can get help)
 * non-specific: both previous comments don't specificly state what action would resolve the issue: which part seems WP:BROCHURE, what is a range of ... sources? (The article already includes a range of independent, reliable, published secondary sources.)

TomRoad-1 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave you a detailed description on your talk page of what I believe the are shortcomings of your draft. Fundamentally, as I have already explained, the main issue is that you have not cited any sources that are independent, reliable, secondary, and which give the subject significant depth of coverage. If you can find a few sources (we don't need many, three would be enough), I've already said that I'd be willing to help you with the getting the prose right. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)