Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 October 29

= October 29 =

16:22:06, 29 October 2021 review of submission by Bot790790mk
Bot790790mk (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Two of your TellyChakar links are dead (one redirects to a tag search, the other outright returns a 404 error), and we do not cite IMDb. No comment on the non-English sources. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

16:22:10, 29 October 2021 review of draft by Lm1412
I have got a reply that my writing should be in neutral way although that I have ensured that while working on it. Could this issue be seen and inform me what is not neutral so I can edit it. Lm1412 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you underlining internal links? "Ideas and Thoughts" should be removed as a section. The list should be prose. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

16:54:51, 29 October 2021 review of draft by Denisemacielbr
Please! I submitted a company page that follows just the same standards of its competitors from the same market area, and it's being refused as advertising. I can not understand why the same kind of content has been approved for them as relevant (Trello, Jira, Bootcamp, Asana) while ours is seen as advertising. I already removed all adjectives that could qualify the product, leaving the page merely informative. I included references and sources to prove that the software users are real. What else do I have to do to for this page to fit acceptable standards?

Denisemacielbr (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of them went through a drafting process, with Asana (software) and Boot Camp (software) predating our drafting process as a whole and the other two being created directly in mainspace shortly after it was instituted. All of them predate 2018. See User:Jéské Couriano/A brief history of AfC. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

18:33:35, 29 October 2021 review of draft by Talk2045!
Some things I wrote is not documented anywhere, because I met with them before a concert, and asked about how they started the band. What can I do in this situation?

Talk2045! (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You get rid of that information and do not re-add it until you can find a published source to corroborate it. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

19:05:43, 29 October 2021 review of submission by Latisc
According to WP:NGEO, places “with no information available except name and location” should not get a separate article. I am unable to find any more specific information about the island. Is this the reason why my submission was not accepted? Would it be better if I put the information on the Pearson Island article instead? If that’s the case, feel free to delete the draft. Latisc (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

20:38:09, 29 October 2021 review of draft by Caroline grossman23
I appreciate the follow-up comments on this article. However, Im a bit confused on the question of notablity. The included references from mainstream national and international media demonstrate that Gupta has been one of the most visible and notable figures of the COVID-19 public to the public writ large, holding important positions at leading companies like Amazon and also being short-listed as Biden's Surgeon General. He's had several national outlets do profiles on him, many of them cited in this piece. He's also been a regular on Sunday news shows like Meet the Press...others like him (Dr. Nahid Bhadelia as an example) have wikipedia profiles and are certainly no more notable. Your help in clarifying this issue would be invaluable as we embark on edits.

Caroline grossman23 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the draft just tells us his accomplishments, and not why he is important. Merely being considered for surgeon general is insufficient for notability unless there is much more substantial coverage of that. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

20:49:05, 29 October 2021 review of draft by Derekguthrie
Hi. My submission "Brindisa" has been rejected today for reasons which I wish to edit/repair. It was suggested I was paid for the submission. I was emphatically NOT paid for the submission but I have apparently used the wrong sources as reference, and potentially too much of their own material. The subject is a very unusual company. The rejection is generic and I am keen to resolve the problem. The subject IS notable and has thus far been ignored by Wikipedia (they do not seek publicity) What areas should I address?

Derekguthrie (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses a very specific definition of the term "notability" that does not sync with the dictionary definition of the term. Odds are the reason it's been "ignored" is because people haven't been able to find enough in-depth, credible, third-party sources to justify an article on them. Without those sources, notability (as we define it) cannot be met. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

21:17:09, 29 October 2021 review of submission by Jatin1702
This is a movie i really liked and it opened my eyes. I feel like more people should know about this film and everyone should watch it and read the book.

I also do not understand why my article has been rejected. Jatin1702 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What you describe is a promotional purpose, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

what should i remove and how do i request another review? Jatin1702 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The only possible thing you can do is, if you have new information that the reviewer did not consider, is appeal to the reviewer.
 * If you have further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)