Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 February 15

= February 15 =

00:26:36, 15 February 2022 review of submission by M A Xqpb
M A Xqpb (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC) why did you get red of mason caudill


 * , You have a message on your talk page that explains. Hoaxes and other vandalism are not welcome and they waste other people's time.Slywriter (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

03:14:52, 15 February 2022 review of draft by Ougibbons
Hello. I'm unsure why my draft has been rejected as I have seen other pages for studio albums that weren't particularly well known but from a well known artist. If I/we made a critical reception section, would that fix the problem?

Ougibbons (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * your draft was declined because the references didn't show the topic was notable. After taking a quick look, three of the five sources are from Youtube (not reliable). Please find a few more independent secondary sources, and then it's a lot more likely it will be accepted. >>> Wgullyn . talk ; 03:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * great, so this is better? thanks

04:13:20, 15 February 2022 review of submission by LodoVena
LodoVena (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

10:01:01, 15 February 2022 review of draft by Terephthalic Acid
Terephthalic Acid (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My question is why does this get rejected, since I have put independent source, no blog, and have tried to follow the phrasing in some game articles in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terephthalic Acid (talk • contribs) 10:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

10:27:16, 15 February 2022 review of draft by Abigail Tavener
We are trying to publish this wikipedia article but it was declined. We have since updated the article in line with the feedback, but can't tell whether it has been declined again, or whether it is still awaiting review. Do we need to somehow request another review or will this take place automatically? The page we are trying to publish is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:See_Monster

Abigail Tavener (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? Only a single person should be operating your account. I see that you declared a conflict of interest, if you have a paid association with this public art or those working on it, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! No it is just me editing this page, but I am working on the public art project. I am not being directly paid to set up this wikipedia page, but I have declared a conflict of interest because I am being paid to work on the project more broadly. How should I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail Tavener (talk • contribs)
 * That counts as paid editing, you do not have to be specifically paid to edit. You need only replace your COI notice with a paid editing notice, see WP:PAID for instructions. To clarify, Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I have done this. Does it now look correct? How do I proceed from here?
 * Yes, you did it correctly, thank you. As you successfully submitted the draft, you just need to wait for a review. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Abigail Tavener I suggest you add Connected contributor (paid) to the talk page of the now accepted stub article, with parameters filled out correctly. I think the banner on the article itself that states paid contributions may be removed. There is nothing non neutral there. It is just possible to suggest this to be an advert, but I feel we are the right side of that borderline, which is why I have accepted the draft, Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 14:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your guidance. I have added this to the talk page of the stub article and hope all now looks ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail Tavener (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

10:49:50, 15 February 2022 review of submission by Marialbno96
Hi there! Can you explain me exactly what is needed to turn from start-class to proper, googlable wiki article the following page: Persuasion (online magazine). The guidelines online talk a bit fuzzily about "improving" the article, but I cannot see how that would look like: the article presents references when needed, is grammatically impeccable, and follows the style-guide to the t. I've seen other wiki articles lacking references and still be legitimate, visible articles on google. Why not this one?

Best wishes,

Maria

Marialbno96 (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since your draft was accepted, you may use the more general Help Desk for questions. To answer you, though- Google takes time to index articles; it occurs once the article is marked as patrolled by a New Pages Patroller, or after a period of time(30-60 days I think).  Do you have a particular need for it to appear in Google quickly?
 * As this is a volunteer project, inappropriate articles can get by us, we can only address what we know about.
 * I fixed the link to the article you wrote; the whole URL is unnecessary; simply place the title in double brackets. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. It's not visibility on Google that I'm interested in, more in turning it from star-class to proper article. It has been way more than 60 days since the article was published. The main thing needed is a blue tick on Twitter, which is only granted with an actual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marialbno96 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you employed by this online magazine? I greatly apologize for being frank, but Wikipedia has no interest in any requirements social media imposes on you for their verification processes(for which the presence of a Wikipedia article is only one possible method). Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see in the log that the page was marked as reviewed; that means Google should be indexing it at some point. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't expect Wikipedia to be interested in my social media dealings -- if anything, I would find the opposite creepy. The question I have now made twice is: what does the page need to be transformed from "star-class" into "article"? If this is a question that, as a volunteer, you are unable to answer, I will happily transfer my concerns to the Help Desk. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marialbno96 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please review the Quality Scale to learn how each level is assessed. You have not answered my question, are you employed or otherwise associated with this magazine? 331dot (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am an editorial assistant with Persuasion, yes. I have already reviewed the grading scheme, and if I found it satisfactory I wouldn't have asked for a human insight. I am asking you if you are able to check the page and point out exactly what needs "improvement", since I can't figure it out myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marialbno96 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:PAID and make the required declaration on your user page, this is a Terms of Use requirement. The article could almost certainly be rated higher than start class; I've marked it as C class so it is beyond Start at least. It may possibly be higher; though B class suggests illustrations if possible, as well as few if any missing pieces of information or citations. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If the magazine has a logo, that would help. See WP:UPIMAGE for more information. An image of the logo would be a fair use license. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. I've added an infobox+logo which might make it B class? I have also signed a disclosure in my user page. Marialbno96 (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made it B since there is a logo. I have found WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide at the Magazine WikiProject which may help you.  Yes, you have disclosed correctly, thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The logo being used in the article's infobox (File:Persuasion-community.png) is almost certainly too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States and doesn't really need to be licensed as Non-free logo. I suggest it be re-upload to Commons instead as c:Template:PD-textlogo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, 331dot. Marchjuly, I've uploaded the logo on wikimedia commons as you suggested: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard. Am I supposed to add that to the infobox now? And if so, do I do that by just writing 'persuasion.community.png' in the Infobox's image voice? Marialbno96 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

11:57:41, 15 February 2022 review of submission by MehrMiranRakhi
Thank you for reviewing my article! However, it was declined because the subject already exists. I want to bring to your notice that the information on that article is false why is why I curated a new piece based on facts. Please let me know how I can have my article accepted. Any advice will be appreciated.

Mehr Miran Rakhi (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you would like to change an existing article, please go to the article talk page(Talk:Pakistan Engineering Company) and make an edit request(click for instructions), detailing the specific changes you feel are needed. Please note that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if those sources are not being correctly summarized, please tell how. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

12:50:47, 15 February 2022 review of submission by VikiKrisz
Hi, my draft was declined on the basis that it has no independent sources. However, the company in question is mentioned and referred to twice on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PTP_implementations (Polynet/PolyNet). That is what gave me the idea to create a new article on the company. Is it possible to connect these references with the new article "PolyNet Telecommunications"? Would that make this draft legit? Thank you for your time reviewing my question, I really appreciate your help. VikiKrisz (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Being mentioned on another Wikipedia page does not mean the company is a suitable subject for an entire encyclopedia article; it does not mean it is notable. The references used on that other page are the company's website, so are not independent sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

13:15:25, 15 February 2022 review of draft by Anders Bjorklund Lund
Hello. I have just submitted a Live Person page, which now is un der re-review as Draft:Anders Björklund. I have a head-shot photo that I would like to add to the Infobox. How can I do that? Can I get the permission to upload the picture, or can an editor do it for me? Best regards, Anders Bjrklund

Anders Bjorklund Lund (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Images are not necessary for getting an article approved, but The best thing is if you took an image of yourself with your own camera, you may then upload it yourself, see WP:UPIMAGE. If you have a professional head shot that someone else took, they will need to upload it. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

13:43:28, 15 February 2022 review of submission by Rsmfilmsuk
Rsmfilmsuk (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

M A Y [British Musician]

why has this been declined M A Y is a musician so pages like Spotify and Apple Music proof the material from the Artist how are they not reliable sources. could you please let me know what exactly is need to be changed on the article. as I am confused as to what needs to be taken out and added please help thanks.
 * You have only cited the existence of the music; this does not demonstrate notability. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

15:24:14, 15 February 2022 review of submission by Keros11
Keros11 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this about Draft:Dhruva? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

16:34:04, 15 February 2022 review of submission by Mageteck
The problem and how to fix it are totally understandable. Please explain in clear English.
 * The draft is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a guidebook, but an encyclopedia. Please read the five pillars and Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

18:13:21, 15 February 2022 review of submission by BrickBelltower
For my citation #2, Carla Zimmerman's Inventory to the Records of the Women's Project of New Jersey, an archive located in the Special Collections of the Rutgers U. Libraries, I keep putting in the URL address as "http://www2.scc.rutgers.edu/ead/manuscripts/wpnjf.html" and the wiki template keeps changing it to "www2.scc.rutgers.edu". Consequently, the link to the Women's Project of NJ archive is lost. How can I get the correct link to the WPNJ archive entered into the citation? Thanks, BrickBelltower BrickBelltower (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref errors fixed. I tried to reduce the size, but there's still way too much info there, for the sourcing. In this case, less is more. I'd reduce it by about 75% and focus on finding more sources to demonstrate notability. Source everything that's there and you'll find it easier to figure out what to remove. BTW - this is a place to discuss the article being declined. The WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse can help you with syntax questions. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

18:34:51, 15 February 2022 review of submission by Eladlavy12
Hi, I would like to ask for advice regarding this article. I have helped with this article with the intention of making it notable, after thorough research about both the subject itself and its field. I am open to criticism and suggestion, however I do believe it has some reliable content, and at least some of it could be preserved or refined. I have consulted with some editors and Wikipedians, and while some had ideas and edited the content, they all thought that the article is at least respectful and followed the guidelines of Wikipedia. This gives me hope to not give up on it, but rather consult with you and see how can I achieve the optimal results for my efforts. Would appreciate your advice, thank you. Eladlavy12 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits to restore some sources that were removed, but in such a way as to not be too promotional. I also added a new source with some decent info. Pinging to see if he still feels this deserves a terminal rejection versus a decline, so it can continue to be improved before being resubmitted. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi,, As you can see there has been some work on the article. perhaps we can discuss its status as declined?
 * Would appreciate your input. Eladlavy12 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will offer you my thoughts on the matter, and some advice. Unfortunately, it will be advice which you probably won't like, but I offer it because I  sincerely think it will be more helpful to you than saying things which you might prefer to hear. Obviously, as with all advice, it will be for you to decide whether to take it or not.


 * Before I even saw the draft, it had been deleted three times as promotional, and at least seven times it had been submitted as an "article for creation", and each time declined, either because of lack of evidence of notability or because of its promotional character, or both. In its current form it doesn't look to me as blatantly promotional as some earlier versions, but to me it still has the feel of being written by a marketing or PR professional who wishes to impress the reader with how good the company is. However, there is a more fundamental problem. Promotional tone can be dealt with by rewriting, but no amount of rewriting an article can change the notability of the subject of that article. None of the cited references is substantial coverage of the company in reliable independent sources. We have references to sources which are not independent of the subject, such as a page on a business promotion site, and a page which merely tells us what someone at the company says, a report covering a particular incident concerning the business, but not giving substantial coverage of the business itself, and so on. There may be better sources available, but I doubt it, because after the amount of work you and an earlier editor paid to create this article have put in to trying to get it accepted, one or other of you would almost certainly have produced it by now. You will, of course, make your own decision whether to put more work into this or not, and whether to submit it yet again as an article for creation, but my personal advice is that you would probably be wasting your time. Everything gives me the strong impression that the business doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notabilty guidelines, and if it ever becomes an article, it will almost certainly be deleted. JBW (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you so much for your input!
 * It doesn't really matter to me that perhaps you didn't have good news, as I appreciate the time you put into it. I welcome advice and sometimes even criticism. As a matter of fact, I can't say I'm really surprised with what you had to say regarding it, but it is more effective to hear it from the other side, I guess.
 * I am hearing you and of course will look into it, but just wanted to go over with you one last thing before I would conclude my efforts, if you don't mind:
 * As a writer with some experience with Wikipedia, I of course go over first and foremost on the notability of the subject; I in no mean wish to waste my time or the time of the editors with creating irrelevant articles that don't hold up.
 * However, when researching about this subject to see if it could be notable, I came across some existing articles that give me the impression that even with the current coverage this draft could be made into a proper article.
 * I hate to play the "Whataboutism" card, and I know that Wikipedia doesn't favor this sort of conversation, but it is something that I can't really ignore. Such articles, for example, are JoyTunes or Epidemic Sound that are in sort of a similar field, which provide less coverage than what I brought. My intention is by no means to claim fault to those articles, but just perhaps a way to learn to observe differently from what I have seen so far. If, in fact, these are things I have missed - it would definitely would help me going forward in Wikipedia; or perhaps it might still give me a glimpse of hope for this article.
 * either way, I appreciate your input. Eladlavy12 (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

19:50:05, 15 February 2022 review of submission by 78.101.187.150
we need article for our honors program project 78.101.187.150 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's not enough material here for a standalone article. Your best bet is to find 1 or 2 good sources of coverage and add a student life section to the Qatar University article, with no more than two sentences. You can use the school papers as sources. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

20:38:09, 15 February 2022 review of draft by Svalluru81
Hi team,

This is first time I am submitting an entry. This is about a living person and I am not getting what kind of references it is needed. Please let me know before declining it.

Svalluru81 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * especially on biographies about living people, every claim should be backed up by a reliable reference with an inline citation. Right now the only source you have is a mention of the subject. I've declined the draft for now; before submitting it again, please add at least 4 reliable, in-depth sources on the subject. >>> Wgullyn . talk ; 20:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, your userpage suggests you are writing about yourself. Autobiographies are conflict of interest editing and are strongly discouraged. >>> Wgullyn . talk ; 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

23:08:22, 15 February 2022 review of submission by 51.37.253.178
51.37.253.178 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but I assume this is about the rejection of your draft. The sourcing is poor, and this incident isn't notable enough to be more than a single line (or at most two) in Discord (software). But only with a reliable third party source, none of which are currently in the draft. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)