Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 January 28

= January 28 =

04:29:18, 28 January 2022 review of submission by 97.92.213.66
I added a better source for this page from the Saint Louis News Dispatch. 97.92.213.66 (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been rejected and will not be considered further. A contribution to a local newspaper website does make a reliable source especially when there is a disclaimer at top of the page telling us not that the content has not been checked for accuracy. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

05:16:12, 28 January 2022 review of submission by SandAndrew
There is no undisclosed payment to write or Edit this Article. Article is only to provide a quality content or brief of the Newly setup Diagnostic Chain. They are doing great in his domain and getting very strong presence in Indian Market. If you find anything against the wikipedia policies then sure delete the Article otherwise expecting support to get this LIVE with any changes to meet the wiki policies. SandAndrew (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With only one poor quality source that is not going to happen, it was rejected and will not be considered again. Theroadislong (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Newly setup" and similar generally means "No sources available to support a notability claim". —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 10:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

07:55:31, 28 January 2022 review of submission by 고양이 발자국
고양이 발자국 (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * if you have a question for the help desk, you will need to ask it, not just post a link to the draft. Your post yesterday was answered (you can find it here), and nothing has changed about your draft since then. Please do not remove the "Rejected" notice from the draft. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

09:28:31, 28 January 2022 review of submission by Shruti232002Bond
Hi, I have added minimal content from sources that can be approved. Please let me know if I am on the right track

Shruti232002Bond (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does; an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offered are not independent and do not have significant coverage, as they just document the existence of the company.
 * If you work for this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

10:29:14, 28 January 2022 review of submission by Ummar Jamal
Ummar Jamal (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2022 (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 to merely tell about someone; a Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

12:12:38, 28 January 2022 review of draft by Lofty10820
In my article, Gordon Joseph Lippman, I have inadvertently indented 10 external references under #7 of the first set of external references, creating two problems.

The first is the indentation. These references were created by using the footnoting procedure in Wiki. The second is that I have a cite error: Cite error: The named reference ":1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

What's the best way to address both problems?

Lofty10820 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of starting to clean up the article. You can see how I combined two references.  You should put all the references inline, after the statements they substantiate. Don't include anything that isn't substantiated, such as a personal anecdotes or hearsay. Everything must be verified, and that helps demonstrate notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

14:38:19, 28 January 2022 review of draft by SagarVijayGhatole
SagarVijayGhatole (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Subject appears to be writing about himself. Article is unsourced. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

14:38:55, 28 January 2022 review of submission by SagarVijayGhatole
SagarVijayGhatole (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See above. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

14:42:31, 28 January 2022 review of submission by Editorialeweb1
Hi, I'm writing about the Verifiability of my article. I have read about the "Questionable sources" in the Verifiability page of Wikipedia. I found more material that talks about the Ecam Council's Meeting happened in Rome on October 2020. I'm going to link the sources in which there is the official site of Italian Senato: https://www.senato.it/4519?atto_presidente=11925 https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/27842/20201022/health-experts-meet-in-rome-for-universal-healthcare-discussions-at-ecam-council.htm https://www.kamelghribi.com/events-single/31 https://www.lamescolanza.com/2021/11/02/ecam-successo-per-il-summit-legato-sugli-sviluppi-sanitari-in-europa-nord-africa-e-medio-oriente/ https://www.ambrosetti.eu/en/news/ecam-council-2021/ https://www.agenceecofin.com/sante/2710-81778-le-role-du-groupe-hospitalier-san-donato-et-du-groupe-gk-investment-holding-dans-lavenir-des-services-de-sante-en-afrique https://www.leaders.com.tn/article/30816-conte-au-dr-mahdi-l-italie-confirme-son-soutien-au-dispositif-sanitaire-tunisien-face-au-covid-19 https://allafrica.com/stories/202010220976.html

The Meeting's goal is to talk about Healtcare and help the region of North Africa's Country. During this summit lot of promiment figures took part as the ministers of Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Kenya, Kurdistan, Mozambique and Italy. I hope that the sources I found are reliable enough. I also ask if the referrals that I have already included are used in the right way and if that's not the case how I can improve them. Thanks.

Editorialeweb1 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. The first reason being Wikipedia is not a hosting site for the agenda of the meeting or it's timetable. The second is the sourcing none of which seem to be independent of the event or it's members, which means no else seemed to care enough to write about it on their own accord and publish it anywhere reliable. The goals and asperations of the meeting or team members has no bearing what so ever on whether this event is notable or not. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

18:27:41, 28 January 2022 review of submission by Jim Pickens the dear leaderkevo345
it was tagged for delition and i don't know why i put correct information and everything Jim Pickens the dear leaderkevo345 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft wasn't tagged for deletion, though it probably should be the content is not appropriate namely... 'Jim Pickens is CallMeKevin's Sims 4 character. He is a cult leader, known for murdering numerous Sims and taking their money. He is a great man. All hair our dear leader!" Theroadislong (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

19:38:29, 28 January 2022 review of submission by MightyMaven
MightyMaven (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I am disturbed to find the editors removed 95% of all my work and found nothing worthy to keep. If they had taken the time to explain rather than rudely tell me I created a wall of words and other snide remarks, and explained themselves, I still haven't learned from their posts to me because they forced me to guess at what they were saying, speaking in a lot of jargon and generalizations.

I cannot believe they didn't accept FDA as a good source or clinicaltrials.gov as a good source either. Both of those are governmental sources. They are not tied to any company and are independent of them.

I was also told that some statement I made proved I had a conflict of interest simply because I supposedly said "my company". I really hate it when people misread what I'm saying or writing because then they get a burr under their saddle and you can't get them to see straight because they are off on some other tangent. I AM NOT AN OWNER OF TETRA BIO PHARA AND NEVER HAVE BEEN. When I said "my company", wherever that may have been said, I was referring to them as my company the one that I'm writing about, MY subject, MY hu308 page, MY efforts. My company I'm writing about as opposed to somebody else's company they are talking about.

I'm extremely intelligent, holding degrees in psychology, multiple languages and the law, and if I don't get something someone is explaining, it's not likely my fault. I got the feeling several times when I asked for help, that I was some kind of nitwit and only needed to be given cursory HINTS to correct a page or citation. Wikipedia used to have a lot of helpful people that actually would educate you and never condescend others.

I put MONTHS of research into helping my dear mother and the research helped her recover from Alzheimer's and go off her medicine. That is why I put so much effort into the HU308 page because of all the fantastic things they were finding out about it at the NIH research studies going on. I added some 70 citations most of which were directly tied to independent studies, the main of which existed before Tetra Biopharma ever became incorporated in 2015. How could those be considered Tetra's publications and not independent, I ask you. I'd hate to see what you guys would do in a court of law to the rules of evidence and the holdings of all the cases you reviewed. Probably tear society completely down.
 * , please read WP:MEDRS for a explanation of the sources required in Wikipedia medical articles. Also WP:CIVILITY is not optional.Slywriter (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

19:41:28, 28 January 2022 review of submission by MightyMaven
MightyMaven (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC) And PPP001 and HU308 are only related because the same company owns them now. Last I heard that wasn't a crime.

21:01:28, 28 January 2022 review of submission by 2001:569:FC49:4500:717D:5FE1:FBB8:74ED
Hi there, I am requesting a re-review for this Wikipedia page as it is a class project and it would be great if we could properly submit it. If you have any suggestions for changes to make it less like an advertisement I would love to review them!

Thank you

2001:569:FC49:4500:717D:5FE1:FBB8:74ED (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but as the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. It is very unfair to you for your teacher/instructor to require you to create a Wikipedia article. Your teacher should be familiar with the Wikipedia education program materials.
 * A article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. The two sources you offered are just announcements, which do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 21:05:18, 28 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Neelmohapatra
want to know how to published article on wiki

Neelmohapatra (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

22:25:37, 28 January 2022 review of submission by George-Amherst
2 questions: I receive email notifcations of comments by reviewers (I suppose), and when I try to view the comments I come to this help page. Where do I find and reply to the comments? Second: how do I change the PAGENAME for the draft which I have submitted. It was assigned without my consultation and is inappropriate.

Thanks George-Amherst (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the comments on your draft itself? The title of the draft is unimportant in terms of the review; if accepted as an article, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. Please provide guidance on the draft talk page; it should be the most commonly used name and not necessarily the official name or a past name. See WP:COMMONNAME. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it is appreciated that the most common name is the one I've proposed, but the field doesn't seem to very well understood by the reviewers. May I forward your comment to the pagetalk? George-Amherst (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You may. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)