Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 June 13

= June 13 =

05:00:57, 13 June 2022 review of submission by Zikri Aiman
Please re-review the article. I have already made edits to it. You can check it now. Would request you to please live the page. The information provided is 100% original and not at all copied from anywhere else. Please re-review and live the article. Also, if rejected, let me know the clear and long reason for the same. Awaiting your response back. Zikri Aiman (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Zikri Aiman: as the reviewer says, "blatant advert". It's not a very long reason, but hopefully clear enough. I might add that the draft only cites the company's own websites as sources (plus a pointless reference to the MAS site), which obviously does nothing to establish notability. (I also don't quite agree that the content is "not at all copied", but at this stage that's somewhat academic.) Therefore, this is the end of the road, and the draft will not be considered further. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

07:29:52, 13 June 2022 review of submission by Gobautista
Can you help me and advise me on what I should do to improve this article worthy of approval. Thank you.

Evo1885 07:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gobautista: nothing; that would be what's proverbially referred to as 'flogging a dead horse'. After four earlier declines, the draft was rejected since it was clearly going nowhere in terms of sourcing, and will therefore not be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing: Thank you for this information and thanks for the reply. Evo1885 07:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

07:46:30, 13 June 2022 review of submission by 14.139.220.217
14.139.220.217 (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC) The article Draft:Mihir Bhatta is Not a pass of WP:NACADEMIC WHAT to do? Please, Help.


 * If the person isn't notable, either by way of NACADEMIC or GNG, then there isn't much you can do; can't magic notability out of thin air. If, however, they are notable, then you need to present your evidence of that before resubmitting, as otherwise the draft is likely to be declined again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

09:00:50, 13 June 2022 review of submission by Kirtikanani2
Kirtikanani2 (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but the draft you wrote was deleted as blatant advertising. I can read it as an admin, and I concur with the deletion. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does.  Any Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.  Please read Your First Article.
 * If you work for this company, you must read the paid editing policy for information about a required formal disclosure, required by the Terms of Use. You should also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

10:16:14, 13 June 2022 review of submission by Emery Cool21
1. I has been editing it 2. The game has got more than 10 million download on Play Store, so it may be notable enough 3. Has been abandoned since 2019

Emery Cool21 (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a gaming guide and as such it should not have extensive details about the game itself and its features. It should only summarize what independent reliable sources state about the game.  The Criticism section is completely unsourced.  Who criticizes the game physics?  331dot (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

12:20:01, 13 June 2022 review of submission by Yoan Darmonski 474843
Since I need to upload this for a university project, I wanted to ask what exactly is wrong with my wiki page, so I can fix it, and make it approvable. Yoan Darmonski 474843 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a How To. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can this article be saved at all? Could you write some points about what should I change? Thank you in advance! Yoan Darmonski 474843 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Yoan Darmonski 474843: no, it couldn't be saved, at least not without a major rewrite/restructuring. As Theroadislong says, Wikipedia does not publish how-to-guides (or essays, blogs, etc.). You would need to somehow find a way of turning this into an encyclopaedia entry, and I for one can't think how you'd do that.
 * And on a separate but related point, we essentially publish summaries of what other reliable sources have published about a topic, and given that this appears to be based on your first-hand experience, it would fall at the hurdle of sourcing and notability, as well as be considered original research, all of which are cardinal sins here on Wikipedia. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello DoubleGrazing, that is fair. So, what I understand from your statements is that I should just exclude my experience in the matter and focus on writing more theoretically correct based on already existing sources. All in all, no first-hand experience talk, only encyclopaedia facts. Yoan Darmonski 474843 (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

13:59:09, 13 June 2022 review of draft by 184.56.32.168
184.56.32.168 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What is your question?
 * Or let me try and anticipate one. The reason why this draft was declined is because it cites all of one source, all of once. That is nowhere near enough to either establish notability of the subject per WP:GNG, or to support the article contents. It barely verifies that the building existed, but that isn't enough for inclusion in a global encyclopaedia — otherwise we would potentially have an article on every building in the world. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

My question is: can you add an image to my project? I would really appreciate it! Just search up “distribution terminal Warehouse Cleveland” on google. Or maybe just use this link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.32.168 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The image doesn't help your draft at all. Focus on the sourcing instead, rather than rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

18:47:58, 13 June 2022 review of draft by AntoineDTate
AntoineDTate (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I received some feedback on why my article was rejected.

Here's the note...

"Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: I'd recommend removing external links from the body. SiliconRed (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)"

I'm a little confused because the external links are in the "Bibliography" and I've seen quite a few articles about prominent book writers that have external links in their bibliography.

Here's an example ---> Ta-Nehisi Coates

I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Thanks.


 * this draft wasn't declined because of inline external links (that's an earlier comment from February); it was declined because of lack of inline citations: the entire 'Early life' and 'Personal life' sections are without any citations, which is unacceptable in an article on a living person (see WP:BLP). HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

21:54:52, 13 June 2022 review of draft by Grward
Grward (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What is your question @Grward? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * my question is to get clarity on the meaning of "notoriety" for college basketball players. i see some aticles that have been accepted about very "minor" players but some get rejected about major college layers that figure largely in ESPN and other coverage. there seems to be an issue with consistency and i checked the rules (such as they exist) but that seemed very specific to the men's game. Grward (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Grward FYI, Wikipedia uses the term "notability", not "notoriety". Articles within WP are not all consistent; different people contributed to different articles, and some articles may have been created before WP's policies were updated several years ago to be more stringent in requiring good sources.  Yes, it can be confusing at first. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)