Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 May 2

= May 2 =

07:05:29, 2 May 2022 review of submission by XXX-Rays
Thank you for you support on a way to posting af the article. Let me know if the decision is not a final and I have a possibility to improve the text still.

I am ready to fill the article with new facts which are on way this moment.

XXX-Rays (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, there's a number of notices on your user talk page, including a pretty detailed one in the section User_talk:XXX-Rays, explaining what's needed in terms of sources and content, to show notability. Despite this, you have resubmitted the draft multiple times with the same problems remaining, and that's why it was finally rejected. It looks like each time the draft was declined you simply added another source, without making sure that the source actually met the requirements, and then resubmitted – as if you merely did the absolute minimum in order to have the article published instead of trying to turn it into an actual encyclopedia article. Why didn't you add the "new facts" to the draft already? And how come you only edit this one draft? --bonadea contributions talk 07:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will add them. Need time to compose well, sorry. XXX-Rays (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to do that – the draft has been rejected, and that means it won't be considered further. --bonadea contributions talk 11:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What is your connexion to this company? —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 07:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question. I have answered the question. I have no connection to the company. But I do have connection to the industry as far. That's why I am informed well. XXX-Rays (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on what bonadea says above, I don't buy this explanation. If you genuinely were connected to the industry writ large, surely that would be reflected in your contributions; instead what's readily apparent even from a glance is your monomania for this draft. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 19:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

11:48:51, 2 May 2022 review of submission by ElontheWikiEditor
Please could someone review my Draft: Aniebiet Inyang Ntui. I have done all the corrections as I was told. I added more content with credible citations to make the article notable. ElontheWikiEditor (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * you submitted the draft for review 12 hours ago, and it will be reviewed at some point – none of us can predict when that will happen. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You've already gotten feedback on your talk page that the publications you added do not in themselves demonstrate notability. You also got some feedback at the Teahouse Teahouse. On your user page, you claim to be a student adding people who are notable, but this is the only article you've worked on. Most brand new editors don't start by contributing to a draft just created the day before that would be nearly impossible to find unless you were looking for it by name. The draft was accordingly flagged with the COI tag, which you immediately removed. Your sense of urgency with this project, coupled with your editing history, suggest you are going to be unsuccessful with this article. I recommend you take my advice to read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE, and also let us know if you've edited using any other user names before, such as the creator of the draft, ChikaObi. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello :. Thank you for the advice. I already have experience with Wikis, I have been creating various articles on Fandom and Everipedia. : and : are my roommates they started working on the article after they realised it doesn’t have a Wikipedia page after they created a wiki page for Draft: Aniebiet Inyang Ntui on Fandom.

The good news is that I am now working on updating existing biographical articles. Also, if you could recommend articles for me to work on will be helpful. ElontheWikiEditor (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can visit the Helpout section of Community portal to find volunteer opportunities to use your editing skills. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

14:27:21, 2 May 2022 review of draft by Andrea.ca
DSI Underground My Article on DSI UndergroundDraft:DSI Underground keeps being rejected, and I really don't know why. DSI is a company, there are not that many outside sources other than the one book. I've taken everything out that sounds like an ad, and still it says it sounds too much like it. Can someone please help me? I have not included anything other companies haven't included. Thanks, Andrea.ca

Andrea.ca (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet- as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. If you would like to help us, you can work to identify other problematic articles you have seen for possible action.  We can only address what we know about.  Other poor articles existing is not a reason to add more poor articles, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia.
 * Regarding your draft, if no or few independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage exist, the company would not merit an article at this time. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company; it is a place to 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. Not every company merits an article, it depends on the sources. Those sources must be wholly unconnected with the company- they cannot be staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, brief mentions, or other primary sources. Feel free to show this message to your superiors if you have been directed to create this draft- if so, you have unfortunately been given an impossible task. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add to the excellent advice above, and emphasize that one of the key aspects of Wikipedia is verifiability. One of the reasons we don't like it when companies try to edit their own articles is they add a lot of info that they "just know", without bothering to source it. Almost nothing in your draft is sourced. Unsourced info should be removed. I tried to find media coverage of the company that perhaps you missed. I thought the nearly billion dollar acquisition of DSI by Sandvik would have gotten some press.  Unfortunately, the best coverage of the transaction I could find was this. [] It's almost a pure cut and paste from the press release you issued.  It uses the weasel words "global leader", has no author's name, and even links to the company web site at the bottom.  When's the last time you saw a reputable publication link to a company website in a news article? Only trade publications that exist to promote the subjects do this, and those sources are accordingly deprecated. In order to demonstrate notability, you have to show that the press thinks you're notable, by writing about you. Until then, your article will not be accepted. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both, this helps a lot. There is not much coverage on the company, so maybe I'll just use your arguments to leave this behind me until we have more sources etc. Andrea.ca (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

20:26:58, 2 May 2022 review of submission by 74.74.128.248
Gimkit is very popular 74.74.128.248 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Popularity is not relevant to Wikipedia. Please reread the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)