Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 September 26

= September 26 =

Request on 00:10:20, 26 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 2401:4900:3316:9FE6:1:1:B48B:F717
Help me in doing the necessary changes and get this page published. I will be really thankful to you.

2401:4900:3316:9FE6:1:1:B48B:F717 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The draft is deleted, and you're not logged in. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 00:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

07:32:12, 26 September 2022 review of submission by Fourseasonsoflife
Hi there, i have edited and resubmitted with the new edits from the draft page. Please do take a look and let me know if i have written more closely to wiki's pillars.

Fourseasonsoflife (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

07:43:22, 26 September 2022 review of submission by Mainawagioko
Hello,

I wrote an article, and a literature review and cited and referenced all the work I used.

I would like to know why the article was rejected by a reviewer named DEB,

Secondly, I need guidance on what is to be written here as I have written in many journals but I am new here.

Your support is highly appreciated

Mainawagioko (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your draft was deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. Text may not be simply copied here from elsewhere; what you write must be in your own words. You may have a misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is.  It isn't like a journal.  This is an encyclopedia, and as an an encyclopedia an article should summarize in its own words what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial and read Your First Article to learn more about Wikipedia.  Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia; it is also a good idea to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mainawagioko: I assume you're referring to your sandbox draft from a few days ago? I declined it and requested deletion because it was a copyright violation. (Deb was the administrator who then deleted, not 'rejected', it.) If I'm not mistaken, this wasn't your first attempt, either. You really must read and understand WP:CV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

09:00:54, 26 September 2022 review of submission by Irfan2411
Irfan2411 (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft was moved to mainspace anyway. I reckon the subject is actually notable per NPOL as an elected MLA, so in that sense the rejection doesn't seem justified. That said, the article is highly promotional and quite poorly written, almost to the point of needing TNT, as well as insufficiently referenced for a BLP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

12:58:49, 26 September 2022 review of submission by Illyrian.preveza
Hello, this draft has been rejected and I would like to know why so I can make the necessary changes required. Thanks. Illyrian.preveza (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Illyrian.preveza: it hasn't been rejected, it has only been declined, meaning that it can be resubmitted (as indeed it has been). The reason for declining was, as it says in the decline notice, that the sources do not establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * e/c Please note that Instagram, Linkedin.com and YouTube are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, yes I meant declined.
 * There were some reliable sources, but I have increased this. Instagram was used but this was direct substantive posts by established and verified accounts such as the account of the prime minister and the football federation of the country, which are secondary sources written by third parties to a topic that they have no vested interest in. The youtube video was created and published by the biggest media organisation in Kosova (for example being posted on CNN in the US or BBC in the UK), is this not suitable?
 * Regardless, included are mainstream newspaper articles that have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking which should solve the previous issue.
 * I hope that resolves that issue, if not let me know what else is required and I will strive to do this. Illyrian.preveza (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can wikiholic provide a reasoning as to why he believes the sources do not show significant coverage of the subject?
 * I have provided sources such as newspaper articles which show significant coverage in reliable sources which are centred around the topic (it is not a passing mention). These articles show significant coverage, as does the video interview of the club founder with Klan Kosova, which means no original research is needed to extract the content. Reliability is present as there is editorial integrity from the journalists' and media organisation. Nearly all sources are secondary sources. This is in addition to the public statement the Prime Minister has dedicated to the club which is entered around the subject and goes into significant detail as does the statement of the football federation. Illyrian.preveza (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Illyrian.preveza: You would have to ask TheWikiholic that. In the meantime, I can tell you my opinions, which are that interviews are considered primary sources. Directory listings and the like do not provide significant coverage. LinkedIn and Instagram are completely useless; you might as well not bother citing them. What that leaves you with is several sources reporting on the same topic, namely a visit to the president, which is not enough to establish notability (whether those sources are fully reliable and independent or not, which isn't something I can comment on). FWIW, I suspect this subject is inherently non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

15:23:06, 26 September 2022 review of draft by Valleyboy2
Hello, I have been making many edits and never had a problem, but both times I've tried to create a page from scratch it has been rejected. This one says there aren't enough independent links, but I worked really hard to find them - and I really believe there are. I chose this company as I found a link to a person in it ie it would link to another wikipedia page. Please help, as I feel like giving up. Many thanks.

Valleyboy2 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your draft just tells about the subject and what it does. You do that well- but that's not what is being looked for. A 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 Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage " goes beyond the mere reporting of the company's activities, and goes into detail about what is significant about the company. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your comments.I still don't really understand, as all the references I've used are from independent journalists, like TechCrunch etc and I've never used anything from the company's own website? Can you explain what you mean about what is significant about the company, because as an English English speaker (as opposed to an American English speaker - and this is not in any way a criticism it's an observation) I really feel I've done that.The wikipedia portal is quite tricky/clunky to navigate, so when I click on examples it takes me to a specific page, therefore not answering my questions. Thanks in advance. Valleyboy2 (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is not necessarily the outlets themselves, but their content. In examining them,
 * is just a basic profile, not significant coverage
 * is another profile type page
 * is another profile type page
 * is an announcement of a routine business transaction(the hiring of staff) and contains an interview with them, which is not an independent source
 * is an announcement of a routine business transaction(the raising of capital)
 * is a piece written by the co-founder of the company, which seems to just document that he does just that, not significant coverage of the company
 * is an interview with a company staff memeber, not an independent source
 * is another interview with a staff person
 * is another interview
 * is an announcement of a routine business transaction(that the company invested in another company)
 * seems to be a summary of company information
 * is another announcement of the company investing in another company
 * Some of these sources may be useful for other purposes, but not for establishing notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what the company(or its staff) says about itself, in the mere reporting of its activities, or what those associated with it say about it. "Significant coverage" goes beyond these things and goes into detail about why the company is significant or influential.  For example, the Microsoft article does not just tell us that it has bought other companies, or produces various products, but goes into detail about how those outisde the company see those things as influential and significant.  Ford Motor Company does the same; it doesn't just tell us that it produces cars, it goes into detail about the historical significance of the company(i.e. pioneering the assembly line).  If the only sources out there merely report on the activities or the company, or are interviews with company personnel, the company likely would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

16:25:25, 26 September 2022 review of draft by Champollion
Champollion (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear, can someone please try to give some advice considering the draft (article) about Hrvoje Spajić. All the best. R
 * We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news or scholarly source written by an identifiable author and subjected to rigourous fact-checking that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE.
 * Your first reference isn't properly cited (and I'm sceptical it can be cited; we generally don't treat anything spoken as "published" unless it's been recorded/transcribed somewhere). The PressReader cite needs to be converted to an offline newspaper citation (use ). For the record we do accept offline sources if enough bibliographical information about the source is provided to allow someone to look it up in a library or archive; for newspapers this is publication name, edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline (who wrote it), and the page(s) the article is on. The citation template does have a link parametre, so you *can* keep the PressReader link. No comment on the PDF. I should also note that you should also be indicating what language these sources are in. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 19:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

19:28:57, 26 September 2022 review of draft by Rotidiap
When  Onel 5969  reviewed Welcome Homes and moved it to Draft:Welcome Homes, citing WP:DRAFTIFY in the edit summary, with WP:UPE and WP:COI on my talk page, a disclosure was already done and declared in edit summary and talk page of the article, with WP:PAID also complied with on my user page, and since I could not find any other reasons for the move to draft, I simply submitted it for review. Greenman declined my submission also citing WP:COI, but with WP:ADV in the edit summary and WP:ARTSPAM on my talk page, so I have tried to address these concerns and resubmitted for review about a month ago. Please, I am here to seek help on what else needs to be done. Rotidiap (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft reads like an advert and you have not correctly disclosed your paid editing status as required. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Theroadislong, please, what would you suggest that would make the contents of the draft not to read like an advert, and what have I left out in disclosing my paid editing status, following the guidelines at WP:PAID and the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use? And please can you remove the undisclosed paid editing tag that you placed on the draft, as a disclosure was already made by me (as required) in the edit summary and on the talk page of the draft. Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The disclosure should be on your userpage. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already disclosed my Upwork account on my userpage as required by WP:PAID and the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, and as for every paid contribution itself, the terms of use says "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.", which I have done on the edit summary and talk page of the draft. And from your review comment, with all the citations in the draft, are you still disputing the notability of the subject? Please can you suggest, with examples from the contents of the draft, on how I can make the draft not to read like an advert. Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , Since you declined the draft after seeing this request, you have gone back to replace a wrong tag with the right one and also to make comments twice; your last comment says "Please do your client the courtesy of learning how Wikipedia works before charging them money to create an article that other users would do for free." Does this mean that you only hurriedly declined my submission, because it is created by a disclosed paid contributor? Please can you focus on the contents. Rotidiap (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll interject and say the entire draft is promotional(not necessarily an "advertisement"). Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company and what it does. That's considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting or selling something.  Your draft is almost exclusively sourced to announcements of routine business activities or interviews, which does not establish that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.  There must be significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources, coverage that goes beyond merely telling about what the company does and goes into detail about the significance or influence of the company. Niche industry "awards" should not be mentioned unless the award itself merits an article(such as Tony Award or Academy Award).  "Startups" almost never merit articles; a company typically must be established and recognized in its field before meriting an article. I'm afraid that your clients have given you a difficult if not impossible task. My suggestion would be that you return their money. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that I focused entirely on the content and you still have not made the mandatory disclosure on your user page as required by the terms and conditions of paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) And yes, you should make a specific disclosure on your user page. Linking to your Upwork account helps, but is insufficient by itself. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, is this what WP:PAID and the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use require? Please I want to know, because I followed them. Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason you are declining to post a statement on your user page and trying to wikilawyer out of it? You should be as open as possible with paid editing. That's the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , There must be good reasons why the guidelines and the terms of use left it optional. And for the record, I have not received any payments yet, my edit summary was clear that it is in expectation of payment. Please, are all of the following references trivial or announcements: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16? Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I decline to give you advice beyond what I have said until you are prepared to make a disclosure on your user page. I'm not expecting any payments for my contributions here and I only have time to help people willing to be fully open with us even if the letter of the policy says disclosures buried in edit summaries are sufficient. If someone else wishes to help you, that's up to them. Good day. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK,, please look at my user page now. Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will examine the sources and explain in some moments. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sources you list here:
 * 1) I cannot examine this due to a paywall(it's fine to use paywalled sources, though) but just from the headline it sounds like it's just describing what the company does, and doesn't say why this is significant.
 * 2) This is based on an interview with the company VP, and as such is not an independent source
 * 3) based on an interview with the company marketing officer, and as such is not an independent source
 * 4) paywalled, but from the headline this seems like a brief mention of the fact that the company has gotten investors, which is a normal business activity
 * 5) describes how the founders of the company raised capital, a normal business activity
 * 6) is a piece that quotes company staff and doesn't seem to be about the company in particular
 * 7) based on a press release and interview, describing a routine business activity(the launch of a product)
 * 8) interview with the company VP
 * 9) interview with the company VP
 * 10) interview with the company VP. He gets around.
 * 11) interview with another company VP
 * 12) a routine business activity, the opening of an office
 * 13) interview with a co founder of the company
 * 14) another interview with the co founder
 * 15) interview with the CEO
 * 16) announcement of the launch of a product
 * We don't want to know what the company says about itself(or summaries of what they say about themselves). We want to know what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the company.  This rarely occurs with startups, which is why they almost never merit articles until they are well established in their field.  Every startup claims to have a new business technique- what we want to know is how others wholly independent of the company take note of that and write about how it is important or significant. I hope this is helpful. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The essay User:ColinFine/What Wikipedia doesn't care about is my opinion, but I think most experienced editors will, agree with me, and it might be helpful to you. ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and  (and ) for this experience, but please allow paid contributors to choose the option(s) they would like to use to declare their paid contributions, following the policies and the terms of use, else, they could resort to undisclosed paid editing. I will look for better references. Thank you again. Rotidiap (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. You should be acceding to our requested accomodations, not the other way around.  Paid editors should be as open as possible if they want to increase the chances that they are successful. I already conceded that you met the letter of the policy by disclosing in an edit summary, but this is not always visible to other editors. The spirit of the policy demands full openness. Instead of wikilawyering your way out of something, consider if there is a good reason for doing it. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

22:41:49, 26 September 2022 review of draft by 193.32.56.90
193.32.56.90 (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided a draft, and your IP hasn't edited any drafts, so I'm not sure what you would like help with. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 00:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Request on 23:21:28, 26 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by DrPMO
Someone deleted the draft responding it wasn't adequate. Why wasn't I given any explanation or support in improving it? All my work is gone. No time to respond. My work was deleted with no time to copy and keep the work elsewhere. Where is it? I had extensive links to the original music sources, Wikipedia references, and government documents. Insufficient time was dedicated to checking the references if the document was deleted. Too fast and too disrespectful. I am an experienced researcher and writer. I gave my doctoral students much more respect than this. Please slow down and respect the work of those that spent time contributing to this system.

DrPMO (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft was declined, not deleted. Resubmission is possible. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone and what they do. Any article about this musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)