Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 August 11

= August 11 =

02:34, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Tintinthereporter226
I'm not sure how to add sufficient references to this draft to establish WP:GNG, as I had added quite a lot to it. There are quite a lot of stories since this subject is part of a popular TV franchise, so I don't think adding sources in itself is an issue. The main issue I have would be if they are sufficient to establish notability.

Regards, Tintinthereporter226 (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

03:08, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Elttaruuu
When I made an AFC draft of Gaylors it was accepted as notable but then thrown out again for having similar code to my first Gaylors article. I’m wondering if a few people can determine notability of this, as it seems to me to be notable and additionally, seems to be gaining notability as a subject with recent events. Additionally, struggling with the critique that Kaylors is less notable than Gaylors. Much of the criticism I got when I made a Gaylor article seemed to stem from a lack of focus in the article because gaylor can be so broad. I thought a Kaylor article could maintain the notability of Gaylor (which seems prevalent to me) but tighten the subject matter of the article so it’s not about a thousand tangentially gay Taylor Swift subjects. I keep taking a stab at this, not out of defiance, but because I believe in the quality of the subject matter as an article and am believing that subjects can evolve in their relevance and my skills can improve to make an article more worthy here. TLDR: Would just like another person (preferably someone uninvolved in the conversation so far) to go through the article and the sources and confirm it is not noteable or it is noteable before I give up on this. Elttaruuu (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

07:11, 11 August 2023 review of submission by 115.98.234.162
All the information is properly researched and reliable.we have also used necessary references from medias and other platforms which were also reliable Still its getting rejected? What changes should we need to make to prove this page reliable 115.98.234.162 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You needn't make any changes. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

07:26, 11 August 2023 review of submission by 115.98.234.162
What changes should i make to my page to make it reliable 115.98.234.162 (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * None of your sources are independent or reliable you clearly have not read what constitutes a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

07:30, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Samantha.jackson5678
Hi, I recently sent in my article for an electric vehicle charging manufacturer (Lectron EV), but my submission was declined because it read more like an advertisement and lacked citations from diverse independent and trustworthy sources. After receiving this feedback, I tried my best to reword the content and write it from the neutral point of view and put reliable sources. I have not used any PR to back the information as it is against the wikipedia policies. Concerning the structure, I carefully constructed the article by layering facts upon each other and then tweaked the sentence formation to enhance readability.

Previously, I tried to create the article for Lectron EV, but did not provide the paid-contribution discloure. However, I learned about this disclosure policy of wikipedia and immediately disclosed that I am being paid to edit as per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. I request you to please guide me what improvements can I make further to get this article approved and which entirely adheres to the wikipedia guidelines. In particular, I would highly appreciate if you guide me on the content and references that I have written. If you highlight the mistakes in the draft will be of great help for me. Therefore, I welcome any feedback or suggestions in this area.

Lectron EV is an American electric vehicle charging manufacturer founded in Minnesota, United States with global headquarters in in Los Angeles, California, with additional offices in Hong Kong and Shenzhen.[1] Lectron EV charging products are available on Amazon, Walmart, The Home Depot, AutoZone, Best Buy, Lowe’s, Target, Sam’s Club.[2] [3]

History[edit | edit source] Lectron EV was founded in 2017 as an electric vehicle charging company by Christopher Maiwald, who is also the founder and Managing Director of Wasserstein Home.[4] [5] Jay Goldman is the current Chief Revenue Officer. Previously Goldman served in senior positions at Faraday Future, EVgo, and PlugShare.[6] [7] In March, 2020, the company established a retail partnership with AutoZone.[2]

References https://ev-lectron.com/pages/business-inquiries

https://fuelsmarketnews.com/lectron-unveils-new-retail-partnership-with-autozone/

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/vehicles-of-the-future-christopher-maiwald-of-lectron-on-the-leading-edge-technologies-that-are-2589f28649ff

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/lectron-ev-home-charger?slide=3

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/the-future-is-now-christopher-maiwald-of-wasserstein-home-on-how-their-technological-innovation-bfaa51c80f99#:~:text=Christopher%20Maiwald%20is%20the%20Founder,options%20and%20poor%20video%20quality.

https://dot.la/moves-produce-pay-2659494252.html

https://www.electrive.com/2018/08/19/evgo-reenforces-board-with-three-executives/

Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely Samantha.jackson5678 (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Samantha.jackson5678: so what is your question? The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting another review. (And please don't post your draft content here, thanks.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that interviews are not independent sources neither is their own website. Theroadislong (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

09:50, 11 August 2023 review of submission by DKFAR
The references listed are from lengthy published articles. Where exactly can I improve on this?

Thank you DKFAR (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Of your sources,
 * is an interview, which does not establish notability as it is not an independent source(it's the person speaking about themselves). Interviews can be used for some purposes, but not to establish notability
 * IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable
 * just documents the existence of his Tim Hortons jingle
 * is an ad containing the jingle
 * None of these are significant coverage of Mr. Krystal. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

12:50, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Drmirror
I do not understand why the article keeps getting declined. I renewed almost all sources to reliable sources (after the first decline) and tried to source almost every sentence. There are articles published which have alot more content but a fraction of the sources. Can you help me or tell me where to get assistance on the issue? Drmirror (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet, and you would be unaware of this.  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.  We can only address what we know about.  If you would like to help us, you can identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action.  We need the help.  If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
 * Regarding your draft, you have documented this person's work, but not summarized independent reliable sources that describe what makes him meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. As odd as it may sound, you probably have too many sources. To pass this process, most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage of the topic to be summarized.  What are your three absolute best sources that give this man significant coverage, describing what they see as important/significant/influential about him? 331dot (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I almost thought the same thing, as other articles have less sources. These are the most relevant in my opinion:
 * https://www.theasset.com/article-esg/47107/db-names-esg-chief-investment-officer
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-29/deutsche-warns-against-crypto-currencies-risk-of-total-loss?leadSource=uverify%20wall
 * https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/deutsche-bank-executive-says-esg-is-now-entering-phase-three
 * What do you think? I am happy to hear from you. Drmirror (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears that
 * is an annoucement of his being named to a position, a routine activity
 * I cannot read it due to a paywall(which is fine) but it seems to just publicize an announcement he made
 * also cannot read it but it seems to largely be composed of quotes by him
 * None of these are significant coverage of him and what makes him important. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I understand your arguments but the first decliner of the article, told me that those Bloomberg sources are solid and more of them are needed. When I compare with this article Marion Laboure I see alot of similarities. Do you think I should shorten the article for Markus H.-P. Müller and reduce the amount of sources for it to be passed? Drmirror (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the reviewer notes, remove anything from Müller himself, and then summarize your top three to five best sources about him. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

12:55, 11 August 2023 review of submission by DingDam
Why my article submission was declined I write article and post on it. Now I receive a decline message of my post. Can you tell me reason. DingDam (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. I left you a reason for the decline at the top of your draft.  It reads as an essay, not as an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia, you need to summarize what others say about the topic. You also only have one source, which seems to be a blog- blogs are not usually considered reliable sources as they usually lack journalistic standards of fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

13:06, 11 August 2023 review of submission by 115.240.90.106
I am unable to understand why this request is getting declined. There are many such companies on Wikipedia which has pages. 115.240.90.106 (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This draft is being considered on its own merits and with reference to the currently prevailing policies and guidelines, not by comparing it to other articles that may exist. The decline reasons are given in the decline message, and the accompanying comments; please study them carefully. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Tata Motors has an article. For this subsidiary to merit an article on its own, there must be coverage of it alone establishing that it is notable as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

15:19, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Museumgoer99
Hello,

I am very grateful that my draft has been reviewed. The reviewer left the comment that the article is not adequately supported by reliable sources. For the general overview, I used The Guardian and Artnet. There are currently no scholarly articles about the database that I would be able to cite. For some references, I used the press release from the Ukrainian Ministry, simply because the information was not mentioned in independent newspapers.

What would be the best approach? Should I wait until the database has been written about in scholarly publications?

Many thanks! Museumgoer99 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Museumgoer99: we don't especially need to see scholarly publications, we just need to ensure that the information is properly supported by referencing; at the moment the 'Database contents' section is mostly unreferenced (which could arguably be solved by deleting the 2nd and 3rd para). (I say this assuming that Artnet News can be considered a reliable source, which it may be, but not necessarily.) There is, however, a problem with notability, in that only two secondary sources are cited, which means at least one more solid source would be needed to satisfy WP:GNG.
 * Both of these problems probably stem from the fact that this database has been launched only very recently, so it could be simply a case of waiting a few weeks or months to see if more sources pop up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you so much for your speedy, friendly and extremely helpful response. I will keep working on the article with the aim of resubmitting it when I feel that it is properly referenced throughout. As you say, it probably makes sense to wait a bit for more sources to pop up. Thanks again and have a great weekend! Museumgoer99 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

19:10, 11 August 2023 review of submission by Innerharmony4u
Hi folks! Thank you in advance for your help and advice! I am going to work on Denise's Wikipedia again, but I'm not sure how I add the necessary citations. I have many more articles that she has written in various publications. Does it need to link to that specific publications website page? Or the books she has written link where the book is for sale? I have been looking at Colette Baron Reid listing, and I'm not sure thats a good one to base what I'm trying to do on. Thank you! Innerharmony4u (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that it would not be "Denise's Wikipedia"; but a Wikipedia article about Denise. Wikipedia is the name of this entire website, not each individual article.
 * You misunderstand what a Wikipedia article is for- it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It isn't a place to summarize what the person says about themselves, such as articles they wrote, or interviews they gave, or the content of their website.
 * If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community(unlike the vast majority of articles). 331dot (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are associated with Denise, please read conflict of interest. If you have any paid relationship with Denise, or are otherwise editing as part of your job, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)