Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 23

= July 23 =

01:34:48, 23 July 2023 review of draft by Lmcmanagement
Lmcmanagement (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Lmcmanagement: what is your question? Your draft has not been submitted for review... not that there is much point in submitting, as it is entirely unreferenced, not to mention highly promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

08:14, 23 July 2023 review of submission by Plumzorro
I wanted to get some tips on how to improve this article before I resubmit it. It said it sounds like an advertising. Could you please provide some tips and what specifics to change? Also, it has plenty of citations, so why is the admin saying there are not enough citations? Plumzorro (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Plumzorro: my issue with this draft is that it describes a ROTM business, without any obvious reason why this should be included in a global encyclopaedia. Granted, they seem to be pretty good at generating publicity, but unless there are multiple reliable and independent secondary sources which have covered this company in significant depth and extent, of their own volition (meaning, excluding churnalism, sponsored content, advertorials, and anything else originating in the company's marketing/PR department), I fail to see what makes this genuinely notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You declared a conflict of interest, what is the nature of your conflict? 331dot (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot and @DoubleGrazing My COI is that a friend of mine works for their company and I am helping them to get a wiki page. Although, I have seen that they have some sponsored articles, I have avoided any articles that say sponsored on them. @DoubleGrazing Which articles do you think are sponsored??? As far as I can see all the ones I used are regular articles by various publications. Their products are very popular so they got tons of coverage besides the ones I have used. If these particular ones are an issue, let me know which and I will remove and replace with others out there. Google news brings up 42 and there are more not in Google news.
 * I have researched similar companies listed, so what makes other companies qualify and not this one?? I mean why you say this is a ROTM company, when there hundreds of other such companies listed, although I am not an expert like you are, in my research I have not seen a policy that says what you just said. The policies all say that a company needs to have significant coverage to qualify, and they do. Plumzorro (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, explain to me how exactly someone can pay to get into LA TIMES and Christian Science Monitor? So you are basically accusing these reputable publications to be accepting moneys for articles??? They are also in NBC News, FAST COMPANY and NY Times, Plumzorro (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing anyone of anything; please don't put words into my mouth. I'm just remarking that this company clearly gets its message about, and that sort of publicity does not happen by accident. Besides, I've been in marketing long enough to know how the game is played. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing
 * I value your expertise in policies, and I respect your opinions. However, I find it challenging to grasp the notion that companies engaged in marketing are ineligible for a Wikipedia page. Is there a specific policy explicitly stating this? Additionally, I'm curious about the basis of your assumption that "they seem to be pretty good at generating publicity." How can you be certain of this?
 * Moreover, is it possible that their prominence is due to having an exceptional product, rather than just relying on marketing tactics? Nevertheless, regardless of how they gained press coverage, the undeniable fact remains that they have received substantial media attention, which meets the notability guidelines. Many other major companies extensively utilize marketing and public relations and yet have Wikipedia pages. Should they also be subjected to removal?
 * Could you please conduct a thorough evaluation of the existing press and provide an unbiased opinion on why you believe this company lacks notability? Plumzorro (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, Plumzorro. You say I am helping them to get a wiki page. Please note first that not one company or person "has a Wiki page" in the sense that they own or control an Wikipedia article; and second that it is hard to see what purpose you might have for doing so other than promotion, which is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are for the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers, not at all for the benefit of their subjects. (Of course, many subjects of articles do get benefit from there being an article about them, but some get the reverse.) ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @ColinFine
 * I have certainly disclosed my COI and adhered to Wikipedia's policy. Therefore, let's not use my COI as a basis for declining this company's page. Instead, let's evaluate it solely based on Wikipedia's guidelines. The policy does not state that pages submitted by individuals with a COI should be automatically declined, especially when the disclosure has been made. Hence, discussing my COI seems unnecessary.
 * If you believe that the content appears overly promotional, I am more than willing to revise it. In fact, that is precisely why I posted the question initially - to receive guidance on how to make it less promotional. This product is comparable to several other similar solar companies that already have Wikipedia pages, so including it would be advantageous for Wikipedia's readers. Here are a list of comparable solar companies on Wikipedia, some of which even have less media coverage: LuminAID, M-Kopa, Bigbelly, and Ecube Labs. If the concern is that Wikipedia readers might not be interested in this company, then logically, they should also not be interested in these other companies either.
 * Could you please conduct a thorough evaluation of the existing press and provide an unbiased opinion on why you believe this company lacks notability? Plumzorro (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Drafts are not declined just because of a COI, but they are declined if they are not neutral. I have not looked at your draft: I am not an AFC reviewer, and I will not be reviewing your draft. I was just commenting on what you said above. ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

08:48, 23 July 2023 review of submission by Yen930407
Hello, because I am a newbie, I still don't know what items I am missing. The latest question is about popularity. I want to ask how to improve the popularity? Thanks! Yen930407 (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Yen930407: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. My advice to you is to drop this matter now, as this is becoming tendentious, 'newbie' or not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

09:33, 23 July 2023 review of submission by Giorgiodevito
Creating a Wikipedia page for Dolce Pleasure is of significant importance as it sheds light on a pioneering brand in the adult toy industry that is challenging societal taboos and fostering a culture of openness and acceptance. As an innovative and forward-thinking company, Dolce Pleasure aims to revolutionize the way people perceive adult toys and empower individuals to embrace their desires and explore their intimate experiences without judgment. By documenting the brand's history, vision, and impact on the market, the Wikipedia page can serve as an informative and educational resource for readers interested in the evolution of the adult toy industry and the promotion of pleasure positivity. Additionally, the page can highlight Dolce Pleasure's commitment to inclusivity, innovation, and community-building, inspiring other businesses to prioritize diversity and customer well-being. Furthermore, a Wikipedia page offers a neutral and verifiable platform, allowing the brand's story to be shared accurately and authentically, reaching a global audience and contributing to a deeper understanding of the evolving landscape of human sexuality and intimacy. Giorgiodevito (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Giorgiodevito: be that as it may, this draft was purely promotional in tone and content, and will likely be deleted soon. And while you're welcome to request support at this help desk, please don't continue the promotional campaign here. Thank you.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not interested in whether a subject is "of significant importance" unless and until independent commentators have written about its importance in reliable sources. And Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

10:34, 23 July 2023 review of submission by Homerico75
Article subject has been mentioned in reputable sources such as American Cinematographer Magazine. What do you think we should do? Maybe the way we wrote it is not according to your specs? Also, are personal individuals decides if an article makes the cut or not in Wikipedia? Thanks in advance for your assistance. Homerico75 (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Homerico75: being 'mentioned' isn't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG; we need to see significant coverage (in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources), of the person himself, not of any affiliated matters such as his films. Can you point out the best three sources that provide that?
 * And who is "we", in your question? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single individual only.
 * Finally, I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "are personal individuals decides if an article makes the cut or not in Wikipedia?" -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the answer to that last question is individuals review articles based on the very detailed guidelines provided by Wikipedia community consensus, and if there are questions in the review this is the place to request feedback on it. Karnataka (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

11:39, 23 July 2023 review of submission by Asraf Rabbi
I can't publish my article in wiki Asraf Rabbi (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Asraf Rabbi: and which article would that be? Do you mean Draft:Wig Bangladesh? No, you wouldn't be able to publish that, as it's pure advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

11:59, 23 July 2023 review of submission by Semilore90
Hello, I need help in reviewing this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ola_Oresanya.

The article has been rejected 3 times. I have made several corrections and adjustments to the article, and I believe that it is now in a much better state.

I will appreciate if you can also help me edit the article or give me suggestions.

Thank you Semilore90 (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Semilore90: the draft has been resubmitted, and will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up. We don't provide on-demand fast-track reviews here at the help desk, or co-editing services for that matter.
 * Just FYI, the draft has been declined three times, not rejected. Decline means you're able to resubmit; rejection means you're not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

14:13, 23 July 2023 review of submission by Vicpaz
Article rejected for "here is quite a lot of unreferenced content" Not sure what sources cited are not reliable, unless major media coverage on other languages than EN are not reliable on English Wikipedia? Should any reference to the artist's official web page be removed? Is Wikidata entry not a reliable source of data (like DOB)? Thanks ! ! Vicpaz (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikidata is a tertiary source, as it can be edited by anyone. Note how you can place references in Wikidata entries. Anything connected to the musician, such as their website must be removed. Karnataka (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your article was also declined, not rejected - you are welcome to resubmit once issues are fixed. Karnataka (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anything connected to the musician, such as their website must be removed
 * As a reference you mean? I just keep the official website on "further reading" and get rid of any REF pointing to the website, is that ok?
 * About DOB, if that comes from Wikidata, other Wikis and Wikidata is it better to just remove DOB?
 * Thanks ! Vicpaz (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vicpaz: I didn't reject this draft, only declined it. I actually think this person may be notable, but the referencing simply isn't up to scratch. In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details (such as DOB) must be clearly supported by citations to reliable sources. Now eg. the first two paragraphs of the 'Career' section are unreferenced (yes, there is one citation there, but it doesn't seem to support much of anything). I realise that you may have an external relationship with this person, and therefore possibly access to some privileged information, but we can only go by published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, I will depurate and simplify the main sections and remove any ref to artist's website.
 * Cheers
 * VP Vicpaz (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

15:43, 23 July 2023 review of submission by Marcmorak
Hi,

I have trying to write an article about Mr. Nut Apiwich Ektaraowng, I have been adding citation and website, but still couldn't get the approval. Please help support on how to proceed. Thank you very much! Marcmorak (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You have resubmitted the draft, the reviewer will give you feedback. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

20:09, 23 July 2023 review of submission by Xamensa
Hello, I would like to know what exactly is wrong with the article and what I could improve on it so that it is published Xamensa (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further- so any further discussion is academic- but you offer no independent reliable sources that show how this musician meets at least one aspect of the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. It's possible that he meets the criteria on the Czech language Wikipedia, as that is a separate project with its own policies, but he doesn't meet the criteria here. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)