Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 May 2

= May 2 =

01:28, 2 May 2023 review of submission by Superwiki999
Hello and have a nice day

Indeed, this article has been lied to by some antifans, they did it on purpose so that he can't appear here.I'm trying to fix it encyclopedia and avoid ads so give me a chance.

I can provide some sources in Vietnamese from Vietnam national television station VTV and some other provincial TV stations about him.

Thank you very much for this patronage. Have a nice day Superwiki999 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Superwiki999: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

06:45, 2 May 2023 review of submission by Raves2023
I am not sure why the draft is getting declined.. i see the reason but this is an international magazine with many viewers, this company is doing colab's all over and there are articles for related magazines. Is it because it's run by an Israeli and not American? if so, it's not even in hebrew... would love help! Raves2023 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Raves2023: please don't start multiple threads on this same topic; I just responded to your previous question not ten minutes ago. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I didnt see it so I wrote again. Raves2023 (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

15:48, 2 May 2023 review of submission by Matt the Mech
I understand that Wikipedia's policy on advertising is strict, and I have taken care to remove any language that could be seen as promotional (see Revision History). As it currently stands, the content is purely factual and includes references from reliable sources to support all of the information presented. It was for these reasons that I submitted the article without changes. Unfortunately, it was declined again on the same advertorial grounds and without any specific examples from within the article. I believe the article meets all Wikipedia standards, and respectfully request that it be reconsidered for acceptance. If concerns are present, I would be happy to address any specific examples identified and make the necessary changes. Thank you for your consideration. Matt the Mech (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have consistently ignored all advice given to you so far, as a result the draft has been rejected it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "You have consistently ignored all advice given to you so far..."
 * Overall I respectfully disagree, but genuinely want to understand your point of view. From my point of view, when I consider the Review History, I see many revisions based on advice:
 * - 02/28/23 - "Removed the "software platform" section to help avoid misinterpretation of the app's operation as promotional or advertorial."
 * - 03/01/23 - "Removed [Partnerships] section per previous reviewer's recommendation. Removed numerical values that may be misconstrued as promotional. Reduced source-per-statement count for readability."
 * - 03/15/23 - "Removed all partnerships. Added reputable sources including but not limited to; Daily News (Los Angeles), KIRO 7 News Seattle, Seattle Business Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, The Seattle Times, and Chicago Tribune."
 * As stated in my previous comment, I do admit that I submitted without changes later on, but this was because there was no explanation or examples provided, and the article content had already been boiled down to clear, factual statements based on reliable sources rather than unfounded opinions. Matt the Mech (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

18:03:34, 2 May 2023 review of draft by Nelson Hysa
Nelson Hysa (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

18:28:46, 2 May 2023 review of draft by RoachPeter
I'm worried that I have done something wrong that has resulted in my draft article on Edward Vernon Arnold being listed twice with different dates. As far as I can see there is no difference between the two drafts, so it looks as if one of them ought to be deleted, but I'm not sure how to do it. RoachPeter (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC) RoachPeter (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Five of the seven references in the linked draft were written by Arnold himself. An acceptable Wikipedia article about Arnold must summarize what reliable sources that are entirely independent of Arnold say about him. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

18:58, 2 May 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:A5F:480:D5F5:33E4:8E0D:8D0F
Would like to know what needs to be fixed for approval 2600:1700:A5F:480:D5F5:33E4:8E0D:8D0F (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence in the draft that this person is Notable, and therefore, she is not eligible for a Wikipedia article at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

19:51, 2 May 2023 review of submission by Waynepua
I'm looking for direction on making sure the page is unbiased but still informs the public about the company. Please advise on what items to include and what to remove. Waynepua (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Waynepua rely on secondary sources that are independent of what the those affiliated with subject have written about the company. For example, if the information is coming from those affiliated such as interviews, press releases/announcements, etc. where the content of the source, even if the source is a third-party, is a regurgitation of what the company/reps say then lean to not include it.  However, if is truly independent content where the author/publication (given is it is a reliable source), has done their own analysis, research, etc. then summarize what they say.  S0091 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)