Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 26

= February 26 =

03:41, 26 February 2024 review of submission by MathewArmstrong
I am wanting to get some assistance on this Draft. Sources I have been able to find initially mentioned about the production company he owns, however I was able to find further sources on a show he was on and also notable shows he had produced, which in some regard, I thought may be able to get him over the notable like for Wikipedia. I will be patient however, thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sources about the company he owns, or about shows he has been on, are not relevant unless they contain significant coverage of him. ColinFine (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @MathewArmstrong, you need to find articles (or books, etc) that are just about him. Keep in mind that interviews usually won't be accepted, because those are things he's saying about himself - you want something written by someone else, someone with no connection to him at all, someone who is writing about him because they think who he is and what he's done are important and people need to know about him. If all you can find are mentions of him, then sadly he probably won't meet Wikipedia's very specific standards of notability. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have been able to find some articles yes but also films that he is credited with. But yes articles I found that are focused on him. See . Please do feel free to take a look @ StartGrammarTime and thank you @ColinFine too for your feedback here! :) Thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry and I have added this one too . Thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bingo! Found he was also a radio host back in the day. This is now added. Much appreciated! MathewArmstrong (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

05:06, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Shravani Chary
what are the changes i can make in my draft for it to get approved? it's rejected saying that it looks more like an essay. Shravani Chary (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Shravani Chary, I'm sorry to say that when a draft is rejected, that means it will not be approved no matter what you do. The reviewer has left you a note (below the big box at the top of the draft) with suggestions for how to make use of some of the information. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

06:59, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Umepand99
Could you please guide me on how to publish this draft version of the modification? As they are also a CCaaS provider! Umepand99 (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Umepand99: this draft was rejected (a year ago!) and will therefore not be considered further. In any case, it consists of nothing more than a list of redlinks, which does not add up to a viable article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * how to merge article with other articles Shravani Chary (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Shravani,
 * Thank you for message.
 * They have developed an impressive LLM model and offer their CCaaS platform to telecom companies. Their expertise in the domain and AI innovation prompt me to reconsider the request. However, it's challenging as I've included all referenced online articles, which I believe are crucial for establishing the brand and company name for approval.
 * Could you please provide guidance on what specific information is needed for approval? This company's innovative work deserves recognition. Umepand99 (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which article does this message refers to? Shravani Chary (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Contact_Center_as_a_Service_(CCaaS) Umepand99 (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * its a deleted article Shravani Chary (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not intended as a form of recognition or honor- our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet the notability criteria. If you have
 * You seem to have written about your company(as well as another draft about yourself)- you must declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID, and read conflict of interest. The text of Draft:StarTele Logic was highly promotional and the sources provided merely documented the routine business activities of the company- they did not summarize what they see as important/significant/influential about the company- what makes it a notable company.  We don't want to know merely what the company does or what it thinks about itself. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

09:57, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Hrtacp
This page has been rejected by a bot, please help in regards to this Hrtacp (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was rejected by an experienced reviewer User:Usedtobecool I concur that there is nothing notable about you, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am curious as to how you own the copyright to the image of yourself, which is not a selfie and appears to be professionally taken. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

10:26, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 49.229.136.124
May I know what additional infos and references should I add in? Thanks. 49.229.136.124 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There is nothing that you can do, the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Any article about this person(is it yourself?) should summarize what independent reliable sources say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you have such sources, please discuss it with the reviewer directly first. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been rejected, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms, the draft will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

12:27, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Rj8
This is a local movie with limited coverage or source citation like journals. I have cited the necessary articles to confirm its a real film. why cant it be published? Rj8 (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Rj8: because there is no evidence that the subject is notable, either by WP:GNG or WP:NFILM standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No one has said it is not real. Wikipedia is not a mere database of things that exist. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Except there's literally hundreds of articles about different movies, tv shows, etc. There's already precedence for articles like this. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See other stuff exists for that argument. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Theroadislong so y'all are going to delete the thousands of articles that exist on the genre? Sounds like a group of editors actively trying to ruin a once great website. Stuff like this is LITERALLY what the website was created for. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @12DionneJ, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - are you old enough to have grown up with Encyclopedia Britannica, either as a book or the exciting new technology of CDs? (I had the CD version and it was amazing). If so, you'll probably remember that a lot of things were covered, but not everything. Even with a website it's simply not possible to cover everything, especially if we want the information to be correct and up-to-date - there's only so many volunteers, and only so much time, so we have to find a way to limit the information. This does include deleting and rejecting articles - it always has, even from the very beginning.
 * Over time, Wikipedia has settled on certain standards for what we can and cannot cover. Sadly, it seems the movie you want to write about may not meet those standards. You can always keep looking for sources. If it's a local movie, perhaps it's been covered in local newspapers? Not everything is online, and we do accept offline sources if they can be verified. You are unlikely to be able to change the standards, which have been developed by thousands of people over more than two decades - but you can see if it's possible for this article to meet them. I genuinely wish you the best of luck in researching! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I grew up with hard copies. Like 26 books. Then Encyclopedia Brittanica on CD-ROM. Also, I merely commented on this. I'm not the one writing an article about a movie. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @12DionneJ My apologies, I should have double-checked. StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

13:48, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 193.187.220.2
Please support, this is supposed to be just basic info about that company, what needs to be adjusted and I will, thx tom 193.187.220.2 (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This draft is insufficiently referenced, and the sources do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has zero interest in basic information about that company, Wikipedia reports what reliable independent sources say about a topic, also see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

13:56, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 122.161.242.21
why my article was rejected? 122.161.242.21 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Because this is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for self-promotion. You want a social media or blogging platform, rather. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

15:26, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 12DionneJ
Simply continuing work that has been done regarding the topic of Toyota Transmissions that has been done over the past 2 decades here on wikipedia. Please approve this article as well as the other 3 I have created regarding these transmission series. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

15:35, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Kevin-Luv
This About The Famous Artist Lil 2jay I Work With Him Can You Please Out This On His Google thank You Kevin-Luv (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kevin-Luv: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

15:49, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Bettylella
Hello, as you can see from the talks we have modified the page multiple times, can you help me figure out what could be keeping it from being published? It seems to me that it respects the criteria of notability Thanks in advance Bettylella (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bettylella: what's currently keeping it from being published is that it hasn't been resubmitted for another review. If you feel that you have sufficiently addressed the previous decline reasons, click on that blue 'resubmit' button and a reviewer will take a look at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a quick glance suggests that some of the sources do not mention him and others are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I think that the problem is, that I'm not use to work on the English wiki. In the reference 9 you have put "failed verification" because I have referenced the web link instead the report but, if you open the report, at 39 page Annexe I, you have the name of Mr Leclercq as one of 39 members of the High Level Expert Group of the European Commission. I apologize for all these problems and thank you so much for you time and help. Bettylella (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bettylella: yes, you should wherever technically possible point to the specific URL that contains the source which directly supports the given statement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the EN wikipedia is different from the italian and french ones with which I am used to work and it seems I cannot reference PDF files. Can one of you make it or tel me how to do it? Bettylella (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bettylella: citing a PDF should work the same as citing any other online resource, just by pointing to the PDF's URL. But yeah, I'll take a look at it shortly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your answer. Bettylella (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

16:04, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Siqi Huang
What should I do to improve my reference? Siqi Huang (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Siqi Huang: I don't know, and I can't read the sources; pinging who was the last reviewer to decline this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please improve the citation style. Bare links or a set of characters aren't very useful; please use a common citation style, e.g., author, title, work, date, access-date for online sources. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

16:07, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Wowlastic10
User:Zoglophie This article is different from Laccadive Islands but it assists in gaining knowledge of islands present in Lakshadweep, so it would be helpful if you move it to the main article page. Thanks!! Wowlastic10 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Wowlastic10: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. The last reviewer suggested incorporating the salient new content (appropriately supported) into the existing Laccadive Islands article instead. Feel free to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

19:09, 26 February 2024 review of submission by James.mcgilfoy203
The rejection issue was "not reliable sources". I was wondering while writing the article if citing the primary sources for app store links was incorrect. However, it has sources from large publications as theverge.com. I'm a bit unsure if they are not considered "reliable", but based on the article linked it was a secondary source reviewing the original article. Would it help if I removed the primary source app store links from the sources list, and only used them in the external links section? Any help appreciated. I'm trying to get into Wikipedia editing. James.mcgilfoy203 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Technically the core question is complying with WP:Notability, which here boils down to finding a couple of independent published sources that cover the topic in depth. The closest thing you have to those is three websites each of which reviewed ~5 of this type of product and an interview of the creator in a web site. IMO this puts you in "edge case" territory". There are also some minuses which maybe technically shouldn't matter but give it a bad look.  Some of your "sources" besides being "primary" are really not sources.....sales type pages on web sites.   Also the article is written like a self-description. My advice:
 * Find and add another independent source which cover it in depth
 * Re-write it like you are and editor trying to inform your readers about this product
 * Take out some of those listings that aren't even sources. Don't even put them into external links (although it is OK to put the supplier's main website in as an external link.)
 * I'm guessing that the above would make it fly. Or, if you do all of the above ping me and I'll review it. Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)