Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 19

= January 19 =

02:20, 19 January 2024 review of submission by 211.26.109.79
Hello,

I recently had an article rejected for reasons:

"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject."

And comment: Please read WP:FRINGE

I am hoping that someone here can offer a specific example of what the editor is referring to, as I can find no examples in the text of any of the above. I am a professional writer, so can easily make the necessary amendments if I can have specific feedback as to what the editor considers to be a peacock term within the text, or what the editor considers to be a fringe theory, etc. Of course I read the pages linked in the editor's comments and as mentioned, cannot find any examples of them within my submitted text.

Thank you in advance for the assistance! This is my first time making a submission so I look foward to learning the ropes. 211.26.109.79 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * . --ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suspect that what the reviewer means is that the article is written from the point of view of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

03:14, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Wpnse
reject my articlaes Wpnse (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

08:11, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Egrabczewski
Regarding my draft article on the Systems Group, could I have more information about why this article fails the "stictly independent" criterions please. Egrabczewski (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

08:46, 19 January 2024 review of submission by KEERTESH TIWARI
submission review is taking a lot of time. incorporated all the feedback received in the past. KEERTESH TIWARI (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * draft available here: Draft:Nitin Kapur KEERTESH TIWARI (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your draft is submitted and pending. As noted, "This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,138 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

09:02, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Woopiness
I can't edit in visual edit mode anymore. How can I make that possile again? Woopiness (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This board is specifically for asking questions about draft submissions. You might want to ask your question at the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

15:10, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Wnayans
A Car Accident Lawyer Wiki website holds significant importance for several reasons:

Information Access: It provides valuable information about legal services, resources, and expertise related to car accidents. Users can learn about their rights, the legal process, and how a lawyer can assist them. [7]

Credibility and Trust: A well-designed website instills trust and credibility in potential clients. It showcases the lawyer's expertise, experience, testimonials, and case studies, which can help establish confidence in their abilities.

Accessibility: A website ensures accessibility 24/7, allowing individuals involved in accidents to seek immediate information and assistance regardless of the time or their location. Wnayans (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We're not interested in helping your potential customers. This is an encyclopedia of notable topics, not an advertising platform. The draft was rejected and now deleted. You must disclose your relationship with this website, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for you to promote your website/business. This has been recreated by so many sock accounts over the last year and then gets swiftly deleted - Just stop already! You clearly have not read and understood the basic General notability guideline. Stop wasting both our time and yours - this will never be accepted. KylieTastic (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

15:46, 19 January 2024 review of submission by KSuffolk
I was wondering if I need to add more references to the wikipedia article. KSuffolk (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @KSuffolk: well, given that large chunks of this draft (not yet 'article') are completely unreferenced, it sure would be nice to know where all this information is coming from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought so. Thanks for responding. KSuffolk (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

16:27, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Jaynu shah
Wrong details Jaynu shah (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Jaynu shah: that's not a question; did you have one in mind?
 * This draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further.
 * Please also see WP:AUTOBIO for why you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

17:14, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Woiakl
I added independent sources in addition to the organization's website, but they were neglected. Woiakl (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

17:16, 19 January 2024 review of submission by KahlurIndia
We give the full details of Pankaj Chandel but still you don't approved the article, please help us what more to add a profile in Wikipedia. KahlurIndia (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't have profiles here, not a single one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of articles. If you want to write a profile, use social media or another website. Your draft has no inline references; see referencing for beginners. You don't seem to have any independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this man, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

18:02, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Sczajic
My submission of an article/stub on Marley Blonsky was rejected on the basis that the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I respectfully disagree. The subject has been profiled in well-known media outlets including CNN and Outside Magazine, demonstrating both specific and significant coverage, in published and reliable sources. How may I appeal this decision? Sczajic (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sczajic: firstly, your draft was not rejected, which would mean the end of the road for it; only declined, which means you can resubmit it, once you've addressed the decline reason. For that reason, also, there is no need to 'appeal' anything, only to improve the draft further.
 * We would typically need to see 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. Note that this excludes interviews, as well as articles that are clearly based on interviews even if they aren't necessarily formatted as such. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is helpful! I will expand and revise my draft by adding several additional references from national media outlets, of which there are no shortage. Sczajic (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The thing to remember, Sczajic, is that ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

19:46, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Hihydra
This product has a high reputation in mainland China. In this case, is it acceptable? Hihydra (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you connected to this company, @Hihydra?  Qcne  (talk)  19:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , your only reference is a link to an app store. This is promotional and of no value in establishing notability. What is required are several references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to NeaChat that are also completely independent of NeaChat and its developers and promoters. As for the "high reputation" in China, who says so? Cullen328 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no connection with this company. I learned about this company when I attended an artificial intelligence training course organized by Microsoft. I was attracted by their concept of providing artificial intelligence-based education solutions to China and other countries and regions with unequal educational resources. And it is free for educators to use. I try to let more people know what they are doing because they are making a free contribution to education. I think there's a correlation between a product's popularity and how long it's been in development, and from what I understand, they've only been around for a short time. Before collecting Wikipedia information, I got in touch with friends in the education industry in China. Their products are very popular among teachers. Hihydra (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , everything that you wrote after you denied a connection to the company is of no interest on Wikipedia. All that matters here is the coverage that independent reliable sources devote to NeaChat, and accurately summarizing it. Nothing else. Cullen328 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I found this, does it meet the source criteria?
 * https://www.finsmes.com/2023/08/neachat-officially-joins-the-nvidia-inception-program.html Hihydra (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fraid not, Hihydra. That begins Hong Kong-based Generative AI startup NeaChat announced today - in other words, it's from a press release.
 * ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

20:30, 19 January 2024 review of submission by Preksha30
Is this acceptable now for wiki page? Preksha30 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The draft was rejected as an article(not a "page"), meaning that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed since the last review, such as new sources the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

21:43, 19 January 2024 review of submission by HalloKurdish
My draft’s references are all government sources I don’t know why it got declined HalloKurdish (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The submission lacks secondary sources from independent media publications. Eternal Shadow   Talk  01:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)