Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 6

= June 6 =

Are these sources appropriate for establishing notability?
Hi there,

I'm working on an article about a company producing consumer flamethrowers (Draft:Throwflame_(company). It was rejected by a reviewer, but since the rejection there has been more media coverage. I added a few sources, and I was wondering if these sources are acceptable for supporting notability.

Basically I'm trying to understand if these sources affect the notability or not to know if I should bother submitting it for review again or not.

These are the sources:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/drone-flamethrower-can-shoot-110ft-32667708

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/04/24/thermonator-flame-throwing-robot-dog/73446898007/

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/you-can-now-buy-a-flame-throwing-robot-dog-its-proof-common-sense-has-gone/article_ecb05aaa-0260-11ef-85cb-1f2235296f70.html

https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/23/thermonator-robot-dog-proves-americans-idea-self-defence-unhinged-20701164/

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/estados-unidos/asi-es-el-perro-robot-con-lanzallamas-que-se-vende-en-eeuu-por-menos-de-10000-dolares-nid25042024/

https://www.eleconomista.es/tecnologia/noticias/12785862/04/24/asi-es-thermonator-el-perro-robot-que-lanza-llamas-y-que-algunos-ven-como-el-futuro-de-la-seguridad.html

https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/mundo/perros-lanzallamas-empresa-pone-en-venta-a-sus-thermonator-en-eu/

https://www.businessinsider.com/thermonator-flame-throwing-robot-dog-selling-online-legal-us-states-2024-4

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/thermonator-flamethrowing-robot-dog-shoot-fire/

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-desert-sun/20240429/281625310372689

I understand that some of these don't have coverage which is in depth enough to prove notability, but I think that some do (correct me if I'm wrong) and some of those in the article definitely do. So wouldn't the less in-depth coverage also support the more in-depth coverage?

I guess what I am looking for is a bit more explanation on how the notability works, because based on my reading of WP:N it seems like it would qualify, particularly with the new sources. However, the last reviewer rejected it, and when I asked him for clarification on his talk page, he suggested I ask here instead.

Thanks!

P.S.: I've edited the draft a bit and added some of these sources. If anyone has time to look at the draft and offer any feedback it would be much appreciated!

Chagropango (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Using non-in depth sources to support in-depth sources is not how this works, that would be original research. You can't construct notability through your analysis of the sources- the claims to notability must be clearly stated by the sources.
 * Most of these sources seem to just document the availability of this company's main product. Some criticize it as reflective of private property rights in America run amok(especially the UK sources) but I'm not sure that's enough to sustain an article about this company. Maybe others will have a different view. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chagropango: I tend to agree with 331dot. Also, just to point out that the Daily Star is a deprecated source, and mustn't be cited, while Metro is considered generally unreliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

08:11, 6 June 2024 review of submission by NerdyPriyam
Hello, Can you please specify what exactly needs to be modified? I'd appreciate it if you treat my article as a fresh piece. It can be an extension of the already published article on "plagiarism", but it should redirect to a fresh page on Wikipedia. I would appreciate any changes that can help me achieve my goal. Looking forward to hearing from you soon NerdyPriyam (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry @NerdyPriyam, but as it's currently written, this isn't really a viable draft for an encyclopaedia article; it is a polemic essay, with some advisory elements, and possibly also original research (eg. the statement "Even if it was not intentional, it is still plagiarism and certainly not acceptable in any way." – who says so?).
 * I also agree with the reviewer that (salient and well-referenced parts of) this could be merged into the plagiarism article; I don't quite see why we need a separate article on this particularly flavour of plagiarism. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Thank you for your feedback. Please let me know how to proceed with the process of content merging and contribute further. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. NerdyPriyam (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @NerdyPriyam: there's no process, as such, it's just a case of good, old-fashioned editing. Identify the bits of information that are relevant in the wider context of plagiarism, and that are well supported by reliable sources. Take out all instructions/advice, as well as your own commentary and original research. Compile whatever you thus have into a coherent paragraph or possibly several, and add it (along with the supporting sources) as a new section into the main plagiarism article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

08:38, 6 June 2024 review of submission by Pittufederationofindia
Hello, Pittufederationofindia! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. not cleared why my page and draft is not approvable? Pittufederationofindia (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Pittufederationofindia: your draft was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely lack of reliable sources and evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OP blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

08:54, 6 June 2024 review of submission by James Mwakundia Tumbo
I cannot create articles Hello,

Please help I cannot create articles and my articles get rejected.

How can I contribute to this community and add more helpful content to the audience?

Regards,

James Tumbo James Mwakundia Tumbo (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @James Mwakundia Tumbo I'm assuming you're referring to Draft:BetAfriq, which was deleted under G13 a year ago after being declined (not rejected). If you wish to continue working on it, you can request undeletion at WP:REFUND/G13   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 08:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @CanonNi thank you for the response. James Mwakundia Tumbo (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you affiliated with this company in some way, be it a direct employee or the company being your client? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No I am not. I add content on Kenyan context. James Mwakundia Tumbo (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

12:16, 6 June 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener
Hello, good day. I have updated the article by removing promotional information and adding accurate details about the school, such as its history, operations, and some notable events that have occurred. Furthermore, I would like to inquire if all this information is now credible and authentic. Additionally, I recently edited a school on Wikipedia, and it appears to have a similar information about a school same like mine and this school has been in the article page, and mine has not. I am just asking why the school Dormma Senior High School has been approved without any notability, but mine cannot?

Thank you I will no longer make any Question Tab further this is all I just ask Respectfully- RexScrivener (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @RexScrivener this is the sixth time you've asked about the draft. It still does not meet notability guidelines; none of the sources are reliable and it is still promotional in tone. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please do not ask about this draft again.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 12:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you for replaying, I have remove "promotional" tone info also I have added a "stub template". RexScrivener (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those edits do nothing to resolve the reasons why this draft was rejected.
 * You have moved it unilaterally into the main article space, and it has all too predictably been listed for AfD discussion. This is therefore no longer an AfC matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

23:00, 6 June 2024 review of submission by Aczaprn777
What would qualify. As sufficiently notable ? Aczaprn777 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Aczaprn777 see WP:NBIO and H:YFA. Your draft is blatant self-promotion.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)