Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xplicitcoding (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 7 February 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


February 1

07:23:06, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Itisthebio

Hi Wikipedians, i need help on my work, kindly check if it there's wrong with it or something that needs to be change please change it thanks!

Itisthebio (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Itisthebio: I'm afraid the draft would not be accepted if it were submitted now. None of the sources is independent of Baddie Roma, and iTunes Store, Spotify, IMDb, and YouTube should not be used as sources at all. Most of the content is unsourced, and almost all of it is written in a promotional or very colloquial tone. The draft makes no actual claim to notability, and given that it's only been a month since you were asking about creating an article about the artist under her previous artist name Nikka Starr (a title that has been create protected after multiple attempts to create articles about her), it seems pretty clear that this not a notable musician.
You have been asked to disclose any conflict of intetest you might have with the subjects you edit about. Since Draft:Baddie Roma is full of information that isn't in any source, it seems pretty likely that you have got it from her. If you have a connection to her or any other people or topics you write about, please disclose that. There's info on your user talk page about how to make such a disclosure. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:10:51, 1 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SRIKANTH2304


SRIKANTH2304 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SRIKANTH2304 You don't ask a question. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, instead this is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in your case, that of a notable creative professional. Please also be aware of the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:48, 1 February 2022 review of submission by Ogouogou

My draft article was declined and the reviewer said "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

I disagree with that and can show it. I do not think the reviewer knew the quality of the sources that were cited. Their are multiple mainstream reliable news, magazine, and government website citations that refer to the article subject. They aren't just passing mentions.

How can I contest the decline? Ogouogou (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ogouogou You are free to resubmit a declined draft(a rejected draft could not be resubmitted); simply click the "resubmit" button. However, I believe that the reviewer was correct, and without substantial changes the draft would be declined again. The issue is not the sources themselves, but their content. The sources you have offered are not significant coverage of the topic, they just document its existence and what the project is. A Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(not based on press releases, interviews, announcements, brief mentions, other primary sources) to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Instead of a large number of low-quality sources, a small number of high-quality sources would go further towards the draft passing this process. Most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage- coverage that is in depth and goes beyond just documenting the existence of the topic. Please read Your First Article.
I see that you declared a conflict of interest; if you have a paid relationship with this topic, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot The primary 3 sources are a printed profile in a mainstream magazine, a newspaper article about the project, and a government website describing the project. I believe these constitute significant coverage. Many other links are included to support specific details, such as date ranges and quantities, within the text description. I spent a month gathering citations to justify notability, along with researching this process. I also looked at a large number of articles similar in nature. I believe I submitted a substantial draft. It's surprising to hear a suggestion of removing the supporting links. The submission process has been opaque and seems arbitrary. I feel like a value judgement is being made on the subject and not a consideration of the actual supporting material. BTW, I am not being paid to create the article. -- Ogouogou (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou Okay, but please note that you don't have to be specifically paid to create this article to be a paid editor- any paid relationship triggers the disclosure requirement(such as being the subject's PR/communications person). Otherwise every paid editor would say that they weren't specifically paid to create their articles, rendering the requirement toothless.
Please link to those sources here. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content Magazine
San Jose Mercury News
City of Palo Alto
Ogouogou (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I have been looking at other artist and musician article pages and see many citations based on sources that include interviews. It is a very common approach to the discourse about contemporary artists. Art history texts also quote artists describing their intent and practice. By excluding these, I am at a loss for how to establish notability for any artist or musician. I don't know how to proceed with this feedback. --11:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou I believe you that there are many other articles that likely do not follow guidelines. See other stuff exists; this does not mean that more inappropriate articles can be created. Only new users and IP users are required to use this process(though it is a good idea for all until one gains experience) and it has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us, even for years. We can only address what we know about.
Note that interviews are not completely prohibited as sources for articles, but they cannot be used to establish notability as it is the subject speaking about themselves, a primary source. I'm not sure which claim to notability you assert that this artist meets- but it is usually demonstrated through unsolicited reviews of the work which explain why it is significant. The two interviews you linked to here seem to just summarize what the artist says about themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot From the link you offered, I submit 3 examples of notability. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique: The Art Review Generator he made uses modern AI techniques to generate those art reviews. There is nothing like it right now. An unsolicited review of his music states, "his November release Critters is its own language. It is unlike anything we’ve heard." 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. The Wolves project mentioned in the article is very well known, in the San Francisco Bay Area. The newspaper article is one example of the coverage. There are many others, but they use blogging platforms. No, it didn't get national coverage, but it is absolutely notable from a regional point of view. There are many many Wikipedia articles that are regional in nature. The person's work (or works) has: (c) won significant critical attention Winning first place in a global film contest sponsored by the Internet Archive is pretty significant.
331dot I can tell that you personally don't think his project is notable, but from a regional perspective he is. The sources cited in the article make use of all the media outlets (except broadcast TV) available for a non-national topic. I wonder what path forward there is to reference independent creatives and cultural figures on Wikipedia. The interpretation of notability criteria you are using seems less like scholastic rigor and more like gatekeeping. I made a substantial effort to satisfy all the requirements I could quantify. If I can't convince you or the original editor then I'll let it go. But, I do feel like this is a notable project and deserves inclusion. -- Ogouogou (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou A topic does not have to get national coverage(though it helps), but it does have to get significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Local projects can qualify, but not always. I think that the topic is potentially notable, but the sources do not support that yet, or at least the ones that you offer. I encourage you to not just listen to me; I make mistakes sometimes, feel free to get other opinions. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot On today's homepage on Wikipedia, an entertainer called Mothica is featured. Most of the citations for her article are from a regional newspaper in Oklahoma and another is from a tattoo magazine. All of the citations prominently feature interviews with her as their primary information. In fact, "Mothica has no record label, publicist, or manager, and describes herself as a self-made musician." She gained popularity on TikTok. Now, I believe that article was thoroughly vetted to be included on the homepage. But, based on our discussion here she wouldn't fit your definition of notability. I think this a good example of the arbitrary nature of this process. Wouldn't you agree? --Ogouogou (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ogouogou Wikipedia is a volunteer project, with tens of thousands of editors from around the world. Naturally those people will have differing interpretations of policies and guidelines. As I've said, don't just listen to me, get other opinions. I make mistakes. I am not the only and last word. However, be wary of citing other articles as a reason for yours to exist, see WP:OSE. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles.
I've never said regional coverage is not acceptable. Note that as a musician Mothica has a different set of notability criteria. Mothica's claim to notability(one of her songs charted) is not based on an interview, even though it is described in a piece that contains an interview. Lucidbeaming's claims to notability that you assert are not as clear cut as a song hitting the charts, and you seem to be basing that largely on what the artist says about themselves and not on what others say about them. I stand by what I have said, but again, get views from others. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:47, 1 February 2022 review of submission by SaffaGugliani

I have seen this figure on tiktok and youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCES7l9FqHZyvJzd3eido6ow he is very popular and I think he deserves a place on Wikipedia.


SaffaGugliani (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SaffaGugliani The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to honor or recognize someone. This is an encyclopedia, which has criteria for inclusion. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to state about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You offered no sources whatsoever. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:36, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Jc4400


I am seeking guidance on how to improve my submission so it meets approval criteria. I understand and value the fact that Wikipedia is not a promotional outlet and that is why I tried to only include facts backed by trusted third party sources such as Wall Street Journal, ABC News, Harvard, etc. Can someone advise me what I should remove and/or change so that this article passes the Wikipedia threshold? Many of Bryan's peers (Ray Dalio, Warren Buffett, Bill Frist) and companies he founded (GCTR, Cressey Thoma Bravo, etc) have Wikipedia pages which suggests people of his stature are worthy of being included in Wikipedia as long as the page is written properly. Thank you in advance for any guidance you provide a lost soul such as myself. :)

Jc4400 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jc4400 A Wikipedia article does not just summarize facts; it summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. The sources you offered do not have significant coverage of Cressey. Profiles and similar do not establish notability. To pass this process you need only have three reliable sources with significant coverage; I would focus on just summarizing your three best sources, the rest can come later. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:36, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Ntndude


Ntndude (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry sir your decision may be right But I hope for your help, If I have any mistake in this article then please help me to correct it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntndude (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:01:28, 1 February 2022 review of draft by Japan.Travel


Hello, I would like to add a picture in the infobox but the name keeps getting denied even though I follow the instructions. How can I fix this issue? Thanks for your help!

Japan.Travel (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japan.Travel (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pointless adding a photograph, the draft is just blatant advertising and will shortly be speedy deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Japan.Travel, worry about writing an acceptable article first. Also see WP:PAID, WP:COI, WP:PROMO, and WP:NCORP. In short, Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your business and will only accept articles that have significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:46, 1 February 2022 review of submission by HadyElmadany


HadyElmadany (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I want example about the reliable source is[reply]

22:44:10, 1 February 2022 review of submission by SFManagement


Hello, I am new to wikipedia and got a rejection for my first article draft saying that the article I created was lacking "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - what exactly does this mean for a musician, a classical composer who's works have been published by a major publisher? Would the publisher count as a reliable, secondary source? Are press articles, interviews, concert programs considered "significant coverage"?

Also I had Wikipedia:External links which I removed now upon the reviewers request. Why are external links wrong?

Thank you

SFManagement (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SFManagement First, you must change your username immediately to represent yourself as a individual(real names are not required); business usernames are not permitted. Please see your user talk page for more information.
A Wikipedia article about a musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. We don't need citations to document the existence of her music(such as from her publisher), we need to know what people say about her music(and not based on materials put out by her like an interview). Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

04:29:38, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Garvincarter

User:Wgullyn Issued a decline notice saying the article reads like an advertisement. I guess that is a fair enough conclusion, but does not specify in which part such an offense has taken place. Each statement is made with a specific citation from a published and reputable source not associated with the subject. I would appreciate how to state the facts in a way that minimizes what is perceived as advertising.

Then the declination states that citations need to be from materials not created by the subject. Out of the near 70 citations, only a couple point to sources that the subject may have access to and only then to materials they did not produce. The remaining citations and the statements made from them are from either established media groups, industry trade or government sources. If this reference is to the table of published materials by the subject, this can easily be removed. It seems strange that many wikipedia entries have lists and links to published materials by the subject of the entry.

I guess I would be looking for more guidance on why this entry would not meet Wikipedia's basic guidelines. No product was promoted. The facts about the subject's career and accomplishments are supported. If these accomplishments are considered advertising, then how is that different from an entry touting Academy Awards for an actor or director. Other than greater notoriety, the principle is the same - industry recognition and recitation in the entry. Please help me understand what needs to be adjusted to make this entry successful.

I apologize in advance for the lack of understanding. I have edited many entries on wikipedia in the past (different user accounts) but never attempted to launch a new topic. Very difficult process.

thank you

Garvin Carter (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Garvin Carter (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:23:14, 2 February 2022 review of submission by 2A03:C5C0:107E:545:91E1:629D:D9A4:136C

Hello, I am working on a draft for David Moshe Lieberman and apparently the tone which I use in the article is too informal even though I made sure to use an informal, encyclopaedia like tone. Could someone help me with some tips? 2A03:C5C0:107E:545:91E1:629D:D9A4:136C (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only edit from your IP, what is the drafts name? If you use an account to edit, please log in. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:49:27, 2 February 2022 review of submission by ShreyK123


Hello, my draft for the article titled Wilfrid Oswald Jose (link) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wilfrid_Oswald_Jose, was declined. I received a notification which stated that it contained copyrighted content. However, I created the original article which I believe is the cause of this result: https://www.stpeters.sa.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-Premiers-Anzac-School-Prize-Essay-Shreyas-Khanna.pdf How can I fix this? Is it possible to publish the Wikipedia article I created and remove the copyright claim?

ShreyK123 (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShreyK123. There is a procedure for donating material to which you hold the copyright. Keep in mind that what makes a good school research project may not make a good encyclopedia article. Good research makes use of primary sources (passenger lists, newspaper reports, identity documents, photographs, letters, military documents, etc.) to draw new conclusions, whereas a good encyclopedia article summarizes what secondary sources say. There may not be enough independent, reliable, secondary sources about a 22-year-old Lieutenant killed in WWI to demonstrate their notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia). If you decide to proceed with this topic, then in addition to taking steps to resolve the copyright matter, review Help:Your first article#And then what? for other tips on improving the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:32, 2 February 2022 review of draft by Ruchikalra


Ruchikalra (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to enquire about the Draft (Aayu and Pihu Show) I submitted. It has been more than two months since I submitted the draft, however, still there's no update on it. I want to understand the process of review and publishing and want to know what I can do to make the review and publishing of the article faster.

Please help me with it.

Ruchikalra The draft was declined today; please see the message left by the reviewer. There is no specific timeframe in which a submitted draft is reviewed, it is possible that it can take weeks or months. Reviews are conducted by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:17:05, 2 February 2022 review of draft by Wk350


hello, i have update the article to add more citation as was requested, and i am unsure how to trigger an need review

Wk350 (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wk350 You have successfully resubmitted the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:03:44, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Qazigundstreets


Qazigundstreets (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:55:34, 2 February 2022 review of draft by An.xtrovert


I have made an Article about an Individual which contains basic details of Childhood, Education, Family, Achievements. However the article has been declined by the reviewer stating that 'it seems like an advertisement, Hence I need some help in editing the article to get it published.

If I can have some brief points about working on the write up, it would be prove to be of great help. An.xtrovert (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An.xtrovert Please review the comment left by the reviewer below the templates. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article.
If you have a connection to this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:45, 2 February 2022 review of draft by Tushar3011


Hello, Can I submit this draft for afc please review this and tell me Tushar (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tushar3011. It is surprising that the draft doesn't cite a single source from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force's list of reliable sources. Any reliable source may be cited, but perhaps the draft's sources aren't reliable. Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), are self-published, and thus not reliable. The draft will stand a better chance if every statement in it is supported by a reliable source when you submit it. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:17, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Bballforever123


I wrote a page for my favorite professional women's basketball player and you denied my page. This is very frusterating because ALL MALE Professional Basketball players get to have a page but because she's a women she's not important enough??! I need answers to this. Be better Wiki....

Bballforever123 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bballforever123. No one "gets to have a page", thinking that way misunderstands the encyclopedia. A biography on Wikipedia is not a right or a reward for a player. They don't own it and have no control over it. I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy. With regard to bias, I very much doubt that there are biographies of "all male professional basketball players" on Wikipedia. For example, players in the British Basketball League (a men's professional basketball league) are not presumed notable (suitable for inclusion). --Worldbruce (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:22, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Maximilian775


I'm not quite sure why my article got denied. If one looks at the page for a comparable American bishop, say, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Henry_Walsh or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Charron, there is very little difference in terms of the sources cited for those entries and the sources cited for mine.

Additionally, the same person has entries on German and Polish Wikipedia with even less citations from even fewer sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian775 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian775 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maximilian775. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.
Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. That the topic already has a German version and a Polish version will carry no weight in the question of whether it should have an English version.
When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines. News coverage from UCA News is generally reliable. I don't know if the same applies to their biographical database of bishops. Catholic-hierarchy is a generally unreliable source, according to WP:RSN. Source Bollettino is too inadequately specified to determine its reliability. Is it a newspaper, a parish newsletter, a press release? Publisher, author, title, and, if available, URL, would all help in evaluating it. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, (talk) - if i format this wrong, sorry, I'm still new to this. So, the main issue is not in the notability of the topic but rather in the reliability of the sources I cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian775 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximilian775: Right. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The reviewer concluded that the draft did not do so, so it failed to establish that the subject is notable. They also found that the draft included information about a living person either without identifying a source, or without citing a reliable one. This doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable, just that the cited sources are insufficient to prove that he is notable. P.S. See Help:talk pages for more information about how to use them. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:34, 2 February 2022 review of submission by 157.51.35.208


157.51.35.208 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing further to say, detailed comments left on rejected draft by reviewer.Slywriter (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:00:40, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Samsaiyan


Samsaiyan (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my article declined.

@Samsaiyan: because it wasn't an article so much as a CV and Wikipedia is a social media site or a place to post your CV. An article about a person must be based on what others have written about the subject in reliable sources. They must also be shown to meet the requirements of WP:GNG which is not in this piece.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:58, 2 February 2022 review of submission by Dcontu


Hello Team,

I have just modified the Sandbox page in order to be according to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Therefore I am requesting a re-review of this article.

Thank you,

D. Contu

Dcontu (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dcontu. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). The draft violates the first and second pillars of Wikipedia. No amount of editing can fix that problem. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


February 3

00:43:01, 3 February 2022 review of draft by Jesus Chameleon


The subject, "Paul St. Blaise" is all over the news. Just google it and it will appear in the "News" section of the browser.

Additionally, the subject has just officially released a first CD on CD Baby. How can this be included in a citation to enhance notability?

Also, should membership in professional organizations be cited? Does this enhance the subject of an article's notability?

--Jesus Chameleon (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Jesus Chameleon (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesus Chameleon: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any justifiable reason MUST be cited to in-depth third-party sources with editorial oversight that corroborates that claim. If no such sources can be found, the content must be removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. All of your sources cite nothing in the article itself, instead being frontloaded onto empty space. In addition, your sources are unusable - two are press releases (useless for notability - connexion to subject) and the third is 404-compliant. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All subscribe to the rules; it is not necessary to reiterate what we all know. One needs a more experienced editor who knows the proper use of PR in the making of News Stories! I need the following questions to be properly addressed. Again,

"The subject, "Paul St. Blaise" is all over the news. Just google it and it will appear in the "News" section of the browser.

"Additionally, the subject has just officially released a first CD on CD Baby. How can this be included in a citation to enhance notability?

"Also, should membership in professional organizations be cited? Does this enhance the subject of an article's notability?"

Thank you and may God bless you! --Jesus Chameleon (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesus Chameleon:, Jéské Couriano is one of our most experienced article reviewers to dismiss what they have to say is a mistake. If there are so many news stories that are written about the subject use them to base the article on, then cite them. Unless the CD has been certified gold then he can release cds all day long and it would not improve their notability, nor does professional memberships. The only thing that will prove they are notable are the items listed in WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMUSIC. We are not here to act as his personal PR team, nor do we care what his PR team has to say. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jesus Chameleon:, for the record, my news section comes up blank when I google and releasing a CD means nothing. Anyway, Mcmatter has covered quite succinctly how much wikipedia cares about PR. Wikipedia covers "the big thing", not "the next big thing". Get yourself famous or certified gold and someone unconnected will likely create an article. Until then, you are wasting everyone's time trying to get a vanity article published. Also may want to read WP:AUTO as should an article ever be published, you will have zero control of content. Finally, should you wish to continue on this endeavor, please comply with WP:COI and properly declare that you are connected to the subject, as writing about yourself is an inherent conflict of interest.Slywriter (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jesus Chameleon: We're not a news website, and we don't accept PR as it's always going to have a direct connexion to the subject. Telling us to use Google to do the work you should have already done is like handing us a magnet and telling us to sort through a barn filled to the brim with hay to find a bone sewing needle, as 95% of what Google pulls up we can't use for one reason or another (And Google News comes up blank for an exact-string search on the name, as Slywriter says). As you have not demonstrated Notability as Wikipedia defines the term, I'm not entertaining the other two questions because they don't help a whit for notability. Lastly, keep your God, He wants me dead. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:36:53, 3 February 2022 review of submission by 122.170.71.79

My draft with good quality of reliable sources, created after Japanese sword and Korean sword.

Seems like a no-brainer that it meets the necessary criteria of wiki article creation policies.

Can you guys approve it? 122.170.71.79 (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A good start. You may want to look at improving it by time period the way that Chinese swords have been.Naraht (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 122.170.71.79 (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you may want to actually create an account, some of the tools that I like to use require an account. But if you don't that's fine as well.Naraht (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:12:23, 3 February 2022 review of draft by Hamish Gary


Hamish Gary (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello concerned I want to know the criteria of getting an article published on wikipedia

11:59:34, 3 February 2022 review of submission by SagarVijayGhatole


SagarVijayGhatole (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am new on Wikipedia and I am into politics. I am interested to show my details to general public who interested to see.

Hi SagarVijayGhatole. That is not what the encyclopedia is for. Unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, or other social media sites, Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself. You may wish to consider alternative outlets for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:48, 3 February 2022 review of draft by NutsOnTheFlop


Hi! Just looking for more information on what type of changes are needed to improve my draft article? I added a few more 'weighty' references, from the New York Times and ESPN, ahead of a further review, but is this enough? In general, is there something I'm missing?

NutsOnTheFlop (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NutsOnTheFlop. ESPN contains a single sentence about GGPoker: "The international series was hosted on GGPoker.com after the coronavirus pandemic forced the traditional World Series of Poker tournament in Las Vegas to be postponed." The New York Times goes only slightly deeper, adding two sentences about when it launched and what countries it's connected to. So what you're missing is significant coverage that would demonstrate that the topic is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). That also may be part of the reason the draft reads like an advertisement. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the reliability of pokerfuse.com is questionable. Its website says, "Want to be a guest writer and promote your site, blog or service?". The cited article is by one of the 8 staff writers, which may make it better. But no editor is named, so it isn't clear what degree of editorial oversight there is, if any. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 4

03:10:01, 4 February 2022 review of draft by Syakir isyraq bin sallehuddin


how to improve my draft so that wikipedia will accept it? Syakir isyraq bin sallehuddin (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Write in prose, not bulleted lists. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:14:36, 4 February 2022 review of submission by Syakir isyraq bin sallehuddin

{{Lafc|username=Syakir isyraq bin sallehuddin|ts=03:14:36, 4 February 2022|page= anyone can help me to improve my wiki?pls help me to solve this problem. i dont want to be scolded by my boss. i've tried many times to make this wiki and it's always have been rejected please someone help me to improve this wiki Syakir isyraq bin sallehuddin (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:17:02, 4 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Thecarguru2


Steven Salowsky Salutations. I am new here and a fellow stranger that was a wikipedian assisted on very amateur attempt I made at my first article. I see that the draft states the Comment: The sources are mostly about Rich Benoit, not Salowsky. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC) And noticed the sources do include more about Benoit being he has a louder presence on their YouTube channel, but each article mentioned Salowsky as a fan and subscriber of the channel, he is half the operation, being the sole designer and also a builder of the vehicles which deserves its own merit and credit. It is rather odd that they focus on one person more than the other, how would you suggest improving this, as the cited sources are reputable and do give him credit?


Thecarguru2 (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if the both of them do not have coverage independent of the other, the article should cover both of them equally, not one or the other. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:20:41, 4 February 2022 review of draft by Daniel Orgesta


Daniel Orgesta (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Orgesta: No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:50:29, 4 February 2022 review of submission by 고양이 발자국


This is company information, so please review. 고양이 발자국 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@고양이 발자국: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This reads more like an investors' bulleted list instead of an encyclopaedia article, and its sources are all directly connected to Shiftee in some manner. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:16, 4 February 2022 review of submission by JosephTonio

The article I submitted got disapproved. Could anyone help me out by letting me know what possibly could be the reason why my article is not approved? I am new to wikipedia user so I would require kind assistance from the wikis here. Please do let me know what changes to make. JosephTonio (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the messages left on the draft, as well as the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

11:27:26, 5 February 2022 review of submission by Jomokhowa


I am requesting how i can better improve the article. what i should delete. Thanks Jomokhowa (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire draft was deleted, as it was essentially a resume. An article should not just document the existence of a person and their accomplishments; it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:49, 5 February 2022 review of submission by M.h.a1363


M.h.a1363 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Toomaj Danesh Behzadi is unsourced. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:08:56, 5 February 2022 review of submission by Kittensbykittens

Hi! I am a preservation professor and am trying to learn how to make wikipedia articles for historic buildings. I am totally new at this, so please forgive errors! I submitted this draft article on a building on the Tulane University campus as a first attempt. I included several references, including the Tulane official website, an architectural historian society's description of the building, information about the history from a book, and newspaper articles about a recent controversy. However, my draft was still declined requiring more resources.

I agree that additional resources from entirely independent parties would be preferable, however, for historic buildings this is rarely the case. I would love any suggestions on ways to submit pages for this type of subject, as I feel that, provided the information is public/the site or building is public (to an extent at least, such as a university building) that wikipedia would be a great way to both save and share this information.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. If the topic is the problem- I.e. it isn't considered significant enough or is just not what wikipedia is about- I understand.

Thank you!

Kittensbykittens (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:03:50, 5 February 2022 review of submission by 2600:1700:4083:20C0:D00B:5A68:8BFD:4F03


New sources for this subject have been discovered.

2600:1700:4083:20C0:D00B:5A68:8BFD:4F03 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they're a lot better than the single-paragraph stories and attempts at generating hype that're currently cited, this dog ain't hunting. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

05:58:09, 6 February 2022 review of submission by Jennamaree


Jennamaree (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello I am an Australian actress and am trying to get my wikipedia page can you please help me

Jennamaree, Wikipedia is not social media. It's not a place for you to promote yourself, provide your resume or otherwise write an autobiography. As it stands your article is not written in an encyclopedic tone, provides no sources and gives zero indication that subject would meet WP:NACTOR.14:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

09:12:24, 6 February 2022 review of draft by Tariqarafa1


Tariqarafa1 (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'd like to know why my submission on Connected Kerb has been removed. I've deliberately tried not to write it as a promotional advert. Please explain why.

Tariqarafa1, The article is an ad. Founders, Products, Awards... all things the company wants to tell the world about themselves without any indication of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Routine business annoucements and press releases do not contribute to notability.Slywriter (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:28, 6 February 2022 review of submission by Wikiwizard1225

I really nee to expedite getting this article approved... can you help in this area? Wikiwizard1225 (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwizard1225 First, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. There is no way to ensure a speedy review; we have no interest in any deadline you may be under. Reviews are conducted by volunteers who do what they can when they can, in no particular order.
Please review the comments left by the reviewer on the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Why did you deline my submission please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.26.121 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Untitled Bad Moms project
Hi IP user, the draft you created and submitted does not show that the upcoming TV show meets any notability criteria, and almost none of the info in the draft has a source. There is one single source from 2018 which talks about "early development stages" of the show, and doesn't mention the "ensemble cast" (from what I can tell, it says that Kunis, Bell, and Hahn are not going to be in this show, but it's all super vague, and the other names you've listed aren't in the source at all). The director/writer info is also unsupported by the source. --bonadea contributions talk 17:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:27:29, 6 February 2022 review of draft by CrustyBurgerhead


Hello, I have some questions about getting "Klairmont Kollections" published. Is the lack of notability because I only have four or so references to the museum, are the sources not reputable enough (Chicago Tribune and Chicago Magazine,) or is it how I'm citing them in the article? Would it help if I put "cite web" in? I'm comparing it with the published "Volo Auto Museum" page which is a very similar museum. Thank you.

CrustyBurgerhead (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CrustyBurgerhead It is not the sources themselves that are the problem, but their content. (some of them are not cited properly but that is not the main issue; you may see Referencing for Beginners to fix that) The sources are either not independent(the museum website), are just announcements, or tell us more about the founder of the museum rather than the museum itself(it could be that the founder of the museum merits an article and not the museum itself). Please see Your First Article.
Be wary in using other articles as a model for yours, unless it is classified as a good article(Volo Auto Museum is not and has some of the same issues, and I have marked that article as such) 331dot (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:03, 6 February 2022 review of draft by Sabine Hagmann


I don't know what else I can do. I created an article that keeps getting declined for lack of citations. But I have added so many citations, many more than I can detect in other articles that have been approved. I am at a loss on what to do. Can you help? Thank you, Sabine Hagmann (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Sabine Hagmann (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Hagmann That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. Only new users and IP users are required to use this process(though it's a good idea for all without experience), and it has not existed for the entire time Wikipedia has existed; those are just two ways that an inappropriate article could get by us. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and there are over 6 million articles, it's possible to get things by us- and we can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you can identify other probematic articles you have seen for possible action.
Please read other stuff exists. That other articles exist does not automatically mean that yours can too. Otherwise, nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. Each article is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model, you should use those classified as good articles.
Regarding your draft, it's not more sources that we need- it's higher quality sources. A Wikipedia article about an artist must not just tell us about the artist and that their work exists- it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the artist, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. "Significant coverage" is the key here; the coverage must do more than just document the existence of the artist or their work; the coverage must tell us in its voice(i.e. not an interview or other primary source) how the artist is significant. Please read Your First Article.
My suggestion is to take the three best sources that you have and summarize what those say- leaving everything else out. All that is needed to pass this process is three sources with significant coverage. Other stuff, if needed, can come later. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:58:35, 6 February 2022 review of submission by 95.162.161.211


95.162.161.211 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

08:41:12, 7 February 2022 review of draft by Heerajaat


Heerajaat (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no sources, independent sources are what we base articles on. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarise what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable topic. Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:07:52, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Jacobariel91


Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Promotional language has been even further removed (Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot The draft was rejected based on false accusations on my account and inadequate explanation as to how the text is promotional. There are sufficient sources to the article text, and guidelines were followed to update the article according to the previous comments. It is imperative that Wikipedia maintain consistent standard across its review of articles, as there have been other articles under the same area of the draft article that have been published that are far more promotional (see WiTricity). Articles should not be rejected based on unfounded claims against the submitter (i.e. that I have an COI) and where there is a claim of promotional language even though reviewers have failed to provide examples of such. This article must therefore be re-reviewed in accordance with Wikipedia's policies as it meets the reasons for content creation. I will need to raise the reasons for rejection to Wikipedia's Administrators to ensure you and other accounts are following consistent standards across your reviews (Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Jacobariel91 I am an administrator. I think that you misunderstand some things about Wikipedia; adminstrators have no more authority than any other editor, they just have extra buttons. Furthermore Wikipedia is a global project with tens of thousands of volunteers from around the world. We do our best to be consistent, but as with any large organization differences can creep in. However, I don't think that is the case here.
If you are not paid, okay. If you have no conflict of interest, okay- though aggressive editing about a topic often indicates a stronger investment in it than mere personal interest. It is still possible to edit promotionally without having a COI. This is often the case with enthusiastic supporters of a particular topic, as you have stated you are. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell the world about a topic. If you are more interested in telling the world about your particular topic(EVs) you will have a tough time here as we are interested in primarily summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about topics that meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in this case, the definition of a notable organization. All of the sources you offer seem to be the mere reporting of the business' activities, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Unfortunately, you are mistaken - all of the sources cited in the draft article are form independent sources researching the company's operations, cost, technology, and impacts. Trafikverket, Bloomberg, TRL, TASE, Green Car Reports are all independent agencies form the company and have significantly covered the topic of the draft article, as it is publicly operating company. In fact, the recent rejection of the draft had nothing to do about the sources, per the reviewer comments, but with "promotional" text, which itself was failed to be pointed out with specific examples. It is important that you understand the content you are reviewing or else you will not be able to make a fair assessment on the independent coverage of an article if you are not aware of the sources reputability and purpose of coverage. It is also important that Wikipedia administrators do not raise false COI reports about my account (as CNMall41 did) - reports which are baseless and unfounded and inaccurate. Further, EV's are not just "my topic" - they are millions of persons' topics and there is a growing need for access to information about electric vehicles and charging station companies, but you are failing to live up to Wikipedia's purpose of enabling access to information with significant presence and coverage (i.e. Electreon) due to your ignorance about the topic, sources, and inability to provide adequate feedback on promotional text. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Jacobariel91 Wikipedia's purpose is very much not "enabling access to information". That purpose is what blogs, social media, and personal websites are for. As I said, it is summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Your sources are press release type stories or announcements of routine business activities. Please tell what the three best sources you have are. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Please do not quote out of context for your own convivence - the full sentence I wrote is "enabling access to information **with significant presence and coverage**." This is indeed Wikipedia's purpose. Please advise how other company's similar to the draft article in question are "significant" for coverage (i.e. WiTricity), but this submission is not. Further, you cannot keep changing your reasons for rejecting the article - first its too much promotional text, then it is because the article is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia even though the reviewer themselves noted the topic was notable (exact quote: "While the company is notable IMO, the writing here looks like a white paper talking up the company in a promotional way."), and then it is because there is not significant coverage/sources? Again, like your reviewing practices for publishing articles, you are being inconsistent. *This* is contrary to the goal of Wikipedia in order to be neutral and consistent. Some examples of main sources include:

1. Trafikverket (Swedish Transport Administration) - Swedish research report on EV charging technologies, including Electreon (was reviewed with translator for citing purposes): http://trafikverket.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1524344/ATTACHMENT01.pdf 2. TRL research institute report of electric road charging technologies including assessment on Electreon's technology and projections of capabilities: https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/PIARC%20ERS%20Academy%20Report%20PPR875_Final%20Version.pdf 3. New York Times report article on EV charging technologies (not a press release, these are an entirely different format and emanate form the company itself): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/business/energy-environment/electric-roads-cars-israel-sweden.html 4. EDN independent engineering research platform focused on electrical engineering technology and electronics: https://www.edn.com/power-transfer-for-wireless-charging-in-electric-vehicles/

These are just a few examples - they are not released from the company itself; they are not press releases; they are not marketing distributions from Electreon or paid promotions. Please do not make statements just for the sake of saying them without adequate justifications to your claims. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 Please read other stuff exists Each draft or article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us. We can only address what we know about.
I cannot read Swedish, but the link you provided is only a single page and does not have the company name on it. The UK government link you provided gives me an error message. The NY Times piece might be okay, but I cannot examine it due to a paywall(it's fine that it is paywalled, just I can't read it). The final source you provide only briefly mentions the company. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Apologies, this is the correct link for the Swedish Transport Agency Report (http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1524344/FULLTEXT01.pdf) - it is not one page, and it was reviewed with a translator - the table on page 59 reviews Electreon's technology and associated costs. This is the correct link for the second source (it is a large report, takes time to load: https://web.archive.org/web/20200803034309/https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/PIARC%20ERS%20Academy%20Report%20PPR875_Final%20Version.pdf. EDN is an example of an independent platform, which you asked to see sources for, it is just one of many sources used for the draft article. If you want more independent sources on the company with more significant coverage, which I had included in the draft text originally, here you go, there is reports from CNN, Bloomberg, Forbes and others which are **not** press releases or reports emanating form the company:

Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-06/israel-s-electreon-charges-electric-car-batteries-on-the-go CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/business/detroit-charging-road/index.html Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/these-companies-want-to-charge-your-electric-vehicle-as-you-drive-11610965800

I have addressed your original request, and you have yet to provide me sufficient reasons based non the above justifications and sources as to why this article remains rejected. Please, Wikipedia needs to work on the consistency of its reviewers - the reviewers cannot submit inconsistent claims for as to why an article can not be published/is rejected (exact quote from recent review: "While the company is notable IMO, the writing here looks like a white paper talking up the company in a promotional way.") - and yet there is no explanation as to what constitutes promotional text in the article.

I have provided you with examples of several independent sources, as you requested. Please provide your reply on each. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  1. The Bloomberg source is largely an interview with the founder of the company, who is not an independent source about his own company. Leaving that aside, it mentions the company only briefly.
  2. The CNN piece only tells about how the company works in the field of wireless EV charging and wants to test its technology in Michigan- a routine business activity(a company testing its product) It also contains an interview with a vice president of the company who is not an independent source about their own company.
  3. I cannot examine the WSJ as it is paywalled but just based on the title it would seem to only briefly mention the company. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot You asked for significant coverage from independent publishing sources that are not direct from the company's marketing or paid promotional outlets (i.e. Business Wire)- you cannot keep changing your definition of what constitutes independent sources with significant coverage. I have read the Wikipedia's page on this and added the sources in direct accordance to what satisfies an appropriate source. You are also in direct contradiction with your fellow reviewer who stated "While the company is notable IMO, the writing here looks like a white paper talking up the company in a promotional way." Reviewers need to be consistent in how they review articles - you are detracting from the merits of Wikipedia.

You asked for articles that are not press releases or emanating from the company itself - that's exact what these sources are - not press releases and from independent publishing platforms who have researched and written about the company to showcase that it is indeed a covered topic. If there was just one source from one year mentioning the company once or twice, I can agree to your point - but it is multiple articles from multiple years on multiple platforms mentioning the company in the context of a growing EV charging industry, which you clearly know very little about and for some reason, want to prevent access to information for. You are only verifying the validity of all these sources, which together constitute a broad range of coverage on Electreon as a public company.

Further, what about the NYT piece? And the TRL piece, and the EDW piece? And the Trafikverket/Swedish Transport Administration piece you conveniently did not address here after I provided you with the updated links? You asked for three sources, and I provided you with more.

All roads lead to the significant coverage of this article from independent, non press release sources, and you have failed to prove or provide explanation otherwise. And there is no word yet from your fellow reviewer who you are contradiction to as to why constitutes promotional text in this article (Jacobariel91 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 As I said I cannot read Swedish, and I don't think it a good use of my time to examine a lengthy Swedish government report for name drops of the company when it's pretty clear you won't be persuaded by what I would say about it. I can't access sources behind paywalls. I've explained the problems with your sources, but you seem to not want to hear what those are. You are very invested in this for someone with no connection to this company, perhaps too much so. This is the longest discussion I have seen on this page in some time. I would suggest taking a step back for a bit. I have no additional comment here; perhaps others will respond and tell you something else. I certainly am not the last or only word. Good day. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I and external reviewers (not connected to the company) are passionate about the EV charging industry, and you - and your fellow administrators - have yet to provide adequate reason as to why this company's draft page does not constitute adequate coverage.

Adequate coverage indicates there are multiple sources discussing the topic - I have provided you wit numerous examples. Again, if there was just one source which briefly mentions the topic, I concur your point, but that is not the case. Regarding the Swedish report, it discusses Electreon's technology in full. And Google Translate is something everyone can use. I myself reviewed the report with a translator. Regarding the TRL report, you said you could not access the link, I provided you with the correct link. No comment there. Regarding the EDW report, it is an example of an ind. platform, which you requested. Regarding the NYT and WSJ reports - it is not my fault you don't have access to those articles via paywall, its easy to bypass a paywall and many who rely on this topic for information have access to these sites. Regarding CNN, Axios, Bloomberg, Forbes - they are ind. planforms that are not press releases or emanating from the company covering the topic.

Every request you have asked for, I have addressed. And you have failed to provide adequate reasoning still as to why there is not sufficient coverage on this article from ind. sources that do no emanate from the company.

Further, you have failed to address the inconsistency of review comments that you and fellow admins are providing to articles that are reviewed, which detracts from the authenticity of Wikipedia.

I ask that in the meantime, the draft page be put back into the circulation for review so that other editors/administrators can have their say on the matter - bc as you said, you are not, and should not, be the final word. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobariel91 Sigh. I have addressed inconsistency already. We do our best, but as with any large organization it creeps in. If I suggested that the company is not notable contrary to what one reviewer said, I apolgize- but the sources do not demonstrate that notability. It may very well be notable but the sources do not show it for the reasons I have stated. Not all reviewers are administrators. I agree with the rejection and if you want it reversed you must appeal to the reviewer that rejected it, or hope that your ANI discussion results in a consensus to allow its submission. I don't think that's going to happen, but those are your options.
Wikipedia does not claim to be authentic, in fact Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We don't want readers to trust Wikipedia blindly; we want them to examine the sources provided and decide for themselves. If you just want to tell the world about the wonders of EVs and related technology, you should do that on a blog or personal website. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Good day. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot May I ask, why the sources do not show notability? CNN, NYT, WSJ, independent research firms - all writing about the topic are not notable? If there is one source which is an interview - fine I can remove that, but Trafikverekt, TRL, EDW, and the rest - you have not provided any reason as to why those sources do not show notability - other than the company is not mentioned thousands of times. That's not the point of the source. The point of these sources is to showcase adequate coverage from non press release or company emanating sources. You are mistaken, and I ask that you provide adequate reasoning as to why this company does not satisfy sufficient coverage. How can we ensure adequate coordination between yourself and CNMall41 who rejected the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobariel91 (talk • contribs)
Jacobariel91 The mere fact that a source writes about a topic does not confer notability on the topic. Sources must write about the topic with significant coverage which I have yet to see in this case(from what I can actually examine). They seem to be name drops of the company or just tell what they do. Have you reviewed the Wikipedia definition of a notable company? You can request that CNMall41 comment and they may (depending on their time zone) or may not. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and volunteers do what they wish to when they wish to do it. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot and Jacobariel91: The NYT would constitute significant coverage, however the source is being cherry-picked and only being used to support one rather inconsequential line of text. NYT discusses the technology, recent pilots and challenges including viability of the product in comparison to other options. COI has been denied but doesn't change what reviewer said, subject is notable, article is promotional. I have not reviewed sources beyond NYT nor looked at article beyond skimming to see if concern of overly promotional was valid. If I have a chance later, I will do a deeper dive.Slywriter (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Slywriter I have discussed your points above in detail here

Subject is notable, article is non-promotional is the accurate conclusion. The reviewer was incorrect in their assessment for reasons I have stated in the linked page and below.

As I have explained there, the text is all factual, it is non-promotional. It does not paint the company in a positive light - the company's high costs compared to other technologies, the energy power distribution loss at higher speeds of vehicles, and structure of the company's recent commercial deal are all factually written and from published research reports, and if anything, paint the company in a slightly negative light. The pilot projects are fact based as well - there is no promotion of technology in these texts that, for example, highlight the company's technology benefits, impacts, and advantages over other technologies or competitors - this would indeed be examples of promotional text and none of that appears in this draft.

It is imperative that consistent review standards be applied when Wikipedia editors/administrators are assessing draft articles. It's also imperative that articles be published in accordance to fair assessment of promotional language by editors who are familiar with the content of the article's submission, otherwise they cannot be fair arbiters of fact vs. promotion, as well as assessors on the article's sources and notability. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Jacobarie91I have left comments at ANI as no reason to have this conversation in multiple venues.Slywriter (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:51, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Binod Acharya 2001

can i publish my personal Wikipedia article ? Binod Acharya 2001 (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Binod Acharya 2001 No, the draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Binod Acharya 2001 (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:41, 7 February 2022 review of draft by 100.33.75.99


100.33.75.99 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Wikipedia Tue, Feb 1, 2022 11:57 pm

Its the original Wikipedia. Draft:Dick Lopez

February 7, 2022

In reviewing Wikipedia’s comments, I am trying to figure out what their specific concerns and objections are. After spending a day preparing additional information for references, I realize that I really don’t understand their issues, thus making it impossible to respond to Wikipedia communications. Can someone at Wikipedia help.?

Dick

Your draft has no sources to support its content. In articles about living people, every substantive fact must have a citation to an independent reliable source. Articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. If you are the subject, please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:33:23, 7 February 2022 review of draft by KnucklesTheTigger


I am not sure exactly what is a reliable source that can get this page approved. I mean, I've seen other pages use kidscreen.com as their one and only source why is it wrong when I use that site? What type of source does it take to get this page approved?

KnucklesTheTigger (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:11, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Jess.jerome2000


Jess.jerome2000 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit my work so it does not read as an advertisement?

Jess.jerome2000 I assume this is about your sandbox draft(I've placed a link above). You summarize what independent reliable sources say about the product, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You only offer the company's website as a source- this is not acceptable. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself. Please read Your First Article. If you are an employee of Fischer Medical, you must declare as a paid editor, a Terms of Use requirement. See WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:32:40, 7 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Mwells91



Mwells91 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mwells91, no question asked but Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Nor is it social media. Until and unless reliable independent secondary sources cover the subject, there is zero chance for having an article. In particular, subject needs to meet WP:NMUSIC, which right now there is no indication can happen.Slywriter (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:47, 7 February 2022 review of submission by Xplicitcoding

Hello! I'm new to Wiki editing. I mainly do web management and social media management. One of my clients reached out about creating a page for him and I'm doing the best I can. I keep getting denied and I was looking for some guidance. It's currently in draft, but I was referred here. Any help would be appreciated!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hessam_Noralahi

Xplicitcoding (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1070510278"