Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 May 22

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 21 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 23 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


May 22

edit

00:27:45, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Basem3.Azez1990

edit


Basem3.Azez1990 (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


01:57:59, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Stanfordai

edit


Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am new to Wikipedia, is there someone that could possibly help me as to create the article in question?

Thank you kindly in advance!

Stanfordai (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Standordai: Hey Standorfai, just so you know I denied the draft creation because of insufficient sourcing for a biography of a living person. Of the sources provided, 2 of them are simply directory listings that do not help to establish notability (crunchbase and the CM listing), one is a primary source written by the subject himself which doesn't help establish notability (it's like saying "I'm notable because I say I'm notable"), one is to a local resource (globalpittsburg) which is really just a profile posting, and the last, the link to economictimes.indiatimes.com, just mentions him in passing, quoting him in reference to another subject, rather than discussing him in particular. You need to find reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject. You should also review WP:NPERSON. If you have questions, let us know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:37:22, 22 May 2019 review of draft by Bagotroad

edit


Bagotroad (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm following up on the response from editors re significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.

The references include an independent article by Julie Hosking (6). I note that I have used this article as a reference only once. This article could also be used as a reference in relation to a number of other sections including:

(a) the opening sentence: "Sharon Faye is a practicing organizational psychologist (* Hosking), who developed the theory of emotional strength (Faye and Hooper)." (b) opening paragraph: "She is managing director of corporate psychology firm Clear Perceptions (Clear Perceptions website) and founding director of the Sharon Faye Foundation (SFF website; *Hosking)" (c) Professional history; third sentence. "In addition to her academic work, Faye is a successful practicing organizational and clinically trained psychologist with twenty years experience, currently working in private practice in Subiaco, Western Australia (CP website; Hosking)" (d) professional history; sixth sentences: "Faye is the founding chair of the Sharon Faye Foundation (SFF website; Hosking) (e) Theory of emotional strength par: "With ES, Faye proposed to change the way emotion is understood and experienced in everyday life" (Faye & Hooper; Hosking).

I'm wondering if including the additional Hosking references would go some way to addressing the concerns re referencing?

Secondly, are there any sections in particular that require referencing (for example, "Clinical Use" ) which if removed would address concerns.

Thank you and regards

Hi Bagotroad. Citing Hosking more often would be a good idea. I think what the reviewer was asking for, however, was two more sources like Hosking - independent and reliable, so that the article is not just what Hosking thinks is important about Faye (and what Faye and entities close to Faye think is important). For a living person, reviewers expect an inline citation for almost everything. So removing the clinical use section would be a plus if you can't find any reliable sources to support it. The fact that you know her date of birth and educational details, but cite no source for them suggests that you have a close connection to the subject. That presents a conflict of interest, and you should disclose it. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:34:54, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Immuthuppandi

edit


Immuthuppandi (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Immuthuppandi: - hi there. Unfortunately, there isn't anything that indicates the subject is notable in the way that wikipedia defines it. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:22:37, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Lesenwriter

edit


May i kindly request you to review , i have made necessary changes but i haven't heard for sometime now. Could someone please help me with this article. I hope i can do better in Wikipedia,but all i need some guidance . Many Thanks !!... Lesenwriter (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lesenwriter. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. With the current backlog, reviewers are likely to reach it within the next three months. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:52, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Kirsty Liu

edit

I am trying to set up a Gourmet Escape page for the company I work for IMG (International Management Group) that owns the rights to it (they are the owner and organizers) so the article i created is content we have the right to use. How can i indicate that I have the right to use their content on the page? as well as all the images? Kirsty Liu (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:44, 22 May 2019 review of submission by SYED JAVED HAIDER

edit


Sir, I would like to kindly request for a review (for Wikipedia) with consideration on following points: (1) I feel that my achievements are sufficient enough in my field for your approval. (2) It will be a source of inspiration for the individuals working in my profession and the society. (3) My position has been referred in the website of King George Medical University, Chowk, Lucknow (Home page  Faculty of Medicine  Anatomy Department – Introduction page) Thanking you very much in anticipation for the kind review.

SYED JAVED HAIDER (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:02:47, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Samirsangroula

edit


i need wiki page for getting resister in international writer association please review it. Samirsangroula (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samirsangroula: Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:03:13, 22 May 2019 review of submission by SYED JAVED HAIDER

edit


Sir, I would like to kindly request for a review (for Wikipedia) with consideration on following points: (1) I feel that my achievements are sufficient enough in my field for your approval. (2) It will be a source of inspiration for the individuals working in my profession and the society. (3) My position has been referred in the website of King George Medical University, Chowk, Lucknow (Home page  Faculty of Medicine  Anatomy Department – Introduction page) Thanking you very much in anticipation for the kind review.

SYED JAVED HAIDER (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:34:09, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Dolphin Scholar

edit


Dear Supreme Arbiters of Human Knowledge,

Can I please have some more detailed feedback about why Awards International is not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion on Wikipedia?

They are a multinational company that runs the biggest customer experience awards in the world. That seems noteworthy to me.

If this article is not permitted, I respect that. Perhaps I'll apply the same logic, however, and suggest a list of articles that should also not be on Wikipedia if 'noteworthiness' is a concern for you.

Kind regards,

Dolphin Scholar

Dolphin Scholar (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by reliable sources so that information can be verified.

We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. Your draft has no reliable sources at all, so notability cannot be established. You are free to suggest other articles which don't meet the criteria, and we can delete them if needed, thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:28, 22 May 2019 review of draft by Dgold11

edit


I am a newbie and need help figuring out how to improve my sources to a place where my draft can be approved. That said, there is not a ton of published info about my topic. Most of what I've acquired I've requested from the institution itself and it's not published in places that would make for a "good source," but the information is true and verifiable as it came directly from the subject. Help!

Dgold11 (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dgold11 Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by independent reliable sources so that information can be verified. Their own website is not a suitable source for establishing notability. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. If there are no such sources, then we cannot have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:13:14, 22 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mukkera Kranthi

edit

tell me how to get verified Mukkera Kranthi (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mukkera Kranthi: Wikipedia does not have a process for verifying editors. Editors are "confirmed" after a certain amount of time and making a certain number of edits.
That said, you appear to have attempted a couple of times to post a biography of yourself and a plea for medical help. Wikipedia is not a social network, and is not the place to post this sort of content -- try Facebook instead. Articles about people are only included here if the person meets the standards laid out in the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:35:51, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Ryan Mindo

edit


Please see if I have added the citations correctly and if this is acceptable. thank you

Ryan Mindo (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan Mindo: The citations are formatted correctly, but they are not sufficient to show that this company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Simply participating in a notable event does not make a company notable. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:52:08, 22 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nikko Curtis

edit


I've made so many edits to this article in hopes that I could do some good and educate people about a cleaner energy company I stumbled on. I write articles regularly and am still a bit confused to why this article keeps getting denied. Not sure how this is sounding like an advertisement. I have only said facts and quoted many external sources that aren't associated with Petroteq Energy Inc. I would really appreciate your help getting this article published. Thank you, Nikko

Nikko Curtis (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:40:26, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Swordswfriends

edit


User DGG rejected this proposed entry with the claim "Advertisement for non-notable product line." However, the entry is in line with other entries on distillers and liquor companies, and I have no relationship with the company. My intention is to flesh out this category of spirits, and I chose this small company to start with.

The rejection does not provide any constructive feedback, and seems rather flippant. Perhaps someone with a focus on alcohol-related topics could take a look and either approve or provide instruction on how to improve the entry.


Swordswfriends (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swordswfriends: - as an initial note, if you'd like additional feedback I suggest going to DGG's talk page and asking is a good step - he's normally quite happy to answer questions.
As my $0.02, I would say your sources are currently unsuitable. They are all either non-independent (linked to the seller or written in a publication that has a vested interest in the products or companies included in doing well) or don't satisfy significant coverage. For something like a rum (which as a product is relatively rare to meet notability (usually its a company)) more neutral reviews are a better method to find suitable sourcing. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: - Thanks for your reply, I have contacted DGG. Regarding your feedback, I suspect I have misrepresented the article -- it is not just a rum, but rather the company as a whole that I'm writing about. If I just titled it "Distillerie Neisson" rather than "Neisson (rum)", that would probably fix that issue. In regard to sources, while two are indeed links to a seller (the only online source with the cited product details, unfortunately), I disagree that the others are non-independent. An article in Saveur would seem to satisfy significant coverage, and LuxuryExperience.com has been nominated for a Tales of the Cocktail award for its cocktail writing.
Would it be preferable to leave out the Recognition section? I suppose that does seem less neutral as an inclusion.Swordswfriends (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swordswfriends: - the recognition section is pretty small so I wouldn't say it's too problematic - it can be a major issue for company articles, but if I were reviewing I wouldn't be too concerned by it. I'd missed it were a company - in which case you should read Corporate Notability up to the end of section 3. Companies have a higher requirement for notability - multiple (I'd suggest 3 high quality sources) are needed to demonstrate sufficient notability. There's also a thing called WP:CORPDEPTH that you don't yet seem to fall into, but rules out some of the sources that are common add-ons to company articles. It could be worth dropping your thoughts on the talk page on why Saveur/LuxuryExperience satisfy the independent requirements. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: - Thanks again for your advice. I've edited the article to include additional high quality independent sources, and posted a justification for the ones previously included. I've also moved the article to "Distillerie Neisson" so as to make it clear this is a company entry rather than a product. Would it be better to submit the article as a new AfC, or plead again for a re-review? Swordswfriends (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_May_22&oldid=984781114"