Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 May 31

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 30 << Apr | May | Jun >> June 1 >
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 31

edit

00:35:34, 31 May 2019 review of submission by MuchTime

edit


MuchTime (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a page for an individual and a company that I work for. I get that this would be an obvious COI, I am wondering what the chances of it ever being accepted?

Also IMO the company and individual should be on Wiki, as there are others with far lesser bodies of work that are. They, being similar entities, also seem to have far less references, and perhaps ones that are there are not all that reputable compared to the present Wiki standards. My question is, is it defensible to compare the notoriety of my entities to old submissions as a baseline or has the current standard of evidence been raised?

MuchTime (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MuchTime. Most businesses are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia article. The notability criteria (inclusion criteria) were toughened last year to keep out even more. Right now, Wikipedia has little or no appetite for new articles about extant companies, and that extends to biographies of their living founders or executives. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative.
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 is in any way "approved" or meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. It isn't a good excuse to create more inadequate pages. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:30:48, 31 May 2019 review of draft by FowDay

edit


Discrepancy between guidelines provided to me by a reviewer, and existing articles on Wikipedia.

I found that I was told that the three main inline citations did not meet Wikipedia's standard. However, I went through several Wikipedia pages on motorsport personalities. I noticed that a lot of these Wiki pages only contained one single inline citation, which led to the racer's Driver DB page. It is widely acknowledged that Driver DB is the most accurate record of motorsport on the internet. And I wondered why it was okay that the only verifiable source of a racer's accomplishments was accepted via Driver DB in some cases, examples below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Theobald https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rg_Bergmeister

And not in other cases - like the draft article that I am currently working on.

FowDay (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FowDay. 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 is "okay" or meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. It isn't a good excuse to create additional inadequate pages. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:14, 31 May 2019 review of draft by Shaista.ameer

edit 


Because I am not exactly getting why my page is getting deleted again and again I am not understanding the mistakes.

Shaista.ameer (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:BenchMatrix is just a blatant advert, it has no sources at all let alone independent reliable ones. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote your business. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:17:11, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Tollywoodcorns

edit


Tollywoodcorns (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can i please know why my article was declined

As per the decline notice... your draft has no sources, we need significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Theroadislong (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:08:32, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Thakur Golu Singh

edit


Thakur Golu Singh (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just need the reason why my article got rejected...

The decline notice tells you this. It has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:10:31, 31 May 2019 review of draft by 89.138.228.20

edit


Can you please review it again?

89.138.228.20 (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong has obliged. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:48, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Theaniketyadav

edit


Theaniketyadav (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:14:07, 31 May 2019 review of draft by Sanderson462

edit


Resolved

Sanderson462 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:27:46, 31 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Liewhz

edit


Hi, I guess like everyone who gets declined, I'm trying to better understand the concept of significant coverage. If I'm writing about the piece of animation software that we developed, and makes use of inbetweening technology, what will we need to provide that shows significant coverage? For example, we have had users post 1 - 5 hours videos of them using the software and exploring the functions on Youtube. Does that count? While they're not journalists, they're definitely human beings who took the time to stream their use of the software online for their viewers.

Some scenarios just so we can understand what's acceptable / unacceptable:

  • If we have had a magazine interview us about the software and its use in the animation industry, but it's in Japanese and not English, it's still not going to be accepted? Or the fact that we're the interviewees mean that it's not independent?
  • If we have had a magazine interview an animation studio that uses our software, but it's in Japanese and not English, is it going to be accepted? In this case, since we're not the interviewees, I guess that's considered independent?
  • If we have had a journalist/reviewer try our software and write about his experience in the magazine he's working for, but it's in Mandarin and not English, is it going to be accepted? In this case, since we're not the interviewees, I guess that's also considered independent?
  • We have all the 3 above cases, but since they're magazines, we're not quite sure how we can include them as sources on the Wikipedia page. The magazine company just provides an overview on that particular issue online. What's the acceptable way to display such physical sources? Or maybe none of the 3 above cases are considered as significant coverage?

Thanks for your help in this. Liewhz (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liewhz: - hi there, I'll have a look through the scenarios and give some comments. My comments are purely based off your writing, rather than my own assessment of your sources:
The users posting long videos, that would be Sig Cov, but they wouldn't be secondary sources and almost certainly wouldn't meet our requirements for WP:RELIABLE
The language isn't an issue, but with you being the interviewees it would generally fail WP:INDEPENDENT. There can be exceptions if the publication talks lots (several good sized paragraphs, at least) about you before starting the interview
3rd party interviews are an odd case - firstly you'd need to be able to demonstrate that the studio didn't have any particular bias that encouraged its mentioning it. If it didn't, then it could be a potential source.
Assuming a reliable publication (editorial control etc), the journalist reviewer would be a good source.
Sorry, I'm a little confused - are you saying that the magazine gives the whole article, but with only a summary online? Concerned about giving a concrete answer if I misunderstand your statement. As an extra note, all all these magazines from the same company? If that's the case, then they'd only count as 1 source for notability purposes. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Nosebagbear, appreciate your response! I'll provide more information below. The magazine citations I mentioned are from different publishers. To cite them as sources, is linking to their online magazine overview sufficient? We can't link to the actual articles because they do not make it publicly available online.

CACANi has been mentioned in animation-related magazines, including Animation Magazine,"The Animag 250: Software Companies to Watch". Animation Magazine. 2015-06-17. Retrieved 2017-01-26. CGWORLD Japan (issues 209,"月刊CGWORLD vol.209（2016年1月号）、12月10日（木）発売。全国書店ならびにワークス オンラインブックストア他にて好評発売中！ | CG・映像の専門情報サイト | CGWORLD.jp". CG・映像の専門情報サイト | CGWORLD.jp (in Japanese). Retrieved 2017-01-26. 212"月刊CGWORLD vol.212（2016年4月号）、3月10日（木）発売。全国書店ならびにワークス オンラインブックストア他にて好評発売中！ | CG・映像の専門情報サイト | CGWORLD.jp". CG・映像の専門情報サイト | CGWORLD.jp (in Japanese). Retrieved 2017-01-26.), and INCG."INCG數位影像繪圖雜誌2016第26期-金石堂網路書店". 金石堂網路書店 (in Chinese (Taiwan)). Retrieved 2017-01-26. Liewhz (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liewhz: A URL in a citation should be a deep link to the online location where the referenced content can be found. If the text of the publication is not online, do not substitute a link that is merely the magazine's or publisher's home page. Links that require registration or subscription are okay, as are offline sources. For ones that are not easily accessible and for foreign language sources, it's good practice to use the |quote= parameter of the citation templates to briefly quote the source you are paraphrasing, as described in the "Additional annotation" section of Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Worldbruce (talk)

18:15:36, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Veena srivani

edit


Veena srivani (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:22:13, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Veena srivani

edit


i am a beginner. so, i took time for learning wikipedia editing and i just came to know that i have to add reference list. i have added the required possible reference list, please accept my re-review proposal, so that i can know that this draft is eligible or not. Veena srivani (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:31:59, 31 May 2019 review of submission by Ilyasshas

edit


Hello, I have recently published a page about a musical artist and it says that it has been declined because there not enough sources although I have put about 11 references, and 2 of them are in French because the artist is a moroccan/american citizen therefore in morocco their official language is french which makes sense why the articles are in that language. 

any idea on how to appeal the rejection?

Ilyasshas (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:24:13, 31 May 2019 review of draft by ChristieChan1231

edit


It keeps saying that it's declined on April 26th, but I am currently working on it on May 31st. I want to know what's wrong with the article I've written and what I can do to make sure that it doesn't get declined again.


ChristieChan1231 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft reads exactly like a an advertisement and is in no way neutral..."an innovative company that makes moving around light, fun, and entertaining by creating trendy, compact, easy to carry products" totyally inappropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_May_31&oldid=984781536"