Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 November 1

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< October 31 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 2 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


November 1

edit

00:00, 1 November 2024 review of submission by A.almana

edit

hi which source is not reliable ? A.almana (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A.almana Please read WP:REFB and sort your referencing out. They are unreadable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:36, 1 November 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:279E:7E4D:333A:6D03:2180:2958

edit

Because he is a singer available all platform songs 2402:8100:279E:7E4D:333A:6D03:2180:2958 (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just having songs available on music platforms is not sufficient to establish notability. Articles are based on significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. No such sources are provided and, in fact, there's barely any content on the article itself. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be reconsidered at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:26, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Immaculate Namanda

edit
Collapse
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Pebuu Africa

Pebuu Africa is a data-driven field management technology solutions firm headquartered in Uganda. The company is focused on driving digital transformation across Africa by offering solutions in agent and merchant management, as well as last-mile distribution. Pebuu is involved in modernizing value chains across the continent, with a particular emphasis on distribution, agent banking, and merchant management.

Pebuu operates across several key African markets, including South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The company's services enable financial institutions and retail companies to deliver seamless, innovative, and inclusive financial solutions to underserved communities, helping bridge the gap between traditional and digital economies.

Operations in Uganda

In Uganda, Pebuu has expanded its service network to over 320 locations, managing a network of more than 20,000 agents. The company uses technology platforms that provide real-time tracking and geo-mapping solutions, improving operational oversight and the management of agents and merchant service points. These technologies have contributed to the recruitment, monitoring, and supervision of bank agents, playing a critical role in maintaining a well-regulated financial services ecosystem.

Global Expansion

As part of its global growth strategy, Pebuu has established an office in the United States of America. This international expansion aims to strengthen the company's presence in high-growth markets and further its mission of contributing to financial inclusion and sustainable growth across Africa. Immaculate Namanda (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Immaculate Namanda: you don't ask a question, but Draft:Pebuu has been deleted as promotional. Please don't post the same sort of promo blurb here, this help desk is only for seeking assistance with drafts undergoing the AfC review process and matters related to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, apologies. Immaculate Namanda (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left them my incredibly helpful and informative deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: It really is helpful and informative – I have thought that before, as well. --bonadea contributions talk 08:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Elinhprotianthrwpi

edit

Hello wikipedia gurus, I don't know what I am doing wrong. I wish I understood, but you all know about wikipedia use much better than me. Can someone please finally help me create this page for author Penelope Penny Koutourinis? Can someone please fix it for me so it fits the correct wikipedia guidelines as you are the experts at wikipedia and not me. Your help is mostly appreaciated. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinhprotianthrwpi: while waiting for a guru to come along, I'll take a swing at this.
You need to support the draft with reliable sources, which must be cited 'inline' ie. in the draft text next to the information they support.
You also need to show evidence that this person is notable enough to be included in the encyclopaedia. You have two options: either via the general WP:GNG notability route, which requires significant coverage of her in multiple secondary sources, or the WP:AUTHOR route which needs evidence of a reasonably significant writing career.
And no, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok DoubleGrzing thanks for your help I'll give it another try Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, doubleGrazing I went to the WP:GNG page and from my understanding I need sources for Penelope, but I added the sources and notable links to her books, I used google books as a source, maybe I didn't do it right
so, in my editing page, where I created the article, what do I need to write or add to make it acceptable? please help me via steps if you can because you are the guru on wikepedia and I am an absolute beginner!!! Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello, I can't seem to add the cited 'inline' I don't know where to write it and what I have to write , so sorry, I am a beginner, please help with steps, thank you Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show how they pass the criteria at WP:NWRITER first. Theroadislong (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong, how do I get the article to pass the criteria, I read it all, the article on Penelope Penny Koutourinis is notable as she is a writer and author, and what do I do next? please helps with steps of what I have to do to get her article on wiki as it is ligit, she is an author Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely being an author isn't enough to merit an article, with the internet and self publishing almost anyone can "be an author". You need to show that she passes at least one of the criteria written at WP:NWRITER. Which of those criteria do you feel she passes? 331dot (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what if the articles are in another language? and as far as I know she has recognition. but you are the gurus, if you say she can't be on wikipedia then I have to respect that. have a good day, thanks for your assistance. Be well. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinhprotianthrwpi: she is not notable just because you say so, she is (?) notable when you produce evidence of that. Being a writer is not enough; she must be a writer who has received significant attention for her writing, and for that we need to see reliable and independent sources proving it. Your draft lists (without citing) two issues of one publication, which doesn't seem to be available to view, and one user-generated source which may or may not be reliable.
You can find pretty much everything you need for article creation at WP:YFA, and WP:REFB tells you how to correctly cite your sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi, most articles of her are in another language, not English, that's why I didn't add the citings. Some articles about her come from an Australian magazine a few years ago, to which I provided the links. Also, my dear, it's not just me who says she is recognized, and I can understand that wiki has certain guidelines, but I was trying to create an article about a person who is genuinely an author and not someone random who acts as one. In any case, I respect wiki's rules and if ever she gains worldwide media attention, then I'll come back then and write the citings, ref, sources ect. have a great day. thank you! Be well. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinhprotianthrwpi No amount of discussion can make her notable. Please research referencing, and deploy those references wisely. Non English references are fine.
You have all the tools at your disposal, so please use them. Either she is notable in a Wikipedia sense, or she is not.
When you have done the work, please resubmit for review.
Please do not patronise other editors, 'Also, my dear, it's not just m..." is not a welcome turn of phrase. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, patronizing? I believe there's a misunderstanding, I have been nothing but polite to everyone who has tried to help me. So, if you feel offended by writing, my dear, which wasn't to you, then i apologize, but my intentions have and will be polite to all editors. I am offended that you got involved in a discussion between me and DoubleGrazing, I don't think he or she was offended, I believe they understood my sincerity to the matter. When someone signs off the message with, have a great day, be well, is that patronizing? No. Therefore, I kindly request, that you do not accuse without a solid fact that I was patronizing. In any case, I was merely trying to write an article about her because I had read three of her books and then searched that she has references in Greek newspapers and magazines. Asking for help isn't a bad thing. I have taken another editor's suggestion, therefore please do not reply to me again, and I'm saying that in the nicest coolest way. Have a great day. Be well. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to limit a discussion to yourself and someone else, that is best done on their user talk page. Discussions in open forums like this may be commented on by anyone.
I understand that in some cultures, addressing others as "dear" is acceptable, but in others it's considered demeaning. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinhprotianthrwpi An interesting form of apology: 'if you feel offended by writing, my dear, which wasn't to you, then I apologize is a non apology. You cannot make a legitimate apology "if" someone feels offended. You need to make a correct apology because you have caused offence by your words, even if that offence was unintended. However, you have now doubles down on your words which you now know to be patronising.
As for your bluster 'I am offended that you got involved in a discussion between me and DoubleGrazing' I suggest you pull your horns in. Wikipedia works on civility and collegiality. That was neither. Please read WP:CIVIL
I have carefully disregarded your request not to reply to you further because your words required, nay invited, a reply. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Elinhprotianthrwpi. I'm afraid that you are having a pretty normal experience for somebody who signs up for Wikipedia and immediately tries the challenging task of creating an article. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Such sources do not have to be in English, as long as they are reliable and independent. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ColinFine,
thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it. I'll get to know wikipedia better. I don't not know the person I am writing the article for personally, if that's what you're assuming. I have read three of her books, and when I searched her, I found that she had written many books and found some articles written about her in greek newspapers and magazines. asking other people about her I also found out she is known, but from my understanding she is low profile person. in any case, I will post the articles in greek on reference and try submitting again. if that doesn't work, like I said above, I will submit her article when I can gather more cititaions and references. have a great day. thank you Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Pareekshamitra

edit

want to know about the coverage 

Pareekshamitra (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pareekshamitra: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but of the sources cited in this draft, IMDb is not considered reliable, and the only other source merely lists this person in the cast ie. provides no significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:02, 1 November 2024 review of submission by CoachAni

edit

The article has been referenced by independent sources wondering why it still got declined. There are some articles on wikipedia which have only two sources yet have been published. could there be other reasons why this article is being declined? CoachAni (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoachAni: the existence of other articles (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument) isn't relevant. We know there are all sorts of problems among the nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we should create more of them.
Per the reviewer's comments, the sources don't establish notability. It's not enough that they are independent (and reliable), they must also be secondary, and provide significant coverage directly of the subject.
I don't know why you think there might be "other reasons" for declining this, other than what is stated on the decline notice – could you elaborate, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are thinking it was declined for only having two sources, and since existing articles do, there must be another reason. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CoachAni Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by volunteers doing what they can when they can. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist, even for years, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to inappropriate articles please don't get me wrong. Thank you for your feedback. Well noted.CoachAni (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an article has only two sources, it likely is inappropriate and needs work. It doesn't necessarily need to be deleted, just action taken. My main point is that it isn't a good idea to use any random article as a guide or model. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Aishuffg7

edit

IW TANMAYA: Video editor, frontend dev, Virtech Studio & PaintCraft founder, filmmaker, robotics enthusiast, working on a Safety Smart Band. Aishuffg7 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offered no independent reliable sources.
You will need to disclose your connection to this person, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You took a very professional looking image of this person and they posed for you. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Elinhprotianthrwpi

edit

hello wiki gurus, I can't seem to add the cited 'inline' to Penelope Penny Koutourinis' page, I don't know where to write the cited inline part in her article and what I have to write exactly. I looked at the info links provided, but I still can't work it out, so sorry, I am a beginner, please help with steps, thank you. most appreciated Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This duplicates the above thread; please stick to that thread, do not create additional threads. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Sandeephbk2024

edit

What is the meaning "notable" Sandeephbk2024 (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandeephbk2024 Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which outlines our policy. Qcne (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandeephbk2024 If you are associated with the company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i am associated with this company my company email id id [redacted] Sandeephbk2024 (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandeephbk2024 You must make a formal disclosure of that, see WP:PAID. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves. Wikipedia articles about companies summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Bakhos2010

edit

My draft article have reliable sources, but why is it still declined? Bakhos2010 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakhos2010 Please read with care about Reliable sources, Because I think you have not quite got it right. YouTube, especially, can be a challenge because it is user generated coated with little or no editorial rigour. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent But IShowSpeed's article have like several youtube videos references i think, and how is it still reliable and can be a article? Bakhos2010 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakhos2010 No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy.
We have many inappropriate articles here. If you feel that the one you mention is not appropriate please suggest it for deletion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent I understand. I removed only one YouTube video source from the "Career" section, so it will now stay with just the YouTube video source from "(born November 5, 2004)". If I remove it, it will require a source, so I kept only one. What should i do next? Bakhos2010 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the draft is ready, resumbit by clicking the blue button. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakhos2010 As long as you have read the links I gave you then you have the information you need. If he passeds our criteria he passes. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent The English language from reliable sources is quite hard, but i've learned a bit, so i think it passes criteria. Bakhos2010 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakhos2010 Then I wish you success. We learn by doing ever better. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Adamewhite

edit

I've been working on this draft of a Wikipedia entry on a very important person and trailblazer in contemporary philanthropy. I keep hitting roadblocks because I keep being told that I haven't included "reliable sources," but the sources I'm citing are from the most preeminent periodicals and organs of contemporary philanthropy.

I'm not sure what else to do -- could someone help more concretely than just telling me to include "reliable sources?" Adamewhite (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamewhite Anything from PRNewswirse is a PR piece and has no value in verifying much, especially notability. Any organisation talking about its staff is a primary source. WP:PRIMARY is helpful here.
Significant coverage - in excess of three well crafted paragraphs - is required. You have many passing mentions
Amongst your sources are no big hitters.
All this means that you have a problem. I believe that is because you write this WP:BACKWARDS. To solve this, please research all the references you can find about Miller. Then discard the chaff. From the whet, create a storyboard which tells Miller's story, totally in your own words, with the facts cited by the references. One reference per fact, please, but, when a references encompasses several facts it may be re-used.
Here's the thing. If you cant find good references then no amount of wording will create notability, this is the abandonment point, before you have started writing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My frustration here is that these references -- from Philanthropy Magazine, from Non-Profit Quarterly Magazine, from the New York Federal Reserve -- are all very legitimate sources documenting the the world of professional philanthropy.
Moreover, if the very foundation that has hired her as a president issues a news release that announces it, how is that not a primary source?
Also, the notion of "big hitters" feels very arbitrary -- what constitutes that? Who arbitrates this?
Clara Miller is a very important figure in this world and very famous inside as a trailblazer for women in what is typically a very male-dominated field. I have marshaled all of her positions and awards because I wanted to evidence her prominence -- I felt like this was a safer route than telling a story that involves claims that aren't materially specific.
For instance, a statement like "Miller is a major figure in the development of non-profit philanthropy" is incontrovertibly true, but how am I supposed to support a broad claim like that unless I show the impressive career trajectory that she has undertaken?
Given that I know firsthand how many deeply niche and frankly margin people have Wikipedia entries, I find it baffling that a very notable woman within this field is denied this. Adamewhite (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Adamewhite. "Notable" is in some ways an unfortunate choice of word, because it means something different from what people assume it means. Generally it means that there is enough reliably published independent material available to base an article on.
I haven't looked at most of your cited sources, but it is pretty clear that many of them are not independent of Miller: they are in some way repeating her words or those of her associates.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
One other question: what is your connection with Miller? Since you have asserted that you personally own the copyright of the picture you uploaded, you presumably have some connection, and need to be aware of the significance of editing with a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ColinFine. I had included a photo I thought was free of copyright, but I took it down to ensure that it didn't run into any copyright issue.
I work in philanthropy but do not know the subject of the entry. She is just a major figure in the field, and my colleagues and I were surprised that she did not have an entry. I volunteered to draft it as best I could.
As for the entries not independent of Miller, I'm not sure what these are. To which are you referencing? The major magazines of this field of philanthropy -- Philanthropy, Nonprofit Quarterly, etc. -- are not affiliated with her.
I've tried to include an online reference I can to vouch for every statement I've made -- unfortunately the world of philanthropy isn't as well-documented online as some other fields. However, if you could point to the problematic reference(s), I can try to find better ones. Thanks for any help you can provide! Adamewhite (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamewhite That the organisation say it has hired her verifies a simple fact, not notability.
It is worth reading about reliable surces to determine what is and is not relaible
Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. They must be secondary sources. Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. It records without infringing copyright what is said n secondary sources.
So, looking at Philanthropy Magazine, from Non-Profit Quarterly Magazine, from the New York Federal Reserve -- are all very legitimate sources documenting the the world of professional philanthropy yu need to determine which is primary and which is secondary. You will also run into WP:SELFPUB at some point. If oyu are citing, for example, learned papers by Miller, then peer review is important as is whether those papers are cited by others in the course of their work, and by whom and how many instances.
There is no single set of rules. Your job is to navigate the somewhat unpredictable seas with care. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FiddleFaddle, I've cited the organization that hired her to reference her hiring. The organization itself is a big one within philanthropy -- if you would like me to then cite references to its significance, that is a separate issue.
Again, this is the trap of "notability" -- if a random Wikipedia editor hasn't heard of something, does that really constitute lack of notability? I don't know much about, say, cricket, so if I'm confronted with an article about a cricket player, who am I to say whether the cricket player is "notable"? If all the citations are to cricket magazines, how am I to know these magazines are "reliable" or "independent"? Adamewhite (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I declined your draft because the awards are not notable, ie they have no Wikipedia articles and many of your asources are press releases which are not considered independent, you have re-submitted with very little improvement which is disruptive and pointless. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamewhite, there is help available in the form of WP:RSPSS, which lists many common (and uncommon!) sources and the consensus that's been formed for them. This is also why we suggest draft writing should be an end game scenario for editors - if you spend time working on other articles, discussing with other editors, you start to understand what sort of sources are suitable and what are not. A few examples to help:
  • If the article subject (or their CEO, employer, best friend, etc) has been involved in the source - like giving an interview - that source is not independent.
  • If the source looks like it might have been written by a PR team, it probably came from the subject and is not independent. It may also be a paid-for advertorial and thus also unreliable.
  • If the source has no author name or byline, and just says 'news team' or something like that, it may not be reliable.
In your example, you'd first check to see whether the cricket magazine looked legit - does it have author names for its articles? Does it include both positive and negative information? Does it clearly differentiate ads from articles? If unsure, you'd then head to the Reliable Sources list linked above, to see if it's there. If it's not, you could move to the reliable sources noticeboard to firstly search for previous discussions and then ask for help from fellow Wikipedians.
I don't see that anyone has pointed you to WP:42 yet, but that's our 'golden rule' in terms of sources. If you want to establish notability, the sources you use to do so must conform to the triple criteria there. It can be a lot to take in all at once so don't feel rushed; there's no deadline and you can take your time looking through all the information and comparing your sources. And we are, of course, always here and happy to help! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Digimoji

edit

How to write it in the language of an encyclopaedia article Digimoji (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digimoji An encyclopedia article does not draw conclusions, as your draft currently does. Articles here just summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, rejection seems a bit harsh, surely? As an elected legislator, notability shouldn't be an issue. It needs a bit more work on language, and the referencing could be improved also, but this should be fundamentally publishable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I agree, so I have reverted the rejection.
@Digimoji Take heart. I may review the draft or I may leave it to another. I think they pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, and I may simply accept it and allow the community to decide. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Accepted on the basis that it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process in my view 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree- he's notable as a legislator. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Dr.bobbs

edit

I need help with using citations with broken (archived?) links in Draft:Gary Stockdale. Specifically, these citations are to the Library of Congress. There are 4 such citations at Draft:Gary Stockdale.

I found these citations using Google searches, for example, a Google search for "Doctor Detroit" "Gary Stockdale" shows that a page at https://www.loc.gov/item/jots.200015001/ contains the info I want. However, when I go to that URL, I get only "Sorry! We can't find what you're looking for. The page you requested could not be found." I'm not sure if this means that the page I want has been archived; but if it has, I don't know where to find the archived page, or an archive date.

Is such a citation usable, and if so, how to cite it, please? Dr.bobbs (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Edgar at ChariotEnergy

edit

I need help with my draft. It was seemingly declined because of the sources. I used other articles on Wikipedia for industry competitors as a reference for using sources, seemingly using sources that were relatively the same. One article in particular is Reliant Energy, which uses sources similar to sources that I used for this article draft, yet Reliant was published and this article has been declined. For example, there are sources Reliant uses such as Power to Choose, Power Engineering, Chron.com, Better Business Bureau, Energy Manager Today, that reflects sources that I've used for this article. While I did not use some of these exact same sources, I used sources that were relatively the same, such as Chron.com, Power to Choose, Better Business Bureau, and other industry websites. I just want to know why this article is being declined for sources not being used correctly. Edgar at ChariotEnergy (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar at ChariotEnergy You have made an understandable, if poor, mistake in using any random article as a guide. Please see other stuff exists. These other articles themselves could be problematic and you would be unaware of this as a new user. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist and go unaddressed by a volunteer. We can only address what we know about. If you'd like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Press releases(businesswire) are useless for establishing notability. You have just summarized the routine business activities of your company; not independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company that goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about your company- how it is notable as Wikipedia defines a notable company. I get that you think your company is notable, but what matters is that others see your company as notable.
If you've been asked to be here, please see WP:BOSS. In my experience it is very difficult for people in your position to write as Wikipedia requires. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @LoneStarScribe (I'm pinging you under that name, because I'm not sure if the ping will get to you under a name which is not your user name but a redirect of your User page). Unfortunately, your experience is a very common one for people who register and immediately try the challenging task of creating a new article. It is not surprising that you are unaware of how Wikipedia works.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft..
I guessing that this won't be welcome advice: but would you in your job start working on a new system without getting any training first? ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:12, 1 November 2024 review of submission by 41.76.101.246

edit

Can an award winning be a notable reason to have this article on Wiki 41.76.101.246 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, winning an award that has a Wikipedia article about the award itself(like Academy Award or Filmfare Award) would make the film notable, but merely being nominated does not. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 1 November 2024 review of submission by MarkWHowe

edit

I see a reviewer's comment but I cannot find the talk page where I can respond to it. I am looking for a talk page where the reviewer's comment is shown and a [reply] can be used. Not found on either mine or his talk page. MarkWHowe (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkWHowe: they won't be on any talk page. If the reviewer added comments (optionally), they will appear on the draft page itself, below the decline notice. This is done often, but not always, so there may be no comments at all, other than the templated ones in the decline notice itself.
You can always approach the reviewer on their talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I quoted it at the talk page for the draft as a discussion item and then answered it. Do you think that might work?? I get confused by so many pages and procedures but it is getting better.  :-) MarkWHowe (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, ping in the editor by doing an @ symbol followed by their username, in this instance @Dan arndt and @Theroadislong. Qcne (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, my head is spinning! So many things. Great hint, thanks. MarkWHowe (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Anishka Ranjeevi

edit

why is rejected Anishka Ranjeevi (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer; Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. See WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Ilnarildarovuch

edit

All sources are located on the official libssh website, but they are very strangely scattered throughout the site, so the links only libssh.org Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilnarildarovuch we require independent sources which are not affiliated with Libssh, think tech magazines. Qcne (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite difficult to find sources of this type, as it turned out, but... There are only two of them. Will that be enough? Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me links to the two sources you found, I can make a judgement. Qcne (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here it is: [1]https://expertbeacon.com/introduction-to-libssh-the-ultimate-ssh-library/ [2]https://devdoc.net/linux/libssh2-1.9.0-docs/libssh2-vs-libssh.html Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1 I don't think is reliable - it looks to be some kind of SEO-blog, I don't think has any editorial standards.
  2. 2 Is okay, but ideally we'd want some kind of analysis instead of "here's the features in a list". Perhaps Libssh appears in academic tech books? Try searching Google Books.
Qcne (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First book (Advanced Penetration Testing - Hacking the World's Most Secure Networks), Page 39: https://github.com/mrH0411/Ebook-EthicalHacking/blob/main/Advanced%20Penetration%20Testing%20-%20Hacking%20the%20World's%20Most%20Secure%20Networks%20by%20Wil%20Allsopp.pdf (proof of libssh works with SSH protocol). Second is documnetation from Cisco company: [3]https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9500/software/release/17-14/configuration_guide/sec/b_1714_sec_9500_cg/ssh_algorithms_for_common_criteria_certification.pdf (Every page, but not sayed about libssh, but it can confirmed, if found email *@sshlib.org) Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ilnarildarovuch. I haven't looked at those sources, but from your description, it sounds as if they are not helpful, because it doesn't sound as if any of them provide significant coverage of libssh.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a subject - almost nothing else. What you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) know about the subject is irrelevant, unless it is backed up by adequate sources.
If you can find some reliable independent published accounts of the how and the why that libssh came to be, then you can write an article based on those accounts. Otherwise, no. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_November_1&oldid=1255863098"