Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 January 13

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< January 12 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 14 >
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.


January 13

edit

00:25:28, 13 January 2021 review of submission by Edward Acuña

edit


Edward Acuña (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward Acuña: What are you trying to do? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:22:50, 13 January 2021 review of draft by Aginess mwansa

edit


My draft as been saying that my draft does not match Wikipedia what does that mean Aginess mwansa (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:36, 13 January 2021 review of submission by Aginess mwansa

edit

What can I do Aginess mwansa (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aginess mwansa: Your draft doesn't demonstrate why this person is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. You need to show media coverage in reliable sources, per WP:RS and WP:GNG. It also appears from your user name that you are writing about yourself, which is a conflict of interest and is strongly discouraged. Please see WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Tomos Roberts

edit

Hello - I apologize, in advance, if this isn't the correct venue for asking the following question... Is there a way to determine approximately when a submitted draft may be reviewed? I was told that it could take 3+ months, however it may happen far sooner in some cases? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Ryancoke2020: The review can happen well before that, however, nobody can tell for sure when, since reviewers are doing these in their (sometimes rare) free time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Victor Schmidt! Much appreciated!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Request on 13:57:06, 13 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by JashonCuyler13

edit



JashonCuyler13 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:34, 13 January 2021 review of submission by JashonCuyler13

edit


JashonCuyler13 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 14:36:38, 13 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by JashonCuyler13

edit



JashonCuyler13 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JashonCuyler13 There is no content there? Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:46:42, 13 January 2021 review of submission by JashonCuyler13

edit


JashonCuyler13 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


15:50:18, 13 January 2021 review of submission by PKIhistory

edit

The company is a notable company with significant market share securing many of the transactions on the Internet and the sources are diverse, valid secondary sources that are listed. I don't know where this article falls short. Any explanation or assistance is appreciated.PKIhistory (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PKIhistory (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PKIhistory Sources that are press releases or announcements of routine business transactions do not establish that this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thank you but none of the sources are press releases or mainly routine business transactions. They are PC Magazine, Security Week and 451 Research, and The Netcraft Independent Survey(plus many more). I have already read the article your refer to before I wrote this one. Can you take a look at the sources again - there are many and give me a clearer explanation of how they fall short. Thank you.PKIhistory (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PKIhistory One reference is to "PR Newswire" which only republishes press releases. "Comodo CA becomes Sectigo and expands to cover IoT" is an announcement of a routine business transaction. Businesses expand and rename frequently. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dotThere is one but there are 19 other references that are not a press release. So if I remove the one reference and keep the other 19 it is good?PKIhistory (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PKIhistory The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. There isn't anything you can do about it at this time. I indicated what the issue was with your sources and it isn't just the two I mentioned. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dotIf there is another spot I can go to on Wikipedia to get more specific feedback and help, let me know. Thanks.PKIhistory (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PKIhistory You can't forum shop until you find someone to give you the answer you want. Do you want honesty or to be lied to? I've told you specifically what the issue was. Since your draft was rejected it will not be reconsidered further. You will only be wasting your time and that of others in pursuing this further. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot No, I am not forum shopping, was actually looking for more constructive help. I am trying to be as polite as possible, but your feedback was not what I thought would come from a help desk (lets just agree to disagree there). You can take that anyway you like, but it is intended as a constructive comment to you. Lets end it here before the conversation deteriorates more. Thanks for responding.PKIhistory (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PKIhistory You are being polite, and I am trying to be polite as well. I'm sorry for giving the wrong impression. But when I answer you and then you say you want to go somewhere else for help, that seems to others like you are looking for someone to give you the answer you want. I'm happy to answer any of your questions, but I felt like I already did. Your sources were not appropriate for establishing notability, and I gave two examples(but they all seem to be inappropriate). Apologies. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:12, 13 January 2021 review of submission by Xforeverlove24

edit

I have thoroughly edited this article after reviewing feedback, please let me know what else needs to be done/required in order to have this article become published. Thank you Xforeverlove24 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:39:36, 13 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Hums4r

edit


My Draft Article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zeyan_Shafiq) was rejected with the reason that i might have written less information, i am new to wikipedia and i am still learning, i have seen many other pages of the same category with less information then this. i am very confused, i'd really appreciate if someone can guide and assist me. also i know this person since he is a kashmiri as well, and i contacted him to get more information to create the article so wikipedia thinks that it might be 'COI' or isnt neutral point of view but i have written everything neutrally. i am ready to mention the same on the page as well that i know him but i don't have idea of the same on how to write it. Thanks.

Hums4r (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:26:29, 13 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Sshealer

edit


I am attempting to submit a bio for Phil Grove (American horse racing jockey) who is referenced in a few horse racing-related wiki pages. I have the material sources listed, but it appears they might not be in the proper format. I would like to get verbal help on this issue. Trying to scroll through tons of user-posted Q&As and Wiki-provided FAQs is resulting in a lot of wasted time and no progress. If someone can should me how to fix the issue, it likely is a five-minute fix. Thanks! Sshealer (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sshealer: the main ressource is WP:REFB, speficially it's WP:INTREF2 subsection. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sshealer. I've cleaned up the reference formatting for you. The remaining problem with the existing references is that Wikipedia may not be cited as a source for his two Twixt Stakes wins.
More importantly, and the main reason Draft:Phil Grove was declined, is that many statements in the draft cite no reliable published source. The entire early life section, five paragraphs of his career, and several other sentences will have to be removed if you cannot identify sources for them. Editors who know their subjects personally, such as family members or friends, often find Wikipedia's rules around verifiability exasperating, but it's the only way that an encyclopedia that anyone can edit will work. Otherwise other editors could insert anything they liked into a biography of Grove, whether it was true or not. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:44, 13 January 2021 review of draft by Meganmckwest

edit


I'm working to fix some copyright issues on my draft page but am having trouble figuring out what was deleted. I see blank spaces with citations still linked but the headings are completely gone. Because of the copyright infringement, the history versions were deleted (which I understand why) but now I have no idea what's missing/was deleted. Is there a way to view what was deleted so I'm not having to reinvent the wheel when it comes to replacing the problematic text?

Meganmckwest (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Meganmckwest (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Meganmckwest: no there is not, and a community wish on the 2020 community wishlist survey was not exactly accepted, so I am afraid that you will not see them again. If you are lucky, one of the admins on this board, may be able to tell you what has been deleted (like if it's the subject's history, something about their mission, or whatever), though they probbably won't provide the exact content. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:08:24, 13 January 2021 review of submission by 24.1.122.32

edit


24.1.122.32 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This girls story is clearly the same type of propaganda as the others. I guess it will take it a few years to achieve relevance

Are you asking a question? 331dot (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:54:31, 13 January 2021 review of draft by LakeTravisStarsShine

edit

Under References, there is a 8 Empty Citation (help) notation. This is a duplicate of Reference 7. I tried to delete the 8. I managed to get the citation reference wording to delete out of it, but I can't get rid of 8 Empty Citation (help). How do I do this to fix the page?

LakeTravisStarsShine (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question is moot, the draft has been deleted as advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:44:32, 13 January 2021 review of submission by Sak ugur

edit

Dear Snowycats I made a new revision. Sak ugur (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_January_13&oldid=1001477768"