Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 23

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< October 22 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 24 >
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.


October 23

edit

00:00, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Jrmango

edit

Hello everyone, I would like to know if anybody could take a look at the draft I am writing, to see if the sources meet the notability requirements. If the link isn't already shared, this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mercedes-Benz_GLC_43

Thank you so much! 

- Jrmango Jrmango (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jrmango, your draft is overtly promotional and is more suited to a Mercedes marketing brochure than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and following it is mandatory. Cullen328 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, we already have an article Mercedes-Benz GLC where the variants are discussed. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the neutral point of view, I wonder if Mercedes would include a big issue with the car in their marketing material. Jrmango (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some edits and removed some of the language that made it sound like an ad for the car Jrmango (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 Jrmango (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still have this utterly meaningless marketing language: It combines elegance with power, offering a comfortable ride and modern amenities, which is the sort of promotiomal language that every car company on Earth spits out. And you are directly addressing readers which is not permitted and giving prices on various options, which is not permitted. To be frank, your draft is pretty much worthless, Jrmango. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328, It is not very kind to call someone’s work “worthless”. 76.82.37.201 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, thank you @76.82.37.201 Jrmango (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2023 ( UTC)
IP editor, I offer frank assessments based on 14 years of experience editing Wikipedia. I recommended removing all promotional drivel and Jrmango left much of it in. Do you consider this draft "worthy"? Do you think that it has any redeeming qualities? Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328I believe that you still should not call something “worthless”. While @Jrmango could remove some more things, I find it to be an informative article. 76.82.37.201 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could have said "rejected" instead, new IP editor. Would that have been better? Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, Wikipedia articles are not for merely providing information. It provides information to tell you that Walmart has a sale on televisions, but that is not valid encyclopedia content. Not everything that is informative is acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Dinusha Jayaranga

edit

My submission was get decline I am create in this biography for Dr. John Chresta if there anything i can prove this is authorised from the person let me know please Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinusha Jayaranga That's exactly the problem - you're not supposed to write Wikipedia articles for someone who asked you to write one for them. -- asilvering (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinusha Jayaranga: this draft is basically a CV with a personal statement, and as such wholly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. I'm surprised it was only declined, not rejected, but either way it is pending deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how can i add it to the wikipedia officially, can you help me that Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinusha Jayaranga No, we're not going to help you upload someone's CV to wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
undersa Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
understood, if i rewrite this in a biographical stand point without mentioning the personal details that much, and focused on the storyline as much as i can? please reply how can i fix this Dinusha Jayaranga (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinusha Jayaranga: I would suggest that you read a few biographical articles, especially ones rated good, to get an idea of what is required.
You need to first find sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. You then summarise what those sources have said – you do not just write what you want, and even less what the subject wants you to write.
Speaking of which, the very next thing you should do is disclose your conflict of interest. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Mrinmoy Sharma

edit

please help me with this 

Mrinmoy Sharma (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrinmoy Sharma: I'm sorry, but you will need to be a lot more specific than that. What is your question?
That said, you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. And anything you do write, either in this draft or elsewhere, must be supported by reliable published sources. As it stands, your draft is just you telling the world about yourself, which is not what Wikipedia is about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mrinmoy Sharma, unreferenced biographies of living people are forbidden by policy, and your draft is entirely unreferenced. Plus, as you have already been informed, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. In my experience, over 99% of people who try to write an autobiography fail. The occasional successful results are people who are indisputably notable and who have taken the time to deeply understand Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and behavioral norms, and have the dedication to do some very challenging work for inexperienced editors. People like that are extremely rare. Your draft is nowhere near being close to being acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:17, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Abayan leo

edit

i have a published the article of a personality who is well known but declined 

 Abayan leo (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abayan leo: just to be clear, you haven't published anything, you have submitted a draft, which has been declined, and you have then resubmitted it.
The draft has all sorts of issues, but it was mostly declined for lack of evidence of notability. On which point, "well known" is not what we're looking for; we need to see significant coverage of this person in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing this was resubmitted after an 11 character "improvement" by Abayan Leo. I took the unusual step (for me) of reviewing for a second time with the suggestion that resubmission a further time without substantive improvement would probably lead to rejection. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 23 October 2023 review of submission by BrendaBerry13

edit

I don't understand what the issue with the language is. I've had many people read it and they feel it is neutral. Please tell me exactly what is not neutral and an example of what you're looking for. I use Wikipedia often and feel my article reads like they do. Please advise with some specifics. Thank you. BrendaBerry13 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrendaBerry13, your draft relies on unreliable book sources. Rainbow Bridge Books is a fringe publisher. Morris Publishing is a self-publishing platform. Here are just a few of the inappropriate phrases and sentences: It refers to the time of transformation we live in now, on an individual, community, or global level. and It is an imaginary map of the universe, an archetypal cosmic landscape "energetically anchoring” to the curandero, a practitioner of curanderismo. and The Pachakuti Mesa Tradition is a living tradition taught to people worldwide and seen as a way to connect with the natural world to find healing and guidance. It is a container of spirit, a soul-infused artifact of the material world, a living and dynamic pattern upon and with which practitioners can consciously do personal and planetary energy healing work. and These teachings offer a vision of a more harmonious and integrated world and guide those seeking to cultivate greater awareness, compassion, and wisdom. I could go on and on. All of this language is highly promotional, and promotion of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia. We never use that kind of language in Wikipedia's voice. Acceptable Wikipedia articles must be written in a rigorously neutral fashion. Acceptable sources for an ethnographic topic like this would be books written by scholars and published by university presses or articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Your current sources are weak. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 23 October 2023 review of submission by Charlotte Brum

edit

I don't understand the detailed reasons why the article is been declined over and over again. Charlotte Brum (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charlotte Brum. It's been declined once and now rejected by me. That's only two reviews. Frankly, though, your draft is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. It reads like an advert, only exists to promote the company, and has not a single source.
Please carefully read Your First Article and let me know if you have any specific questions.
If you created this article for your boss, please have them read WP:BOSS. If you paid the organisation money to create this article, please offer them a refund. Qcne (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Can I understand why other translation companies do have an article on Wikipedia?
This one seems promotional: Lionbridge
This also seems promotional: Inc. (magazine) Charlotte Brum (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charlotte Brum Please see other stuff exists. That said, your draft had no independent reliable sources. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself.
Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID; if you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if I add clients reviews? Charlotte Brum (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you followed the advice I gave above. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When we tried adding resources from awards the company has won, Wikipedia said it was "promotional" Charlotte Brum (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awards generally do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 23 October 2023 review of submission by 118.148.101.177

edit

I am wondering if someone can please check this draft. I have changed it to say, Alex Kuch (born Alexander Marcus Dan Aurel Kuch) instead of Alexander Marcus Dan Aurel Kuch (born 19 April 1995). But not sure if that's suitable etc. Thank you. Really appreciate it. 118.148.101.177 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been submitted and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:10, 23 October 2023 review of submission by JewelHL

edit

Hi there, This Wikipedia page has been declined because of the referenced sources. The sources I referenced were from either Flicks' website or from press releases published by independent publications.

Since these were insufficient/unreliable, can you please provide examples of sources that would be considered acceptable to reference in this case? Aside from websites and independent publications, what sources would you expect a company Wikipedia page like this to reference? JewelHL (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JewelHL: for notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, books, etc.) that are reliable and wholly independent of the subject. Your draft currently cites no such source.
In fact, the draft should be mostly written by summarising what these sources say, with each source cited against the information it has provided. That would also ensure that the contents are adequately referenced. In your draft, most of the content is unsupported by citations. Which among other things begs the question where, exactly, is that information coming from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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.
It follows that the very first step in creating a Wikipedia article is to find several such sources, each of which meets the criteria in golden rule. Doing anything else before this is like building a house without surveying the site or consulting building regulations - i.e., probably a waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:General Catalyst

edit

Hello! I recently submitted Draft:General Catalyst for submission and have added WP:notable sources. I made adjustments based on feedback, but the article has not been reviewed. Is there anyone who would be willing to give it a look and let me know what you think? Thanks! Justwatchmee (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justwatchmee: as it says on top of the draft, "Review waiting, please be patient." We have over 3,000 drafts awaiting review, and we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While you're waiting for review, please read NAMEDREF and consolidate multiple citations to the same source. It might not make a difference, but the length of the reference list to plough through is probably one of the things that reviewers look at in deciding whether or not to review a particular draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_23&oldid=1182721285"