Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 21 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 23 >
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 22[edit]

01:53:00, 22 November 2022 review of submission by Madsol3772[edit]


Madsol3772 (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your draft was a recipe, and encouraged/explained drug use, which is not what we do here. See WP:NOTRECIPE for more. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I have nominated this for speedy deletion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s education and its purpose isn’t to be a suggestion to take drugs. Just a combination that creates certain effects. It’s not promoting it.

01:55:23, 22 November 2022 review of submission by Madsol3772[edit]


Madsol3772 (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC) I believe it’s not being an instruction manual for drugs but showing the process into making Devon Heaven. It should be published because it’s educational making sure the right doses are taken and the correct methods.[reply]

See reply above. Do not do this twice. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

02:15:46, 22 November 2022 review of submission by BMA-Nation2020[edit]

There was a ref of the production being wrapped up in September 2022.

These are part of that. The film's at a post-production stage at the moment. If you people can reconsider this, i'm sure they'll announce the title and the teaser soon.

BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source shows any notability. The first one talks in general terms about a future production, with a lot of marketingspeak thrown in; in the second source, you really have to look hard and close to find the single sentence about this film. The draft has been rejected. The film clearly isn't notable per WP:NFF, and it's a little odd to be so eager to create an article about a non-notable film that doesn't even have a title yet. Why are you "sure they'll announce the title [...] soon"? Anyway, if it should become notable once it has been released, there could be an article about it then. We don't create articles about non-notable films on the off-chance that they might become notable. --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:51:38, 22 November 2022 review of draft by RobertBLeck1[edit]


I've gone through and deleted every article I've tried to create of Robert Leckington. Even with another username; BobbX. I've retired that username so I'm hoping maybe this duplicate flag might go away? More citations are needed to make this article approvable. I've deleted the categories section as per a previous post in my talk log. Is there anything else that can be done other than adding citations and having an unbiased edit done? thx

RobertBLeck1 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertBLeck1: I moved the draft located at User:Jonrussellcring/sandbox to Draft:Robert Leckington, since drafts that are submitted for review should be in the "Draft" namespace. I see that the sandbox draft was declined as a copy of another draft, which has since been deleted on your request. I have added a note to the draft letting any future reviewers know that there are no other copies at this time. You are free to edit the draft and submit it for review once you believe that it is ready to be an article. Do not remove the previous "decline" notice; any decline notices in a draft are automatically removed when a draft is accepted and moved to the main encyclopedia namespace. But unless there should be yet another copy of the draft, it will not be declined for that reason – although it may of course be declined for other reasons, I haven't reviewed it so I don't know.
Before you do anything to the draft, however, you need to address the question on your user talk page about conflict of interest / paid editing. What is the reason that you "desperately" want the draft to be accepted?
You mention above that you have also edited as BobbX (talk · contribs). You say that you retired that account, but on its user talk page there is a post from three days ago. Please do not use more than one Wikipedia account going forward, and please post a note to the user pages (User:RobertBLeck1 and User:BobbX), per this policy. Out of curiosity, why did you create a new account? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thank you. I really appreciate you helping me at least focus on getting the article more clear in scope. Secondly, the reason for the article in the first place is that I am laser driven in getting this up and available for all to see once approved as I am on the verge of something big here in the entertainment business. Not an excuse, but I also do see similar articles on wikipedia that have more or less the same information. I am just trying to abide by the regulations, somewhat, in doing the work along with a friend who said that he was able to help me get it going, non-paid. I didn't hire him, we just spoke about it and he started it. I understand that there are consequences of either hiring or that of a conflict of interest and that the page may be speedily deleted at any time. That's not completely true that I have found as I have had the BobbX "Robert Leckington" version on here for years and it never got deleted. It was only within the last two days that it has been deleted, by me. Anyway, that was when I tried to start the article, when wiki was on a separate platform as indicated when I was finally able to log into the account after having not been able to log in for a long time. When I did connect, the user interface was different and completely old looking. I had no idea that my page could be edited on that old of a platform. Incidentally, I just simply forgot I even had the user account BobbX after having been discouraged years ago for this hard to attain task. It still is, but I had a breakthrough and now I'm trying to at least capitalize on it. I started RobertBLeck1 in order to start a clean article. Finally, desperately trying to create the page really isn't what I'm trying to do. I'm formulating the page so that when I do have enough citations, gone over and edited to remove a "promotey" type voice, that it can be made available. I have been approached on and off the internet by companies who say that they can get the page rolled out and that they charge for maintenance, but I don't want that, I'm not trying to violate anything by doing that. Besides, who better to do all this than by someone who knows all about me? If that itself is a violation, I'm sorry. RobertBLeck1 (talk)RobertBLeck1 RobertBLeck1 (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RobertBLeck1 So, you want this draft to become an article because you are "on the verge of something big here in the entertainment business", as you say.
Large sections of the draft are unreferenced. For example, you need a source to say that he (you) "excelled in organized music". You can't base an autobiography on what you know; saying "who better to do all this than by someone who knows all about me" is not how Wikipedia works. David10244 (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:41, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Kateat2C2P[edit]


Hello, I've added more sources from sources of record such as Bloomberg, Bangkok Post, and The Nation. There are specific items / milestones that I think are enough to establish notability, such as the company being the first to offer certain payment services (e.g., credit card instalments, QR code payments) in Thailand.

However, overall, internet coverage of companies in the payments industry is relatively sparse, even for other established entities like Adyen, so most sources do revolve around announcements of certain milestones like funding rounds. In this context, please do advise if the additional sources / notes I've included are sufficient, or if there's anything else you'd suggest to prove notability better.

Kateat2C2P (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no significant coverage of this company in the news media or in publications (print and Internet), then by definition this company is not notable enough to merit an article in a global encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kateat2C2P The nature of Wikipedia is that some fields by definition do not receive the coverage needed to merit an article, just because the particular field does not often get attention. If you want to tell the world about your company, you could try alternatives with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thank you for the alternatives you've mentioned. I get what you mean as well, and I appreciate the suggestions. Like I mentioned in reply to Orange Mike though, it's not that there are no sources -- I'm just hoping to double-check their sufficiency here, because the 2C2P draft seems to have similar content to existing pages like Adyen and GCash by Alipay but somehow runs into a wall. I'd like to better understand why so I can hopefully improve the draft so that it won't get automatically rejected when submitted. Kateat2C2P (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orange Mike, I understand what you're saying. I'm just genuinely confused about the application of the notability rules/criteria, as other articles on companies in the same industry such as Adyen and GCash by Alipay have not been marked for deletion or seemingly faced as many questions about their sourcing when the content of the page entries (funding raises, product launches) and nature of the sources used are pretty much the same.
It's not that there's no coverage of 2C2P -- but considering the recent notes received about the article's deletion / subsequent editing, it seemed best to come here and double-check on whether the sources suffice, and if not, to try and clarify why.
The original article was redirected on the grounds that the company would be "merged into Alipay", which isn't actually the case and for which I've added external sources to clarify this in the draft. GCash by Alipay is in a similar situation in that Alipay has become a major backer, but GCash has remained distinct from it -- and its Wiki article has not been deleted despite this. So hopefully we could work together to update the 2C2P page to achieve the same. Kateat2C2P (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:47:51, 22 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Abhinav1976[edit]


hello

please help me to create this article. I am requesting for this


Abhinav1976 (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:23:50, 22 November 2022 review of submission by Shahroz155[edit]


Shahroz155 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahroz155 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:35, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Aseemghavri[edit]


why my article is going down and its not verifying please tell me solution or please edit my article and share with us

Aseemghavri (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aseemghavari Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves and their accomplishments, and where mere existence warrants inclusion. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability, in this case, a notable person. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, not what a person wants to say about themselves. This is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves, which is why autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:35, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Frei781[edit]


Thank you so much for reviewing my submission, although it was rejected. I was very careful and paid special attention to avoid using any peacock terms without references. If you had a chance to check the references, EVERYTHING said in the article came from "independent, reliable, published sources", including the word "pioneer". I totally support the policy against using peacock terms, but in this case, the word pioneer, for example, came from references #2, 3, 4, and 5, and it's not my idea. Those references are all US magazines with a global readership, i.e., “independent, reliable, published sources”. Feel free to check all those references. I don’t waste my time to submit something in clear violation of the well-known Wikipedia policy. But I am open to advice that can make this article acceptable. Looking forward to your feedback. Thank you so much.

Frei781 (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording quoted comes from articles designed to make their subjects seem as important as possible within their narrow fields. What we need is solid, impartial references from publications with a global readership outside a specialized field. "One of forty-six signatories to an important paper" is not an assertion of global notability for any of the forty-six signatories. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:09, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Yemsquare[edit]


I submitted this draft for review but it has not been reviewed.

Yemsquare (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you submit a draft, it can take minutes, hours, weeks, or months to be reviewed. When a draft is very obviously unacceptable, it can be declined very quickly. You submitted this version of the draft a week ago; I actually reviewed and declined it just before seeing your question here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please also re-read the responses you received here three weeks ago. You obviously did re-create the draft and submitted it again. That is a waste of the volunteer editors' time, and so is posting here to ask for preferential treatment for the recreated draft. The new draft has been rejected, too. You posted a disclosure of the fact that you have been paid to create an article about Afolarin, which is good. Undisclosed paid editing leads to blocking. But disclosing does not mean that it's now going to be possible to create articles about Afolarin – he is not notable, several reviewers have made that assessment independently of each other and the new draft also shows that very clearly. --bonadea contributions talk 15:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:29, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Giuli MN[edit]


Giuli MN (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Giuli MNMy submission was declined for the following reason: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." The article includes and refers to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. It has a neutral and formal tone, but I had no idea what "peacock terms" were so I clicked the link and found the word "honorable" in "Words to watch", so in the article there's this phrase: "Committee of the Honorable Chamber of Senators" which is the NAME of the committee (removing the word Honorable would make it inaccurate), so if that's the only issue with the article, what can I do to get it approved?[reply]

username=Giuli MN I've tweeked things a little, the peacock things that I saw were more like "from an early age" and fixed certain other things. The entire block of Commissions should be referenced. And while "honorable" is not the issue, the entire thing should be redone using WP:COMMONNAME, which I'm guessing is something like "Senate Legislation, Codification, Justice and Labor Committee" rather than "Legislation, Codification, Justice and Labor Committee of the Honorable Chamber of Senators". I'm not sure that his positions in student government at American University should be part, and if they are, it should probably be rephrased.
On the other hand, there is *zero* question as to whether there should be an article for Patrick Kemper, there should, we just need to get it right. (Being a member of the national legislature of a nation easily meets the requirements for notability and being a member of the legislature of the first level subdivision (like Alto Paraná Department) would as well in almost all cases.))Naraht (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Giuli MN I have left a comment on your draft as a guide to how you can make your article better. Cheers Jamiebuba (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:28, 22 November 2022 review of submission by Ladyfromafar[edit]


Hi,

I'd like to understand better what kind of information is needed so the article is not considered to be an advertisement. Hungary is not a huge country and thus our scholars rarely become world-famous, but Dr Mesko is actually well respected (and the highest cited) outside of Hungary as well. What do you suggest including in the article?

- Interviews from outside sources with Dr Mesko to illustrate that he is indeed well-known? if yes, what is preferred? Professional (medical) websites? Or more general ones, like Politico or BBC? Or university pages (like Stanford's?) Or all?

Examples: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertalan+Mesko%22+&rlz=1C1GCEA_enHU975HU975&biw=1536&bih=792&tbm=nws&ei=m-R8Y8TOOYKM9u8Pt_eC8AM&ved=0ahUKEwiEiLK6h8L7AhUChv0HHbe7AD44ChDh1QMIDQ&uact=5&oq=%22Bertalan+Mesko%22+&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MQAzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB46BQghEKABUIgHWIgHYNQNaABwAHgAgAF8iAHDAZIBAzEuMZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-news

- More of his scientific work? if yes, what kind? 

        =>More studies published in medical journals? 
        =>Or more books written by him?

Examples: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bertalan-Mesko https://scholar.google.hu/citations?user=HAshCakAAAAJ&hl=hu https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Mesk%C3%B3+B&cauthor_id=29184890 https://www.jmir.org/search?term=Bertalan%20Mesk%C3%B3&type=author&precise=true https://www.nature.com/search?author=Bertalan%20Mesk%C3%B3

- Or more background on the field of futurism or medical futurism?

Your help is appreciated, thanks in advance!


Ladyfromafar (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:05, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Jolumolo[edit]


I am sorry, but it is not clear to me if the changes made on the article fulfill the observations made by the reviewers. Is the article now considered for publication?

Jolumolo (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 totally unreferenced sections and none of the other references are independent, the draft has not been submitted for review. Theroadislong (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response. Could you give me some examples of a referenced section? What do you mean by "none of the other references are independent?
I have written may scientific papers but I do not have experiences with Wikipedia. Your help is highly appeciated. Jolumolo (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sections “Research at the Freie Universität Berlin”, “Bennemann’s impact and legacy through trainees” “Achievements in collaboration with Habilitanden” and “Personal life” personal life have no sources, where did the content come from? Independent references are references NOT written by Bennemann. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, independent references aren't written or directly influenced (read: commissioned) by Bennemann or one of his direct associates, including PR firms he hires. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:41:23, 22 November 2022 review of submission by ArmanT09[edit]


ArmanT09 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


18:41:23, 22 November 2022 review of submission by ArmanT09



Hello I would like to know why my page was declined.

It was rejected because it shows no evidence of any notability and zero independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:16:44, 22 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Gill-liv[edit]


Hello, I'm a new creator of pages and the first page I have attempted to edit has been declined. I'm wondering whether you could give me some guidance with regards to where I am going wrong. The page I am referring to is for Ms Clare Manchon. Hoping that you can help me. Best wishes, Gill-liv


Gill-liv (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say the page "is for Ms Clare Manchon". What is your connection with Manchon? Why have you not declared that connection? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gill-liv I don't think you "compose scoring". David10244 (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:09:50, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Team Western[edit]


[User:Team Western|Team Western]] (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Team Western: you haven't asked a question, but your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. See Wikipedia's autobiography policy—Wikipedia is not a place to be writing about yourself. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are NEVER written in first person tense. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:10, 22 November 2022 review of submission by Cindyorioli[edit]


Cindyorioli (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC) He is so important that another technique named HQI was based on Pedro Makiyama system of ATPP, I can give you more reference to understand that this subject is important. He was on TV, magazine, travel all over Brazil and Japan teaching his technique, please consider entering the subject under wikipedia. Gratitude[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:ATPP - Approach, transformation and programming of the preconscious
Your draft currently only has one reference, which doesn't prove notability, and it reads like an advertisement. Before coming to the help desk, I would encourage you to read the advice left by the declining reviewer and ensuring you read the relevant pages linked. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Cindyorioli Did you take that picture yourself? David10244 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I took the pictures when he was still alive! Do you need me to get you more links to the tv shows he was in. He was also supported by the Catholic Church in Brazil, and was recognized by them. I have a picture of him on the Vatican helping the Pope, and the Pope got cured. I did not take the pope picture but I have authorization from his family to use. I should have entered that material with the pictures. Can I still edit? Gratitude! 63.238.145.114 (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53:37, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Blondieras[edit]


Hi. The critique I got was that the piece seems promotional, but I'm not sure why that comment was made. I've removed anything that seemed like opinion and not fact. As a Jamaican diaspora institution, it's a worthy subject matter. Please advise what changes need to be made to get this post approved.

Blondieras (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blondieras: that review comment about promotional tone was left two months ago; since then the draft has been edited and resubmitted, and is now awaiting review. FWIW, there is IMO a subtle positive POV throughout it, but I personally wouldn't decline it on that basis anymore. (Which isn't to say I wouldn't decline it, only I wouldn't do so on this basis.)
I note that you haven't disclosed any conflict of interest (COI) with regards to this subject. If you have one, please disclose it now. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_November_22&oldid=1124355674"