Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 19 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 21 >
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.


March 20[edit]

01:03, 20 March 2024 review of submission by No more chances[edit]

What can i remove to make this "neutral"? No more chances (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@no more chances: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the draft for deletion as an attack page. —Wasell(T) 09:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:21, 20 March 2024 review of submission by SouthPole5423[edit]

Can some one please guide me on how to expand my article with the sources I have already? I have 3 independent sources along with 1 source from the publisher of the magazine (I am writing about a magazine). The sources are huge, but can someone please explain on how should I expand my article, get new 3rd party sources or expand by just reusing the current sources that I have? SouthPole5423 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthPole5423: we need to see three or more sources that meet the WP:GNG notability guideline. None of the ones currently cited do. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:26, 20 March 2024 review of submission by Sonu Deka 2010[edit]

Please publish his page in Wikipedia I have given the full detail of him. Sonu Deka 2010 (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonu Deka 2010: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:31, 20 March 2024 review of submission by Underrrated[edit]

I am convinced that Connecteam is notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia entry. A number of similar pieces of software with a smaller client base than that of Connecteam are on Wikipedia. I have made a few attempts to add sources that satisfy all four criteria to establish notability but editors still reject notability.

Should I remove the sources that are mere mentions of funding rounds and leave only the other coverage? Underrrated (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Underrrated: with respect, whether you as a new user are "convinced" isn't really the point; it's whether experienced reviewers are convinced that matters. Nor does it matter whether other articles exist on "similar pieces of software"; this is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And as for the size of the customer base and similar metrics, these are not part of the notability guidelines. Moving forward, you need to focus on providing the sort of sources that three reviewers have now flagged up as missing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate, and simply not addressed yet by a volunteer. If you want to help us work to address other inappropriate articles, you can identify any that you see for possible action, We need the help. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick reply and the frank comments. I will get better acquainted with what constitutes a proper source and provide them (if they exist).
Regarding my initial question: I realize that the sources I provided are a mix of sources that simply mention funding rounds and proper coverage in Forbes and Investopedia. Would deleting the sources that are about funding rounds (which I now realize are based off of press releases) help my case? Underrrated (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; funding rounds is a routine business activity, which (in addition to being a press release) does not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Underrrated: as a general comment, poor-quality sources do not help, and can in fact harm, a draft. So yes, getting rid of some of those could be a good idea. Note also that Investopedia is not considered reliable, and Crunchbase is actually deprecated. As for Forbes, see WP:FORBESCON. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also disclose any conflict of interest, there is clear paid editing involved here. Theroadislong (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot@DoubleGrazing
Thank you for your great pointers. I will work to improve the draft based on those.
@Theroadislong There is no conflict of interest to disclose, I have no connection to the software or company. Underrrated (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 20 March 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:3018:AAA7:CAB:71E6:351D:6AFE[edit]

Why The Articles Are Being Speedly Deleted please help me to create the Wikipedia article 2402:8100:3018:AAA7:CAB:71E6:351D:6AFE (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not happening; purely promotional, and a major copyvio to boot. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 20 March 2024 review of submission by Godonashe[edit]

Want to create article about Wengezi Godonashe (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Godonashe: okay, find a few reliable sources that provide information about it, and summarise in your own words what they say, citing the sources in your referencing. See WP:YFA and WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:19, 20 March 2024 review of submission by Jeanvaljeanjacket[edit]

I was told that this subject is not sufficiently notable for publication. I'd like to make the case for her extreme notability in somewhat niche but nevertheless important fields such as regenerative agriculture and nature-based solutions to climate change. She is a well-respected leader in these spaces and has been an expert interviewed on them by numerous national outlets. How else can I prove her notability to help get this page published? Thank you. Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to her? You took a picture of her and she posed for you.
Rejection typically means resubmission is not possible; you have some unsourced sections and yet have too many sources, most of those seem to not provide the coverage needed. If this fundamentally changes, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable" in Wikipedia mostly means "there is enough independent material published about the subject to base an article on. 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. ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:14, 20 March 2024 review of submission by 103.179.50.98[edit]

Help me to make page for other person 

103.179.50.98 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous draft was deleted as being unambiguous advertising or promotion: this is prohibited on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_March_20&oldid=1215778494"