Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 May 6
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 5 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 7 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
May 6
[edit]04:46:51, 6 May 2019 review of submission by Krutika Samnani
[edit]
I had given this draft again for re-review? Why wasn't it taken for re-review?
Krutika Samnani (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Krutika Samnani: You have been instructed to declare your paid editing, which you have done (thank you), but not done correctly. If English is not your first language, you may find it almost impossible to contribute constructively.
- Draft:Crave Eatables cites a listing in an indiscriminate directory that aims to list all companies, and an advertorial by The Indian Express's Team RED. ("Team RED of the Express Group empowers your brand with holistic brand solutions. Encompassing print, multimedia, digital, events, books, innovative packages and consumer interaction, RED creates dynamic tailor-made solutions to leverage your brand identity.") Such sources do nothing to establish notability
- The draft was declined four times for failing to demonstrate notability and finally rejected for being about a non-notable topic. You've asked for help twice on your talk page, four times at the Teahouse, and four times at the AfC Help Desk. You've been advised by a dozen highly experience volunteers: 331dot, Pythoncoder, Theroadislong, David Biddulph, GreenMeansGo, Marchjuly, SamHolt6, Phospheros, Alpha3031, Gronk Oz, ColinFine, and myself.
- No amount of editing will produce an article about Crave Eatables that can be published on Wikipedia, so stop trying to use the encyclopedia as part of your marketing strategy. As stated in WP:PAYTALK, paid editors who refuse to accept a consensus may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline. That can lead to loss of editing privileges, and possibly other sanctions. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked for being a spam-only account. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
05:45:18, 6 May 2019 review of submission by Routerdude
[edit]- Routerdude (talk · contribs)
Hello,
I've created a page a couple of months ago but it was rejected for insufficient information. I have since added more info and would like to request another review. The link to the draft is here. Routerdude (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Routerdude: - hi there. It does have more information, unfortunately your sources can't be considered independent - as far as I can tell they're all linked to selling products/services - and thus have a vested interest in positive (or occasionally negative) portrayal of relevant companies. "Notable" (the grounds for the rejection) require sources that are "in-depth, reliable, independent, secondary" - the first is somewhat a judgement call, but is a couple of paragraphs upwards. It's the 2nd and 3rd that are tricky - Using independent sources is a reasonably easy read, Wikipedia:Verifiability (which covers reliability) is long - sections 2 & 3 are all that's needed.
- However, before leaping into that, take a 4 minute look to see if you can find any sources that aren't likely to be inherently biased, remember to have a look in google books and things like that. If you can't then it may be impossible to prove notability Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
10:02:36, 6 May 2019 review of submission by Krutika Samnani
[edit]- Krutika Samnani (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
How can be a draft accepeted after getting rejected?
Krutika Samnani (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- User blocked for ongoing promotionalism Nosebagbear (talk)
14:36:19, 6 May 2019 review of submission by 5.104.160.86
[edit]- 5.104.160.86 (talk · contribs)
I would request you to re-review this page as I have added updated information with new citations. Thank you.
5.104.160.86 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- The collective wisdom is that the company is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). No amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
16:47:29, 6 May 2019 review of submission by 77.247.249.172
[edit]
77.247.249.172 (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- The minimal content currently there is both rather promotional and lacking in any suitable sources (a company needs multiple high quality in-depth, reliable, independent and secondary sources to be notable) Nosebagbear (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
18:20:23, 6 May 2019 review of draft by Lambdeb
[edit]
Hello - I do not understand what is needed for this page nor why it keeps getting denied. The last denial stated to fix the redactions (I've already done that previously) and explain what the copyvio did? I have no idea what that means. The content that was claimed to have been plagiarized came directly from the school's website and referred to the original location of the school and also to the official names of several awards won. I changed the wording on the school's location and it't still denied. I'm new at this and could use some help here. Thanks?!
Lambdeb (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
19:18:11, 6 May 2019 review of draft by SD1014
[edit]
Hi there. I would love to have another set of eyes review the updated draft page for Hitendra Wadhwa, as I've tried to use feedback provided by Worldbruce, which was super helpful in addressing the previous feedback by other reviewers in terms of tone and notability. It seems the source seem to pass standards for notability, and I have tried to write in language that is as straightforward as possible Any guidance is appreciated!