Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 10 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 12 >
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 11

[edit]

05:01, 11 January 2025 review of submission by 2400:3740:20D:1A00:F0C6:B223:8AA0:24D2

[edit]

Requiring assistance on citing each part of the document to have a speedy approval. 2400:3740:20D:1A00:F0C6:B223:8AA0:24D2 (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find advice on referencing at WP:REFB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Dr James Dover

[edit]

I need to cite sources for the history of Ardmore University Stevenson School of Psychology. These are : 1.Athensville Pa was established in 1853 2. The name was changed to Ardmore in 1873 3. In 1875 Ardmore University was founded. 4. In 1923 John R Stevenson initiated the teaching of psychology to students in Gladwyne. 5. The formal establishment of the Gladwyne School of Psychology occurred in 1926. 6. Gladwyne School of Psychology was later renamed in honor of Professor Stevenson in 1931, becoming the "Stevenson School of Psychology." 7. in 1933, the Stevenson School of Psychology merged with Ardmore University, leading to the creation of "Ardmore Stevenson." 

8. by 1937, it had become an integral component of Ardmore University.

9. the university transformed in 1973, transitioning into a correspondence school. 10. Ardmore University Stevenson School of Psychology closed its doors in 2003 Dr James Dover (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr James Dover: I wouldn't call those sources, I'd call that a timeline. You need to tell us where the information in your draft came from.
On a separate but related point, your sources also need to demonstrate that the subject is a notable organisation, as we define it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Suryapakrashy

[edit]

The page is complete ok, and true. still its not getting accepted. i want it to be on the Article's section. Previously it was declined. And later i changed the whole content. not i think its acceptable. All the Details in the Article are true as i am the person who is writing about myself Debanjan Pakrashy. Its my kind request to make it visible on the Articles Page. Later ill work more on that Article to expand that. The Name Debanjan Pakrashy can be searched on google and all details will be visible for verification. Verified YouTube Channel, Google Knowledge Pannel, etc.... Thank You Suryapakrashy (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsourced with no indication of any notability - See WP:MUSICBIO KylieTastic (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Niikwabena

[edit]

Wikipedia is meant for everyone to edit, but it is good for a new wikipedian to be assisted. Niikwabena (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niikwabena Please tell what assistance you are seeking. You were provided an explanation on your draft by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; you wouldn't give a violin recital at Carnegie Hall as your first attempt at playing the violin. You would practice and gain experience and knowledge first- that's what you should do now; first edit existing articles to gain experience and knowledge as to what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 11 January 2025 review of submission by Salman317

[edit]

Why are you doing like this Salman317 (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Wikipedia is a place to promote your new business? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable subjects not a place for promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 11 January 2025 review of submission by JOSHBLY

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I currently have a draft at Draft:Profound (company) that was declined on 11 January 2025 due to concerns about notability and references. The company is an AI startup focused on AI search optimization, and I’ve cited coverage from TechCrunch, Adweek, Digiday, Search Engine Land, and The New York Times. The reviewer mentioned that the sources may not be sufficiently in-depth to meet WP:NCORP guidelines.

I’d love guidance on the following points: (1.) Are these sources considered suitably in-depth, independent, and reliable for establishing notability? (2.) Is the overall tone or structure of my draft too promotional or lacking neutrality? (3.) Are there any specific improvements in referencing, formatting, or content that I should address before resubmitting?

I also want to publicly disclose that I am an early employee of Profound, so I understand I have a conflict of interest and must adhere to Wikipedia’s COI and neutral-point-of-view guidelines. My goal is to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia’s standards, if indeed the subject is notable enough. If you feel the company isn’t yet notable, I’m okay with that outcome—just looking for clarity.

Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your time!

Best regards, Josh JOSHBLY (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for disclosing a conflict of interest; as an employee, however, you will need to make the stricter paid editing disclosure instead.
"Startups" very rarely merit articles; a company must be established and recognized by independent reliable sources that then write about the company in order to merit an article. Just summarizing what the company does and its offerings does not establish that the definition of a notable company is met. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 11 January 2025 review of submission by The noun wit no name

[edit]

how to rename this draft The noun wit no name (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. If accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. You can leave guidance about the title on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 11 January 2025 review of submission by 91.125.98.193

[edit]

I'm trying to find reasonable sources. Looking at similar athletes from US Rowing in that time period, they don't seem to have better references though. See-- 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Swan_(rower)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Smith_(rower) And basically everyone in the US M8+ category linked from this wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_World_Rowing_Championships

How did existing bios get published but not this one? 91.125.98.193 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Wikipedia has many millions of articles, tens of thousands of which are poor quality and should be improved or deleted. As we're a volunteer project no one has gotten around to doing that yet. It's very possible those existing articles are poor quality with poor sources, were written when our standards were more lax, or didn't go through the articles for creation process.
If you want to base your draft on a good article, choose one that has been rated Good by the community. qcne (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Swan (rower) was never drafted. In fact, it predates WP:ACPERM by almost a year (first edit 2017/03/16). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:11, 11 January 2025 review of submission by 76.190.40.3

[edit]

This article has not been thoroughly reviewed, it seems that it was rejected without a concrete basis. The article has utilized several independent sources. 76.190.40.3 (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were given a clear reason for the decline. What error in process are you alleging? 331dot (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't said that no sources are independent, but not enough of them are. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many independent sources are being expected? The independent sources do inform most of the article's content. What is the expectation? 76.190.40.3 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one attached to a claim a reasonable person could challenge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_January_11&oldid=1269927370"