Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< August 10 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 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.


August 11

edit

00:16, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Nflicks

edit

I am currently working at ECOUNT and am in the process of trying to get ECOUNT listed on the English Wikipedia. I have encountered some challenges in this regard, and I would appreciate your guidance. Below are my questions:

The Draft:ECOUNT was rejected due to insufficient references. It seems the rejection is primarily due to a lack of demonstrated notability. Could you kindly provide advice on how to better prepare the necessary references? Specifically, I am wondering if I should approach journalists to conduct in-depth coverage of ECOUNT. ECOUNT currently operates global offices in South Korea, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, and serves over 80,000 customers worldwide. I do not believe ECOUNT lacks notability compared to other listed software, but it seems there is a shortage of supporting materials to prove this. If I arrange for journalists to write comprehensive articles, could I use those as references? Alternatively, any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

While reviewing other references, I noticed that ERPNext also seems to have a lack of references. Did the investment funding they received play a role in their successful listing? The remaining references come from their GitHub repository and official website. I am curious as to why ERPNext was listed despite seemingly having limited references, whereas ECOUNT was rejected. Understanding this could help me align my preparation to meet similar criteria.

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. I look forward to your valuable advice.

Best regards, Nflicks (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you are connected with the company, any journalists who wrote about the company because you asked them to would not be creating independant sources, and so they would not help with notability. Note that sources do not have to be online.
In regard to ERPNext, it is indeed a poorly sourced article. Unfortunately some things sneak through, and standards did not used to be as high as they are now. See other stuff exists.
Sometimes, as frustrating as it is, you have to accept that a subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards even though you know it is very popular and well known. I have had to abandon some drafts for this reason, and it can feel really frustrating, but it is how Wikipedia works. -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:06, 11 August 2025 review of submission by George J. Gatgounis

edit

Please explain how I may correct or add what is required to earn your approval please. Thank you! George J. Gatgounis (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the draft was speedily deleted for being unreviewed LLM content. It is best not to use LLM at all on Wikipedia, but it is very silly to not even check what you are copy and pasting before publishing. -- NotCharizard 🗨 04:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:06, 11 August 2025 review of submission by DallasNZ

edit

Hi there, I rewrote this article before submitted but it was declined because it has it used an LLM. Even if I used it to assist me with a few sentences I don't think this should have been declined as it's mostly written by mean in a very professional format. DallasNZ (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:43, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Sachin.Beedigital

edit

Hello Experience Wiki Authors,

I am trying to create a page for a brand, but each time I submit it for review, it gets rejected with the feedback that “the draft needs multiple published sources.”

I have already included references from trusted publications such as Reuters, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, Mint, Fortune India, and Moneycontrol. Could you please review and guide me on what specific changes or additional references are needed to meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing requirements?

Thank you for your time and assistance. Sachin.Beedigital (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sachin.Beedigital: please read the decline notice fully, it doesn't just say "needs multiple published sources", it says published sources that are in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:42 to understand what criteria the sources must meet. ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Momosnep

edit

Hello,

My draft Draft:HexaHealth was recently declined by reviewer Qcne on 9 August 2025. The decline reason stated that my draft’s references do not demonstrate that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article, and that I should add multiple sources that are:

In-depth (not just brief mentions or routine announcements)

Reliable

Secondary

Strictly independent of the subject

The reviewer also mentioned: "I'm not seeing the WP:ORGCRIT."

I’ve read the WP:ORGCRIT guideline but I’m still unclear on exactly what kind of sources I need to add to meet this standard.

Could you please help me understand:

What kind of published coverage would meet WP:ORGCRIT for a company like HexaHealth?

Do press releases, interviews, or features in trade publications count if they are about the company?

How can I tell if a source is truly “secondary” and “independent” for Wikipedia purposes?

If such sources are scarce, does that mean the subject is not currently eligible for an article?

Any guidance or examples would be really helpful before I attempt a resubmission.

Thank you! Momosnep (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Momosnep: the draft currently cites mostly routine business reporting (funding rounds etc.) which is usually neither secondary nor independent, because it is based on press releases and similar material supplied by the subject, and is also not significant coverage, because it usually just covers a specific issue like the appointment of a new CEO or the opening of a new market. We need to see coverage that goes far beyond that, where eg. a journalist has on their own initiative said "hey, this HexaHealth seems to be doing really interesting and innovative things which are going to 'move the needle' in its sector – I should dig deeper into that and prepare a report for my readers/viewers". This is in distinct contrast to someone at the same publication monitoring their incoming e-mail and saying "oh, here's yet another press release from HexaHealth, something about getting $2m from a VC, ho hum". See the difference?
So no, press releases do not count, or interviews (again, neither independent nor secondary), and trade publications are notorious for having very low news thresholds and accepting press materials unquestionably.
And yes, if you cannot find sufficient sources to satisfy the WP:ORG / WP:NCORP notability guideline, then the subject is unlikely to be notable enough, and wouldn't therefore justify its own separate article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing again thank you for taking the time to explain this in detail. I now understand the difference between routine business coverage (such as funding announcements and press releases) and the kind of in-depth, independent reporting that meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I appreciate the clarification on why press releases, interviews, and certain trade publications don’t count as sufficient independent sources. I’ll review the available coverage to see if there are truly independent, in-depth sources that meet WP:ORG and WP:NCORP, and if not, I’ll reconsider whether the subject is ready for a standalone article at this time. Momosnep (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 11 August 2025 review of submission by NozzleMaster

edit

It says [ Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include: Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects Essay-like writing Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references Close paraphrasing Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models. ] i'm scared to submit it again and getting hours of work deleted forever, what do i need to change? A previous person told me i needed references and i added references, do i delete all references that aint doi articles or science articles? Please i need feedback. i also put the links under a "References" heading but im scared to click submit changes yet. NozzleMaster (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NozzleMaster,
It can be discouraging to see that message but it’s not meant as a threat that your work will be “deleted forever.” It’s simply a flag that your draft still has issues that need attention before it’s likely to be accepted. Pages in the Draft namespace are not deleted for having problems they remain there until improved.
You need to use reliable independent sources like news, books, reputable websites not blogs, press releases or self published pages except for basic facts. And also rewriting in your own words with a neutral tone no promotional language. Citing each fact with an inline ref tag not just a list at the bottom and removing weak or unused references.
Take your time drafts stay in place until improved. Once cleaned up resubmit confidently. 🐍 Thilio🤖 🐍 Thilio🤖 10:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Ljverbakel

edit

Dear editor, I have been struggling with this draft page for some while now, I feel that the sources do qualify and that I have quite a lot of them, and a few really good ones (i.e. the one from the European Parliament). What is still missing before it gets accepted? And are there any sources now that are really problematic? Thank you very much! ~ Leon Ljverbakel (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have documented the existence of the organization and its activities- this is not what is being looked for. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We want to know what others wholly unaffiliated with the organization choose to say is important/significant/influential about it.
If you are affiliated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Note that in this context "paid editing" includes employment even if you weren't specifically directed to edit. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 11 August 2025 review of submission by 2A01:5A8:307:F5D7:E425:81B2:2FC1:5B59

edit

Hello,

I recently submitted my first Wikipedia article, about the company Scalefocus, and it has been declined twice. The reason given both times was that it reads more like an advertisement and lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability.

After the first decline, I revised the draft to remove promotional language and add independent references in line with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and verifiability guidelines. However, it was still declined for the same reason.

As this is my first article, I would appreciate specific advice on:

What aspects of the draft still appear promotional.

Whether the sources I have included are adequate, and if not, what type of sources would be acceptable.

Any other changes that would make the draft more in line with Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you in advance for your guidance. 2A01:5A8:307:F5D7:E425:81B2:2FC1:5B59 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reviewed your draft, well....there are sentences that read more like marketing copy than encyclopedic content. For example:
1. "Scalefocus provides custom software solutions and nearshoring services that cover the entire software development lifecycle: Data and AI, Digital Engineering, Cloud and Operations, and Enterprise Platform Implementations.
2. "The company works with Fortune 500 enterprises and start-ups across various industry verticals, including IT, Financial Services, Energy & Utilities, Healthcare, iGaming, Aviation and others."
2. "Scalefocus is recognized by international organizations such as the International Business Awards, Forbes the Globee® Awards, Financial Times, and Deloitte." and so on..
I suggest you to rephrase these into a neutral fact based style that simply states what the company does or has received without implying prestige or making broad qualitative claims. Avoid marketing terms like "recognized by” “cover the entire lifecycle,” or name dropping “Fortune 500” unless the association is independently verified and relevant. Also see WP:NOTPROMO , WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. 🐍 Thilio🤖 12:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP editor. Like most people who try to create an article without first spending considerable time learning about what Wikipedia needs, you have made the mistake of writing either what you know or think about the subject, or what the subject wants people to know.
Wikipedia isn't interested in either of these. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications.
So, having found several sources each of which is independent, secondary, reliable, and contains significant coverage of the subject (see [[WP:42}}, you then need to forget anything you may know or think about the subject, and write a netural summary of what those sources say.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:32, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Tedysh

edit

My submission has been declined with the note "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". This submission includes references to a Suisse website SikArt and also to "Wikidata". I believe that both are already listed on Wikipedia itself. I do not understand why these have not been excepted as reliable references. Could you please clarify this beyond the online help that I have already studied. Thank you. 

Tedysh (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tedysh. Let's go through your sources:
  1. SikArt is just a database entry with no critical coverage.
  2. Wikidata cannot be used as a reference, as it is a user generated Wiki-website.
  3. viata-medicala.ro is an okay source, being a detailed obituary in a mainstream newspaper.
  4. hommages is just a place to put remembrances.
  5. targulcartii is a place to buy his artwork.
So we have one okay source, but a Wikipedia article needs in-depth critical coverage of the person in multiple independent reliable sources. qcne (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. This was a very helpful insight indeed. Tedysh (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 11 August 2025 review of submission by Apurba03

edit

Suggest me Apurba03 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Apurba03. I suggest you publish your essay elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. We do not host essays of original thought. qcne (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:43, 11 August 2025 review of submission by 15.220.16.220

edit

Hello, I am new to the Wikipedia and need some guidance. We paid a company to submit a Wiki page entitled Project Santa Fe Foundation. We were informed that the page had gone live, but it appears the page as of this time is a "draft" and the company/person has not responded. How do we get this page moved from draft status to LIVE? It looks like a BOT moved the page into a certain format on August 5. 

15.220.16.220 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry, you have been scammed out of your money. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. qcne (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we were concerned about this but it was too late. Two questions: 1. How do I get information on how to have the page submitted correctly? 2. Where can I report the scammer and email address. 15.220.16.220 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the email address described at WP:REPORTPAID to send a copy of the email. My advice is that you go on about the work of your Foundation as if Wikipedia did not exist; if your Foundation is truly a notable organization as Wikipedia defines one, someone independent of your organization will write about it. Please see about how the presence of an article is not necessarily a good thing.
Do you have an account? Remember to log in if you do. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we are trying to get the Project Santa Fe Foundation listed on Wikipedia. We paid a company to assist but they are not responding. We have a "draft". Can you please tell me what your comment means below and can we request this go LIVE or what is needed to have it published? Thank you. Revision as of 23:38, 5 August 2025 edit Marksteven019956 (talk | contribs) This draft is not yet complete; more details about the foundation will be added so people will get more benefit. Tag: Visual edit 15.220.16.220 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:30, 11 August 2025 review of submission by ICNTsurfer

edit

My draft has been declined over issues with three photos. Do I have to delete those photos from Wikipedia Commons to be on the safe side? ICNTsurfer (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Photos are an enhancement, not a requirement, in terms of the draft process, which only considers the text amd sources. Photos can wait until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_August_11&oldid=1307407789"