Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2025 March 31

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 30 << Feb | March | Apr >> April 1 >
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 31

edit

06:39, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Gautams742

edit

My submission got rejected, I have now, fixed links, please talk to me if you are rejecting, as now I have done my best and it shouldn't get rejected. Someone please help in getting my page accepted Gautams742 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted again with right links, please approve it. I would ready grateful for the help. Gautams742 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must answer the questions on your user talk page about your connection to the company. The draft still has no independent, secondary, reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 07:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied, I am not aware of UI, hence took me time but I have replied to 2 comments and have clarified I am not getting paid, I have changed links and content also. Now it should get accepted. Pease help me with that. Gautams742 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gautams742: this draft has been rejected, which means the end of the road. And as Bonadea says, the sources still don't come even close to establishing notability, so there is no way this could be accepted.
Please don't mess with the AfC templates in the draft, they must remain there, as clearly noted in the source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the draft and added back the "AfC templates" in the draft. Please let me know what else is required. All new sources have made it more credible, have removed few links which either not from recognised platform or there was URl mistake. Gautams742 (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the templates have been added back, although not by you.
Once more: the sources cited do not establish notability, therefore this is the end of the line. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whats next? What do I do now with this rejected article? I have 6-7 articles from notable sources, which are national & internationally used.
Please dont say that its the end of the line, there must be something that can be done to make it possible to publish. Gautams742 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the end of the line, sorry. Please use this as a learning experience and move on to something else. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gautams742, 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 exclusively 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) 09:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I relaised my mistaken and have fixed it, should be fine now please help in getting it approved. Gautams742 (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI generated garbage is unlikely to be accepted ever. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not AI generated, thanks for not reading and just replying whatever you feel like. Gautams742 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As below I used GPTZero to inform my reply. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess you and GPTZero will just have to agree to differ. ("We are highly confident this text was AI generated. Probability breakdown: 100% AI generated") -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well AI cant be trusted, as you guys are hellbent on as per previous reply. When I used AI, to show what I have written it also said it will 100% not. get rejected.
But none of you editors - can say that links are not notable- open links to verify them, otherwise its just an lie.
I have said this in above messages also that link are all genuine and correct, still you guys are not ready to accept it, I have checked guideline of reliable notability sources and it is within guideline.
You all are rejecting basis old reviews, not what I have submitted today. There is no partiality nor false links. Gautams742 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the stick already. Since you say you have no special interest in this subject, and have been told by multiple reviewers that it isn't notable, just forget it and move on to something else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have very specific & special interest in rejection of article, while meeting the notable criteria met, while not advertising the topic.
Also none of questions are being answered. All links are verified sources.
Adding all here again-
Rebranding Announcement
https://bestmediainfo.com/2020/01/online-fitness-company-squats-rebrands-itself-as-fittr/
Details FITTR's rebrand from SQUATS (2020)
Growth & Revenue
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/how-fittr-cracked-fitness-code-and-grew-rs-100-crore-business-118686
Covers user growth to 3M and ₹100 crore revenue
Community Model
https://startuptalky.com/fittr-success-story/
Explains FITTR's community-driven approach
Coaching Services
https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/entrepreneurs/this-online-fitness-startup-is-community-first/388766
Describes FITTR's coaching features
Series A Funding
https://inc42.com/buzz/fitness-startup-fittr-raises-11-5-mn-in-series-a-to-fuel-international-expansion/
Confirms $11.5M investment (2021)
Seed Funding
https://www.techcircle.in/2020/04/28/sequoia-surge-leads-2-million-funding-round-in-fittr
Documents $2M raise (2020)
Wearable Launch
https://zeenews.india.com/technology/fittr-hart-smart-ring-launched-in-india-at-rs-18999-after-samsungs-galaxy-ring-checkfeatures-2725728.html
Announces FITTR Hart Smart Ring (2024)
Rainmatter Investment
https://inc42.com/buzz/fittr-raises-3-5-mn-from-zerodhas-rainmatter-to-scale-up-its-fitness-playbook/
Details $3.5M funding (2024)
Tell me which one of these is fake? try googling too. All claims are supported by multiple independent secondary sources.
My only problem is that why wikipedia is not accepting notable sources and no one has clear answer. I want to move on to new topic but cant because of this problem. Gautams742 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my last reply is upto the standard & answers your question. Gautams742 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gautams742 A brief skim of your putative sources reveals churnalism of PR pieces, announcement by the organisation, etc. etc. These are not acceptable except in very limited circumstances. You appear to be unable to hear the advice you have been given, or are, perhaps unwilling to listen.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You all are rejecting basis old reviews, not what I have submitted today. Incorrect, I have checked all the sources you added to the draft today. Sources must be reliable and independent and secondary and (collectively) provide significant coverage of the company in order to show notability. As I said above none of the sources meets all those requirements – they are all non-independent and most or all are primary.
It is also relevant to note that Fittr (app) was deleted a couple of years ago after this community discussion which concluded that the sources in that article were not reliable and independent and secondary and (collectively) providing significant coverage of the company. --bonadea contributions talk 17:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Bhaskar sunsari

edit

edit request for kushwaha community is not accepted yet and you guys are declining my article accepting my article wont harm any one in wikipidea Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhaskar sunsari: you need to stop tendentiously submitting drafts, and creating new ones under different titles.
Your edit request at Talk:Kushwaha wasn't an edit request, it was yet another copy of your draft content, a massive 30k byte addition. This has been reverted.
You need to slow down, and calm down, or you'll get yourself into trouble. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing They have achieved a two week block for this behaviour. This surprises me after their statement that they were leaving Wikipedia. I find the behaviour very disappointing. They seem yo have a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, unfortunately. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 21:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 31 March 2025 review of submission by TuisVV

edit

Hi please help. What can i fix on my article to get it approaved TuisVV (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TuisVV You need the "Draft:" portion of the title when linking, I've fixed this.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see paid editing and conflicy of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You haven't done that- and will basically need to blank the draft and start fresh, only summarizing independent sources with signifcant coverage- coverage beyond brief mentions, interviews, company materials, or the mere annoucements of activites- coverage that goes into detail as to what the sources sees as important/significant/influential about the company(not what the company sees as important about itself). 331dot (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand that Wikipedia articles must rely on significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish notability, and that any affiliation or paid editing must be transparently disclosed. Given that my previous draft leaned too heavily on company materials and didn’t adequately incorporate independent analysis, I will revise the entry.
To comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, the new version will focus on summarizing what independent reliable sources say about Sunbet. I appreciate the guidance and will work to develop a revised draft that meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and notability based on independent coverage. TuisVV (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @TuisVV. Please do not use AI again to generate either your draft or your replies here. We want to see what you say, not what some AI says. ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TuisVV: this is you telling the world about your employer. We have no interest in that. We want to see what completely unrelated third parties, specifically independent and reliable secondary sources, have said about this business and what makes it worthy of note. Your job is merely to summarise their coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:37, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Stefanstartme

edit

This article has been declined again because of the quality of sources. However, since my last submission, I've added several new sources including links to an acadamic journal and the New York Times.

- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/technology/personaltech/finding-a-personal-web-portal.html - Block, Ludo (2021). OPEN SOURCE INTELLIGENCE NAVIGATOR FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS (PDF). pp. 17–18. - Penfold, Rob (April 2023). "Browser Extensions For The Stretched Health Librarian". Journal of Health Information and Libraries Australasia. 4 (1). Australian Library and Information Association: 32. doi:10.55999/johila.v4i1.143.

What to do next? Any help would be very much appreciated! Stefanstartme (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is less interested in the features of your company's program and more interested in what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it. The Features section is unsourced and really should just be removed unless independent sources discuss the features. The reviews section is very brief and only gives a little detail. You say it's "widely used" but don't tell anything about the significance of this. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Viljowf

edit

I'd like to understand better what the remaining issues are in terms of promotional content and tone, so that I can make the necessary adjustments. However, the editor did not leave any specific comments for me to address. Would appreciate help and advice. Viljowf (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection with this company?
You have summarized the routine activities and offerings of the company; this does not establish that the company is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Gautams742

edit
Please refer to the section above where any discussion will continue. Do not open multiple threads here, please 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

my DRAFT:FITTR is rejected, please help me get the approvals by gyiding me with changes, I have ready to change content. Gautams742 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to your user page instead of your draft, but rejection means that no improvement is possible, so you need to move on from this topic, at least for now. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was 100% AI generated and was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Gautams742: please stop posting the same request over and over. Several experienced editors have explained that the draft will not be approved. The sourceS you have added since the rejection do not show any notability for the company, and the draft is still written like an advertisement (and at least part of it was almost certainly written by an AI). The arguments brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fittr (app) which led to that article's deletion a couple of years ago are still entirely relevant. --bonadea contributions talk 15:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All you guys are doing is self- contradicting yourselves. What is the purpose of wikipedia? If valid existing company/people who are publicly re-owned cant have a article here?
Also whats wrong in taking help of AI to write few lines for code text & refine language. Rejecting valid data is absolutely against wikipedia prime objective.
No-offense to you, thanks for replying. Appreciate that :) Gautams742 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist. There are criteria for inclusion, which we call notability- such as a notable company.
Wikipedia is a human-edited project- we want humans to write the content here, not chatbots. There are many problems with chatbot generated content, see WP:LLM for an explanation.
You seem strongly personally invested in this topic. Are you associated with this company? 331dot (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree wikipedia is not a database but I read notability criteria and links manually, try opening any one of them, you will see its truth. 1 accept there was problem earlier but now.
2. It is written by human not BOT, only to form better sentence & remove grammatical mistake, I have used it for code.
3. I am not associated with company, wanted to start with this, no point in writing multiple rejected articles. Reason to be strongly keep trying is because I dont like falling and want to improve in everything that I do. Gautams742 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

16:20, 31 March 2025 review of submission by 2003:CD:E72A:8400:64B0:AB3E:6E8C:E2D

edit

Kommentar: Gemäß der Wikipedia -Richtlinie zu Interessenkonflikten gebe ich bekannt, dass ich in Bezug auf das Thema dieses Artikels einen Interessenkonflikt habe. ActiveEnergymanager ( Diskussion ) 18:24, 27. März 2025 (UTC) Worin besteht der im Kommentar genannte "Interessenkonflikt" Im Artikel wird ein 20 Jahre altes Verfahren zur katalytischen Umwandlung von Bio- und Kunststoffabfällen beschrieben und mit Einzelnachweisen belegt. Bitte um Erläuterung. Vielen Dank! 2003:CD:E72A:8400:64B0:AB3E:6E8C:E2D (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auf englisch, bitte. Your draft is in German, for which reason I have declined it. This is the English-language Wikipedia. If you wish to submit content in German, you should head to https://de.wikipedia.org instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:00, 31 March 2025 review of submission by 184.190.130.104

edit

My submission is an article about my own theory about the fabric of space, using known cited theories as a baseline. Are my ideas not credible because they are contrary to standard beliefs? 184.190.130.104 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't it. The problem is that it's an original theory, and as we are an encyclopaedia we have absolutely no use for such. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Ratychop77

edit

this article written on APSWDP has used more than 15 sources where neutral information has been written by third party author or writer then why this is not considered as neutral toned rather an advertisement Ratychop77 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratychop77: Because "This reads like an advertizement" has practically nothing to do with the cited sources. It's a criticism of how the article proper is written. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the only thing that I re write my article in neutral tone keeping my sources intact and mentioning citations as it it is
Please suggest Ratychop77 (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you would need to rewrite it - and please write it yourself: don't use AI again.
Remember that citations aren't just a nice-to-have: they are in every sense the basis of the article. There should be no information whatever in an article, that cannot be found in a reliable published sources - and almost all of the information should be in sources wholly unconnected with the subject.
To take one example: you have a paragraph about what APSWDP did for Kashmiri migrants. But the source you cite says only that the convener of APSWDP was one of those who collaborated with ALSA on that project. All the detail about what APSWDP did in that activity is unsourced, and should not be in the article (unless you can find an independent source for it). I'm not saying that it is untrue; but without a source it should not be in the article, and reads as promotional puff.
The way to do this is to start again, forget every single thing you know about APSWDP, and write a summary of what the reliable independent sources say about it - nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:30, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Broadwaybaby1

edit

My draft page was not accepted, but stage adaptations of notable films with similar information and sources provided have been accepted, for instance, Summer Stock (musical). How can I improve my submission so it is accepted and clearly falls within notability guidelines? Broadwaybaby1 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broadwaybaby1 Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. There are many ways inappropriate content can exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. While understandable, it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model or example. If you would like to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles.
You have done little more than document performances of the musical. To demonstrate notability, you need to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, such as sources that describe the development of it, or professional reviews of it. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article you mention is indeed problematic, and I've marked it as such. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the recommendation, I will add more independent sources describing the development and reviews. Broadwaybaby1 (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Ohmch

edit

Keeps getting declined, all information is presented from a neutral point of view and is stuck to the facts as represented publicly. The latest comment i received was "constant socking" which gives zero information as to why this page has been declined. Assistance is appreciated, thank you. Ohmch (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Most unreleased films generally do not merit articles, see WP:NFF. Socking refers to the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. See sock puppetry. If more than one person is doing the same thing, it's called meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many unreleased films have been given their own articles, for example, Raid 2, Housefull 5, Kuberaa, these are just to list a few. Ohmch (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohmch Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:17, 31 March 2025 review of submission by Nbdy 010111

edit

its a biography about myself Nbdy 010111 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to have a biography like The Weeknd. Nbdy 010111 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you edit and publish it according to your own rules? Help edit it? Nbdy 010111 (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nbdy 010111 No. Just no. No.
I want to have a biography - then become notable in other people's eyes. Until that day, no. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2025_March_31&oldid=1284169988"