• Andretan1985 (talk · contribs)
  • Hegen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Hegen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my draft was declined because it "sounded too much like an advertisement".

First, I'd like to point out that I'm a father whose kid uses the baby product brand that I've written an article about, and I do not have any commercial relationship with the company, and I am not being paid to do this. I really liked the brand, and was looking for further information about the brand on Wiki and discovered it didn't have a page, which inspired me to research and write one.

Having said that, I tried my best to follow Wiki guidelines, ensuring that every fact or assertion made was backed up by credible sources. In researching about the brand, I have deliberately avoided using any material from the brand's own webpages, and I have found a wealth of sources, mostly from national newspapers and government websites. (This brand is quite notable within Singapore and has been reported on often).

I feel that writing about a commercial brand necessarily entails describing it, and that inevitably is going to sound like it's "advertising" the brand if it has some claims to fame or notable achievements. I've tried to mitigate that by sticking to factual assertions of what the brand does, and has accomplished, and I believe I have ensured that every such fact is referenced, to show this is not my assertion or something that comes from the brand's own self-advertisement. I've tried to keep my writing as neutral as possible, only sticking to paraphrasing what has already been said in the sources or newspaper articles that I referenced.

I don't understand therefore how it can still be declined for sounding like an advertisement. I also don't understand why the grounds for declining also includes asking me to ensure my sources are reputable/credible, or even that they are referenced at all. Are national newspapers and government websites not reputable or authoritative enough? Have I not found enough? The Wiki notability guidelines even say three separate sources talking about the subject are enough. I have twenty or so.

How can I improve this further, or what specifically about my writing "sounds like an advertisement", so I can improve it and ensure it meets whatever criteria it falls short of? If it needs toning down, do give me some pointers as to where or how.

I'd really appreciate any help you can give me on how to make this better. Thank you!

Andretan1985 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andretan1985 You spend much of the draft talking about the company's products and their features. If you are writing about about company, the article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the company itself, not its products. Furthermore, awards do not usually warrant a mention unless the award itself merits an article(like an Academy Award or Tony Award). That the company was on a top selling list of a particular website is meaningless without context. Why is that significant?(rhetorical question) 331dot (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dotThank you for your reply! Some questions as I ponder how best to edit:

1) Products: In this case, what makes the company notable is its products, no? Would it be acceptable to have a brief summary of the products, rather than cutting it all completely? In the case of the products, I ensured that what was being said about the products was only what was reported in the independent articles and reports I referred to, instead of the company's own info. Would that also be counted as part of what independent sources say about the company?

2) Awards: I hear you about the notability of the awards themselves. I will go check up each of these awards to see what has a wiki article. I know for sure that at least one of them does.

3) Top selling list: Well in this particular case, that the brand was on the top selling list of a particular website was of note because this is one of the largest e-commerce sites in the world, so this is a pretty impressive thing for a small local brand, but I'm unsure if that context, even when supplied, is important? Do advise--if still not applicable, I'll chuck it out the window.

Thanks so much for your help, please bear with me!

Andretan1985 (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dougwill2 (talk · contribs)

Draft Article: Joseph Archibald Williams

I am puzzled by reviewer BuySomeApples comments on March 3 regarding reliable sources in rejecting the above article for wiki publication. The draft article references a scholarly 3-part series (fully researched and footnoted) in a magazine (The Vintage Ford Magazine, in print from 1966 to current day); the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) patent archives; and Harvard University's case law database. The 1st reference is allowable under Wiki guidelines; the second is an official US government info source; and the 3rd is a highly regarded institutional archive of government case law. Not reliable sources? Pls advise. Thx.

Dougwill2 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told before the United States Patent and Trademark Office is a primary source, we require independent sources, also see WP:PATENTS which says "Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery.... Avoid giving too much emphasis to their existence or contents." Theroadislong (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougwill2: I suggest you start reading and taking on-board what we've said here; refusing to accept valid criticism is a very good way to get any further queries about this draft summarily reverted off this page as badgering until you get the answer you want. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guys (a fair assumption of gender, based on recent reporting from independent reliable sources): Per wp.patents, ""An issued patent may be considered a reliable source for the existence of an invention, the names of the inventors, the date of the patent, and the overall content of what was invented." All patents mentioned, cited, or summarized in article narrative and supporting summary table are issued patents, not applications. Again from wp.patents: "Patent applications that are not yet issued are self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes." No patent applications are cited, no content from the issued patents, no puffery, no promotion here (the K-W company went out of business in 1940)--none. Only 2 issued patents are directly cited in the article narrative, so not too much emphasis. 31 patents (that we know of so far) issued to the subject over 30 yrs: fact, and notable. Subject invented tech that contributed to making the Model T the most successful automobile of its era; fact, and notable. Would you say in a writer's bio that she wrote some books without including as complete a list as possible (from actual research) of their titles and pub dates? Subject was litigious, per several refs to independent and reliable case law database: fact, and notable, as making case law is making law--ask an attorney. There's more in this vein, as subject was suing others for infringement while possibly engaging in infringement himself. You can still buy some of the original devices invented and manufactured by subject, over 100 yrs later, on eBay: fact, notable, interesting, and worthy of mention. Wiki review process: the last reviewer noted a date discrepancy by saying. "something fishy here, etc." From the narrative, it was an obvious typo. A typo! Comments made that reveal a cursory reading of the narrative and scolding based on a cursory reading of wiki guidelines are a negative reflection on the wiki submission process, and look like trollery. Respectfully submitted. Dougwill2 (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougwill2 We would in fact write a bio without including a complete list of a writer's works! For some writers, a separate bibliography article might be appropriate. But usually a wikipedia article on a writer lists only their most significant works. Imagine the mess on articles about scientists if we listed every single one of their publications! Everything you mention here may well be factual and interesting, but what we're looking for to determine "notability" isn't "is this a remarkable thing" but "have several secondary sources taken an interest in this thing". -- asilvering (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the narrative in this article is sourced from refs 2,3,5, and 10, which you seem to ignore or discount. Patents or cases cited are supporting references. Without the excellent research by Trent E. Boggess and Ronald Patterson, who spent lots of time at the Research Center of the Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, this bio would not exist. Likewise, the discounting of significant achievement in the field of invention by citing wp.patents (earlier reviewer) is an injustice. Some lawyers are crooks, therefore anyone with a license to practice law is automatically suspect or undeserving in having earned this privilege? I suggest the following addition to wp.patents: "Care should be taken to avoid indiscriminate use of this section to denigrate, disparage, or deny recognition for genuine accomplishment in the field of invention." Patent research needs to thorough and complete. The complete list of subject's patents is not readily available online; and when I did it in the '80s it meant going thru the year-by-year card catalogs of the USPTO library in Virginia. Is there a shortage of space in Wikipedia? To show achievement in scientific research, it is common to count citations to a particular paper in subsequent research. In patent research, one can look for "forward cites" to determine importance and achievement. Perhaps reference to an abundance of forward cites would add value? https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia:BITE I'm a newcomer, but not to writing and research for publication; and I don't have a garage band to promote. Imo it's wrong to denigrate or downplay the significant work of an inventor--evidenced in this case by a large number patents issued and their importance in advancing automotive development and production--because of others possible abuse of the patent application process to seek undeserved recognition. It's not alright to tar all inventors with the same brush. So 31 patents ISSUED (not applications) over 30 years is not notable by itself? They don't just give these things away; a serious presentation of prior art, detailed description and drawings, and claims showing usability, originality, and unobviousness (this is the most contentious requirement) must pass review from the USPTO examiner before "Letters of Patent" is awarded. Note the word "Award." Dougwill2 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Dougwill2, having 31 patents issued in over 30 years is not notable in itself! Like I said in my earlier response, Wikipedia doesn't take a position on questions like "is this a remarkable thing". A Wikipedia biography isn't supposed to be a form of recognition, owed to people who have done remarkable things. What it is supposed to be is a reflection of what reliable, secondary sources are saying about a topic. If someone - for example, Boggess or Patterson - were to write a book about Williams, then we would agree: he should have a Wikipedia article. But that isn't the case, which is why we're saying the sourcing on this article does not establish his notability. -- asilvering (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ardakocaa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arda Koca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs){{SAFESUBST:Void|

im a musical artist, i want a wikipedia page for my name, what can i do for creating my page?

Ardakocaa (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ardakocaa. Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will eventually create an article about you. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site like Facebook or LinkedIn. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jhirak.camel (talk · contribs)
  • Blanche Brenton Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Blanche Brenton Carey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm creating a Wiki entry for a woman named Blanche Brenton Carey. How do I add a picture to the Infobox? It wouldn't let me when I tried because I haven't done 10 edits. Is there anything I can do or do I publish without a picture until I've done the 10 edits?

Jhirak.camel (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jhirak.camel Images/pictures are not relevant to the draft approval process. Don't worry about adding an image until your draft is approved and in the encyclopedia. You have more than 10 edits so you should be able to upload images, though. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oye palanpuri (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:OYE PALANPURI ANIME (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Oye palanpuri (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 103.21.125.78 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Climate Studies IIT Bombay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know how Wikipedia assign reviewers, I have created a page for a department of an institute of importance in India, actually, this institute's rank is first in science and technology but reviewers did not find this noticeable, I want a reviewer who is educated enough to know that what a research institute is? 103.21.125.78 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The interdisciplinary programme you wrote about should be covered in the article about the institute, IIT Bombay, not in a new stand alone article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Parts of schools and school-related organizations. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to guarantee that a reviewer has any particular knowledge or skill set, and we have no way to verify such a thing in any event. It also should not be relevant as the only issue with a draft is if it meets the relevant criteria. If you would prefer, there are other encyclopedia writing projects that limit participation to experts. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before we even get to the "need an expert", the article fails basic wikipedia policies. External links should not be in body. There's no claim to notability as not a single independent source is provided that discusses the subject. It is written from the POV of the subject, a common mistake for connected writers. Fix those fundamentals first and then you can question whether an editor made a mistake in rejecting your draft.Slywriter (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2405:205:1285:A810:4BEB:8450:1EB1:D5AC (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bunda Meena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2405:205:1285:A810:4BEB:8450:1EB1:D5AC (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Please create the page Bunda Meena as it is truth[reply]

Wikipedia has no interest in "truth" we only report what reliable sources say about a topic. And "for the creation of the panorama of this king." makes no sense? Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2405:205:1285:A810:4BEB:8450:1EB1:D5AC (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Khogong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2405:205:1285:A810:4BEB:8450:1EB1:D5AC (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please create this page as it is notable

Listen to the advice you're being given and stop being obstinate. You've drowned the draft in redundant and crappy citations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]