• DPRK Strategic Research Center (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:DPRK Strategic Research Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My recent draft page "DPRK Strategic Research Center" has been rejected by its assessor. This is of course disappointing, but may nevertheless be considered appropriate by other Wikipedia volunteers. First of all, there seemed to be no information available beyond the topic being "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". While I am aware of the page explaining what qualifies as notable or not, it would be useful to no what aspect of notability is lacking. Secondly, as there are various Wikipedia pages which cover individual research centers, showing that the category to which the page could belong is legitimate, I wonder whether the content of the page would be appropriate to be placed on another, larger page; perhaps the North Korean Studies page, for example. Thank you very much for your help, DPRK Strategic Research Center

DPRK Strategic Research Center (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell the world about itself and what it does. 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 don't want to know what the organization says about itself, only what others completely unconnected with the organization choose to say about it and its importance or influence. Your draft doesn't do that, which is why it was rejected and won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facility not available. Kashi Narain Mishra (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashi Narain Mishra I'm not sure what you are asking about. Are you attempting to place your draft in the encyclopedia? You have submitted it for review, which is what you should do. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My AFC, namely "Advent of Aryans in India" is rejected. There are many views on the topic which are mostly baseless. If there is anything irrelevant in my article, I want to know that. Kashi Narain Mishra (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@kashi narain mishra: this is not appropriate for wikipedia. you wrote it to push your point of view. wikipedia requires all articles to be neutral. lettherebedarklight晚安 10:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Naija Today (talk · contribs)

Hello! Could you please help me understand what exactly the mistakes are? I understand that there is a lack of reliable sources but what resources would be considered reliable then? The links I attached are leading to reliable media. Also, are there any other issues aside from links? Thank you. Naija Today (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Iotraffordsubaqua (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Trafford Sub Aqua (TSAC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Iotraffordsubaqua (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:15, 27 January 2023 review of submission by Iotraffordsubaqua

If I remove the dive training links will this remove the problem you see?

• JMShore (talk · contribs)
  • Shore Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the decline of my draft, I'm looking for some help making sure that I understand the decline reasons so that any future submission addresses all the concerns. The first reason given is that it reads like advertising content; it would be good to have some specific pointers on this. I tried to keep the information very straightforward and non-promotional, and all of the references are independent sources; there are no references that are press releases or Shore Capital materials. Can editors point me to any details in the text that I should rewrite or remove?

The second reason was around the sourcing itself, and stated that it wasn't sufficient. I'd included multiple Wall Street Journal, Crain's, PE Hub and Business Journal articles that discussed the firm's milestones, as well PitchBook sources showing that Shore is the most active PE firm by deal volume. These are independent sources, so is the concern that they are not in-depth enough?

Thanks for your time!

JMShore (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMShore Awards are generally not mentioned and do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). I'm not seeing sources indicating that PitchBook is recognized as an authority on PE firms or their activities. The article about them actually has similar issues as your draft.

Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do. An article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling what the company does, and goes into detail about its importance or influence as the source sees it. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:331dot. I can remove the PitchBook and Inc. awards. My goal by including them was to highlight that Shore has been recognized for the number of its deals, but I understand you're saying that PitchBook can't be considered a notable source for that information.

For the sourcing, I appreciate the extra color on this issue. Are you saying that the sources themselves don't provide significant coverage? The reason I ask is that the draft does aim to summarize the main information from the sources.

Thanks again. JMShore (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMShore Yes, that's what I'm saying. The sources just document the activities of the company. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kjharcombe (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:International Journal of Proof-of-Concept (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've requested assistance as I am not sure if this article meets the various standards for publishing. Some guidance would be much appreciated.

Kjharcombe (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, with zero references? Theroadislong (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ClareNoI (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Marvin Nuecklaus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am updating and replacing references so that my article will be accepted and I noticed one of the references said "Cite warning <ref> Firefox Flicks cannot be previewed because it is defined outside of the current selection or not defined at all" What does this mean and how can I fix it? Thank you.

ClareNoI (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@clarenoi: i don't see this error. lettherebedarklight晚安 10:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ClareNoI: Were you editing the Awards and nominations section? There is a reference there called "Firefox Flicks Competition Winners 2013", which is defined in a different section – what the warning means is that the preview can't check if the reference exists. Since it does exist and is correctly formatted higher up in the article, it's nothing to be concerned about. --bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you so much. I appreciate the feedback. ClareNoI (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]