Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 May 18

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 17 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 19 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


May 18

edit

02:48:24, 18 May 2019 review of submission by Meshuggah101

edit


Meshuggah101 (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:17:55, 18 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dbexpert

edit


I recently submitted "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aqua_Data_Studio". Before I submitted this article, I read carefully the various online documents that describe the submission process for Wikipedia.

The article submission was rejected. I can accept that in itself. The reviewer (Zanhe) left the reason "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.". Again, I can accept that in itself, although I was hoping that this article would overcome the threshold. However, the reviewer left the comment "Article was previously deleted as not notable, see "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aqua_Data_Studio".

Does this mean that the reviewer rejected this article because a different article with the same name but different content was rejected in 2010?The article that I submitted is completely different from the article that was rejected in 2010. There is no connection between the two articles except for the fact that they share the same name and refer to the same software.

If the reviewer actually made their decision based on the content of the article that I submitted rather than what happened to the other article in 2010, then I can accept that. However, from the comment that the reviewer left, it seems that this may not be the case.

Dbexpert (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dbexpert. I do not take the reviewer's comment to mean that they "rejected this article because a different article with the same name but different content was rejected in 2010", but a question about a reviewer's state of mind would be best addressed to that specific reviewer, rather than a general help desk. If you find their answer unsatisfactory, then return here. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:26, 18 May 2019 review of submission by Dianahendricks

edit

I submitted a wiki page for review regarding Jaston Williams, a recognized playwright, novelist, actor and humorist. There was a copyright violation as per the reviewer, with helpful advice on how to correct that. The article was deleted and is no longer available. Now, may I rewrite the article in attempt to correct the issues and resubmit for potential approval again? Thank you, Diana Hendricks


Diana Hendricks (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dianahendricks You can ask for WP:REFUND from the admin who deleted the article - see HERE. Pls make sure when you rewrite the article, make sure you write the article on own words in neutral point of view and free of copyright infriegnement and support the content claimed with independent, reliable sources. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:55:35, 18 May 2019 review of draft by Ritz082

edit


Ritz082 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC) I need help in developing article. I am not sure if I have done it correctly. As some of my past solo work was not good enough, I need guidance and suggestions. my work is in draft The Minds Journal.[reply]

Hi Ritz082. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. You will receive feedback when a reviewer reaches it. The current backlog is about three and a half months. If you need guidance before then, you might try reaching out to a WikiProject relevant to your topic, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:22, 18 May 2019 review of draft by Innovative Username

edit


Hi there, I was wondering if I could have some help setting up the infobox and in particular getting PAL's logo in it. I've never filled out the fair use rationale before and don't totally understand it. I think it's super important to have the logo and a short infobox.

Innovative Username (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Innovative Username Greetings, you can use Template:Infobox organization. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response. Do you happen to understand how to do the fair use rationale thing? I've now seen how to do the infobox - quite easy in visual mode even if it is a bit slower- better for me as a newbie, haha. But the fair use rationale seems really confusing based on the documentation online and in the help pages. Thanks. Innovative Username (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Innovative Username and Nick Moyes: Hi Nick Since you are expert in image uploaded /fair use knowledge, would appreciate if you would lend a had to help Innovative User. Thank in advance. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA and Innovative Username: Oh, I wish I was an expert - you flatter me. In fact, I've never needed to use the fair use rationale, either, with anything I've uploaded. But it should be straight forward for a logo for an organisation about which we have an article. First off, however, I can find nothing in Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline or Wikipedia:Use rationale examples to suggest that a non-free image can't be added to a draft article. Yet, somehow such an image does nothing to demonstrate notability, so I might have expected these pages to state that a NFU-image is only suitable for use on an article once it is in mainspace. I presume the image is this one? (I've not been to the official website as I receive security warnings about both the English and Arabic versions, so I'm not going there, even thoughI think it's just the lack of an https: connection.) I think the example used at the top of Wikipedia:Use rationale examples seems pretty close to what you'd need, and I would reduce the file size to make it only just suitable for use on-screen on Wikipedia within an infobox. To help you, you can insert the {{Non-free use rationale logo}} template into the summary section of the image, as explained in that template's documentation (or you can simply copy and paste in the text from the section entitled 'Syntax'.) I think you would also add the {{Non-free logo}} template to the image description section so as to warn others not to use it elsewhere - again, its application is described in the documentation on that template's page.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about the logo right now. I'd focus much more on making your draft article sound more like a short, succinct encyclopaedia article than the long, overly-detailed and heavily promotional draft that it is at present. To do that, I would pare back all the trivia (e.g. the Key staff section), trying just to keep information which only explains what the organisation does, citing sources that show the world at large has taken note of it (and there's quite a bit of coverage in Spanish media, I notice) and cite only sources that talk about the organisation, instead of repeatedly citing content written by that organisation. Although I can only read the abstract, I would have thought this research paper might have help to demonstrate the organisation's notability had it not been written in such an essay-like and rather long-winded manner. I'm sorry I can't offer much more advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Innovative Username and Nick Moyes: Hi Nick, thank you so much for taking the time and effort to answer the question and provide the advice. To note, my understanding is that if content or images or file which the non copyright free and if it is uploaded to Wikipedia irregardless in the draft space or main space, it is still considered a violation of copyright infringement (COPYVIO). I often tag draft page which the the content is COPYVIO and the article got deleted for such violation. Cheers and thanks again. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help all. I will try my best to do this. :) Innovative Username (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:37:55, 18 May 2019 review of submission by S.H.Waqif

edit


Hello, I am Houston, TX. I have edited my article and added further information on Dr. Manzar Kazmi. Please let me know what I need to do to initiate Dr. Kazmi on Wikepedia. He is the author of several books and articles. Thank you for your guidance and support. Waqif 16:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi S.H.Waqif. Having written several books and articles is insufficient reason for there to be an encyclopedia article about him. The draft cites a single source, which is not enought to show that he is notable as a writer or notable as an academic. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place for uncritical biographies written to praise or honour the subject. You may wish to consider alternative outlets with different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:00, 18 May 2019 review of submission by Gedgmoss

edit


I've worked hard to improve the citations for this article, some copyright stuff has been removed, but I'm worried when it is finally reviewed it will be rejected or deleted and all my work lost.

(I'd appreciate some further guidance on how it can be improved? The rejecting editor has not answered my questions or does not have time to do so.)

thank you!

Gedgmoss (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Ged MossGedgmoss (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gedgmoss (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gedgmoss. I've left a belated welcome basket of links on your talk page. Other links you may find useful are: Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Articles for Creation is an iterative process. Drafts are often declined multiple times on the road to eventual acceptance. Use the time between reviews to improve the draft as much as you can by following the reviewer's advice and the applicable policies and guidelines. Spending time editing other articles can also pay off by building your Wikipedia skills. See Wikipedia:Community portal if you aren't sure where to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:40:19, 18 May 2019 review of submission by Robeatlas

edit

This article was rejected by @AngusWOOF: for the following reason

WP:TOOSOON. Only one role in a TV series, does not meet WP:ENT

I created it because it struck me as very weird that wikipedia didn't have an article on someone who was a major character in the most popular british drama of the year (Line of Duty). I'm not really au fait with the exact ins and out of the wikpedia notability requirements, so it certainly might have been the right choice but I would like to ask for clarification of the reasoning here. WP:ENT states that someone is notable if they "Have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Now this is not especially clearly worded, but I took it as Multiple meaning 2 and that notability was meant in the wikipedia sense (that is, is eligible for a wikipedia article). If so, it comes down to what significant roles means, because as well as Line of Duty, Sandall was a main cast member in Love, Lies and Records, a drama series that is obviously notable. Broken (where she was a supporting actor) and Moving On (main character but one episode of an anthology series) seem more marginal. Robeatlas (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robeatlas. The purpose of the general notability guideline (in a nutshell, "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time") is to ensure editors can write a full, accurate, and balanced encyclopedia article without resorting to original research.
Subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:ENTERTAINER are meant to let us accept topics that are likely to satisfy the general notability guideline, but cannot easily be shown to do so. An actor who starred in two blockbuster Pakistani TV series in the 1970s, for example, probably had plenty written about them at the time, but the language and location of the sources may make them difficult to access. In such a case a stub is an acceptable placeholder until an Urdu-speaking Wikipedian searches the basement stacks of the National Library in Islamabad and, using the sources they find there, writes the ideal encyclopedia article.
If Sandall's role in Love, Lies and Records was significant enough that independent, reliable sources wrote about her at length at the time, then they should be easy to find, they'll be online and in English. Add them to the in-depth sources in connection with Line of Duty, and the topic will meet the general notability guideline. If the earlier sources can't be found, they probably don't exist, which would mean that her earlier roles were not significant enough for our purposes. If that's the case, don't rush to create a stub, because if she disappears from show business tomorrow there may never be enough sources to write a proper encyclopedia article about her. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:07:40, 18 May 2019 review of submission by Zroxuf

edit


Zroxuf (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I am having trouble submitting my draft "Kiarash Behain" as the reviewer declined our submission claiming “This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.”

Our client is a director working in the Entertainment industry and we have seen multiple Wiki pages created for similar people in his profession. Can you please assist us with properly adjusting our submission so that we can be re-evaluated? Thank you for your time.

Zroxuf (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zroxuf: - Your statement makes it very clear that you are a paid editor - you MUST disclose this if you're going to make paid edits (I've dropped the template details on your talk page - please let me know if you need help carrying them out). We won't be able to progress further until you've done so. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:47:20, 18 May 2019 review of draft by Chilledude

edit


I'd like to find out where my submission is in the review queue and which page I should be watching to monitor its progress. Thanks.

Chilledude (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To other reviewers this draft was declined yesterday, failing GNG (correctly), however it could use a look from someone better equipped with WP:NACADEMIC as his journal work may provide notability through that route. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_May_18&oldid=984780880"