Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 March 30

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< March 29 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 31 >
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 30 edit

12:24:01, 30 March 2020 review of draft by WeeRedLass edit

Thank you for your input. I'll work on changing the language of the article to be appropriately neutral. If there are any other suggestions for improvement, please let me know.


00:29:08, 30 March 2020 review of submission by George Genovezos edit


George Genovezos (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Genovezos, articles must be written in a neutral tone and provide sufficient sources that qualify the source to be in Wikipedia under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Currently, your article does neither of these. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:56:35, 30 March 2020 review of draft by WeeRedLass edit


Hello, Can you please elaborate on the reason for rejecting this article? Thank you.

WeeRedLass (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WeeRedLass, The page just looks like an advertisement for the dance group. I would recommend reviewing the links provided in the decline message. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:21:58, 30 March 2020 review of draft by Dora's ice lolly edit


Hello

I have moved my draft article to Harry Styles' main article as advised by the Wikipedia reviewer, under the heading Treat People with Kindness.

Now there are a couple of things I did not manage to do (please reply in simple language as I find all Wiki instructions a nightmare to understand):

1) My external links don't look right in Read mode, for example link to the music video for the song Treat People with Kindness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi2Gy7DG75g&list=OLAK5uy_l-oeXy89ZqIF0Dw3adjIVcpTKpj_diYNY&index=12&t=0s%2F

2) We now need to have a desambiguation page for Treat People with Kindness. It is both a song and a slogan. Please can you show me how to do it. Thank you.

Dora's ice lolly (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dora's ice lolly, great job on moving the article. What do you think looks wrong about the link? That is generally what external links look like. Generally though, having external links in the article is discouraged so I'd recommend you remove them. I'm hesitant to make a disambiguation page though because typically disambiguation pages are for more than three topics. I'm going to put a hatnote (tiny text that tells people there is another topic with the same name) on the section in case people get confused. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:40, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Nesherin edit

Hi, I've been working on this page for a while and I dont quite understand why it is not accepted. This page is about a theatre group that doesn't exist anymore and that should be indicated in Wikipedia for historical perpose. There is no publicity intent and no selfpromotion, rather it is an archive of past work of a theatre group that was active especiually in the last century. Why is it so diffiult to submit this page? Please advise!

thanks, Nesherin Nesherin (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nesherin, if you aren't associated with the article, then is there a reason that your username is the same as the article's title (or similar)? The article just lists various accomplishments. This makes the article read like a resume, and not an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic articles should give a summary in prose of the subject from reliable sources, but yours currently effectively just lists accomplishments. Your article has been rejected, which means that unfortunately no further action can be taken on it (i.e. it won't be reconsidered). Sam-2727 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:22, 30 March 2020 review of draft by Joshua Beschutzer edit


Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Beschutzer, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir (or Ma'am, as the case may be)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Company_C,_6th_Florida_Infantry_Regiment

Submission declined on 30 March 2020 by DGG (talk).

1. "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

I respectfully counter that the 15 sources from which the article was created are in fact "published" and "reliable".

2. "Comment: There is no reason to think that this particlar company of the regiment is notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)"

I respectfully respond that the comment is subjective. I have the honor to have had four "company" articles previously accepted; specifically,

Company K, 7th Florida Infantry Regiment Company A, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment Company B, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment Company H, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment

I very greatly desire to understand how this particular company fo the regiment ("Company C, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment"), is any less notable, or its references any less acceptable, than was the case in each of the four previously published articles.

Very respectfully, Mathew "J" Sterman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshua_Beschutzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Beschutzer (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Joshua Beschutzer, there are so many sources here that it's hard to go sift through all of them. Could you list maybe three or four sources you think satisfy the notability guidelines. That is they are independent, reliable, and mention the subject significantly? This would help me in determining if the subject was actually notable. Also, notability might be up to debate, but it isn't really a "subjective" concept. Wikipedia has strict guidelines (as outlined in the comments in the article) for what is notable and what isn't. It may very well be that other regiments are notable but this one isn't. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sam-2727. Per your request -

United States War Department. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C.

Robertson, Fred L. (Compiler) (1903). Soldiers of Florida in the Seminole, Civil and Spanish-American Wars. Democrat Book and Job Print, Live Oak, Florida.

Hartman, David W. (1995). Biographical Rosters of Florida’s Confederate and Union Soldiers, 1861-1865: (Volume 2; 5th Florida Infantry – 8th Florida Infantry). Broadfoot Publishing Company, Wilmington, North Carolina. ISBN 1568372884. Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do these sources discuss? Do they have in-depth content about the company? Not the individual persons, but the company itself. And not the sort of directory entries or standard records or forms, but actual written description, history, etc? The titles of the books suggest these are just archives or records, but do they have any descriptive material? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Beschutzer, I've sifted through your sources. The first one seems to be a collection of primary sources, which wouldn't qualify it to support the notability guidelines. Also, maybe I'm searching the wrong terms, but I can't find the actual regiment mentioned in it. Your second source seems to be more or less an indiscriminate listing of names of regiments. While it does establish the notability of the entire infantry division, it doesn't establish notability of this specific company. The third source isn't public domain yet, so I can't look inside it, but based off of the name of the book, seems as if it would be similar to the second source. Do correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption though. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sam-2727, The "Official Records" are a 128-volume compendium of official correspondence, reports, &c. penned by various cabinet officials, general- and field grade officers of both US & CS armies (and navies). The 6th Florida is mentioned numerous times in specific actions (e.g., Chickamauga and Missionary Ridge). At the company level, there is only one specific mention that I have located, and that is for the "honor roll" subsequent to Chickamauga.

"Soldiers of Florida" was published in 1903. "Unit" histories are rather sparse (if any); however, each regiment has listings for both "Field & Staff", as well as company rosters identifying men enrolled. There is little (if any) information documented aside from date/rank in, date rank out...and even that is "sketchy".

"Biographical Rosters" was published in 1995 (I am very fortunate to own the complete 6-volume set). It is somewhat more informative, in that i draws upon information obtained from NARA Compiled military service records, and occasionally whether a pension was warded.

As that may be, my underlying and primary question remains; spec., why is this "company" article found wanting for both references and..."notability", when such was not the case for the previously submitted and accepted four company articles?

Very Respectfully, Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Beschutzer to be frank it may be because the editors reviewing it saw that there were quite a bit of citations and didn't choose to go any more in depth into the actual quality of the citations. Mistakes do happen at Articles for Creation. The "official records," even if it does mention the company, wouldn't be notable as it is a primary source and doesn't have any sort of fact checking process. The "Biographical Rosters" still seems to just be a list of people in the regiment and nothing beyond that sort of trivial coverage. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sam-2727, I have added two more references; spec.,

National Archives and Records Service (1957). Microcopy No. 225: Index to Compiled Service Records of Confederate Soldiers Who Served in Organizations from the State of Florida. General Services Administration, Washington, D.C., and

National Archives and Records Service. Microcopy No. 653: 1860 Federal Population Census – Part 4.

I have also provided each member's entry with at least two (and as many as five) references from which his content was derived.

It is my intention to resubmit the article as above revised; should it be again be declined, I will remove it.

Thank you for your attention, and your patience, both of which are very greatly appreciated. Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:30:22, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Hotstar90 edit


Hotstar90 (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hotstar90: Do you have a question? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:48, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger edit

Exiledstranger (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Hi Sir,Each every line has its reliable source please check it and then decline it.Thank you[reply]

Declined 6 times and now rejected, probably time to give up? Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:24, 30 March 2020 review of draft by Mlo17 edit


Hi, I would like to ask you for more details on the citation issue in my article. I tried to read your suggested materials for writing Wikipedia articles but I am not sure if I understand what is the real problem in my specific article. Do you need more citations for the "About" section? Or is that I should not cite as much in the "Artwork" section and rather rewrite it? I thought as it is a living person that you require more specific citations.

I would really appreciate if you could be more specific and maybe give example rather than generally say that it doesn't meet Wikipedia citation requirements. I would really like to write it right. Thank you very much for your kind help. Michaela

Mlo17 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mlo17, more citations in the about section is what I would look for. Also, see the comment on the article that your citations should be inline. You have quite a bit of "external links," but these should be embedded in the article. The subject of your article, upon cursory glance of the sources, does in fact seem notable from what you've provided, so that's good. Also you should look at other articles as examples of how to write in a neutral tone. Currently you have phrases like "all over the world" which are stating opinions as fact. Wikipedia should be written in a neutral tone. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:26, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger edit


Exiledstranger (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Hi Sir,Now check the draft and tell me.[reply]

Ref bombing is not helpful; budoshin.com is a primary source, you cannot use Wikipedia articles as a source, Amazon, eBay, Yelp, guidestar , videos and Pinterest are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:17, 30 March 2020 review of draft by नलिनी मिश्रा edit


on 29 March 2020 I had created page for an Organization, But after the review it got rejected and I am unable to follow the reviews made. So, I seek help how may I edit the page so that it can be published.

नलिनी मिश्रा (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

नलिनी मिश्रा, your submission hasn't been rejected yet so once you make the requested changes (that is, adding reliable sources and cleaning up the language of the article so it doesn't read like an advertisement), you can resubmit it by pressing the blue "resubmit" button. You can still edit the article as usual by clicking "edit source" at the top of the article (next to "view history"). Let me know if this isn't helping. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:49, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger edit


Exiledstranger (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Sir remove the things that are not reliable.please[reply]

Exiledstranger, we aren't going to write the article for you. For sources, it's hard to make a determination of what is reliable vs. not independent of the source, and since you have so many sources, I suspect I'd have to remove quite a bit of them to remove all unreliable sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:46:37, 30 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Thson10 edit


Hi - had my article declined because of lack of significant coverage. Could you advice what kind of thing I'd need to include?

Thanks

Thson10 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thson10, significant coverage means that sources should meet the notability guidelines. That is, there should be multiple sources (so at least three) that are independent of the subject and reliable, as well as covering the subject of the article non-trivially. Usually, BBC is a reliable source, but in this case it isn't independent of the subject (since he presents for BBC), so that doesn't count as reliable. For starters, I would look for news coverage. Not by the BBC, but by other sources independent of this person. Another place you might find significant mentions is in reviews of the shows that he does. Let me know if you're still stuck when you give looking for these types of sources a shot (although that might mean unfortunately this person isn't notable). Sam-2727 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:02, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Commercialspaceflightfederation edit

Hi, my page was rejected based on sources. This is a page being created for the individual in question. All the sources that were used are pretty much the only written pieces on him. How do I make it so we can publish this page? Commercialspaceflightfederation (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commercialspaceflightfederation, you have been blocked as it is suspected you aren't disclosing that you are being paid to edit. Please respond to this inquiry on your talk page using the isntructions given there. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:29, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Bokhan.evgeniy edit

Dear Wikipedia support team, please advise I made all changes for my new article, previously was a problem with reference links. Please tell me if there is something that I need to change. Thank you Bokhan.evgeniy (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:33, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Exiledstranger edit


Exiledstranger (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exiledstranger, As already pointed out to you, the article has been rejected (after 6 declines) and will not be considered further. Repeatedly posting questions here isn't going to change that. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir these all refereces have Information about Budoshin Jujitsu so please check.

Exiledstranger, information on the subject is not enough. The sources must also be independent of the subject of the article and have a reputation for being reliable sources (that is, some kind of fact checking process). Sam-2727 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:12:39, 30 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mrcola1337 edit


Why did my Draft:NMC get denied? NMC has also a German Wikipedia-Page and is one of Belgium's leading foam company Thank you!

Mrcola1337 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mrcola1337, Per the decline message. You need to review WP:NCORP and pass those guidelines. As it stands the page does not come close to showing the required WP:SIGCOV needed to prove notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mrcola1337 Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own independent project, with their own policies and editors. What is acceptable on one isn't necessarily acceptable on another) 331dot (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have added some more references but I don’t want to add TOO MANY because it’s just unnecessary. --Mrcola1337 —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:45, 30 March 2020 review of submission by 2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:A84A:1BA4:ECA0:4D1B edit


2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:A84A:1BA4:ECA0:4D1B (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your article has been rejected, which means no further action can be taken. This is because your article wasn't sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:07:16, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Olforlife edit


Hello, I am interested in learning why my article was declined submission for review. Once I know then I can fix it.

Thanks Olforlife (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olforlife The reason was given in the decline message you received, at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I read the message at the top previously. It is very vague. I read the articles linked there as well. I'm not sure why my article was declined for lack of notability. Was it not long enough? Were there not enough sources? Does it need more history about the park? Or more information about the facilities? Should the topic be integrated into the page on Springfield, TN rather than have it's own page? Or should this page be expanded to cover all the parks in Springfield, TN? There are several which are listed in the Wikipedia page for Springfield, TN. Since this is my first article, some specificity about my page in particular would be helpful.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olforlife (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olforlife The sources you have offered do not have significant coverage of the subject(the park) They just cite the existence of the park and its namesake. Are there in depth writeups about this park in the news? Books about its history? That sort of thing. We need more than just the fact it exists and its offerings. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Well there is certainly a fair amount of coverage of its history and development in past news articles. There was a legal battle over the land that lasted a few years. The cabin mentioned in draft article has a lot of history around it and has been featured in the news several times on its own because it is one of the oldest structures in Tennessee built the same year the state was formed. I don't believe there are any books about the park, but it has a storied history for sure. Probably enough to fill 3-4 paragraphs on a wikipedia page, but not a full book. So would it be more appropriate to dedicate a page to all the parks and greenway in Springfield? There are 3 major parks and a significant greenway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olforlife (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Olforlife, if you have enough for three paragraphs of history, that's sufficient. Just make sure you have at least three sources that are independent of the park (so not created by people closely associated with it), reliable (some kind of fact checking in place), and cover the subject nontrivially (which you're probably good for because three paragraphs, even if split among sources, would be nontrivial coverage usually). Sam-2727 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:56:03, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Dangatangmusic edit

Hello all. Thank you for your repeated reviews and edits.

I believe the manner in which this is written is not significantly different from other comparable companies with a wikipedia presence. I'm also confused as to why a startup company that operates nationally and partly owned by a public company is any less noteworthy than comparable entities with a presence on site.

Here are a few comparable companies with established articles. The first two are local non-public companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbo_Moving_and_Storage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Mini_Storage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Storage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Space_Storage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lok%27nStore, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Yellow_Group.


Dangatangmusic (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dangatangmusic: You've completely misunderstood the point of this volunteer-driven encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. Those articles are not billboards put up by those companies, they are summaries of independent news sources written by unaffiliated volunteers. We are not a place to promote your business, or "create a presence" or whatever you want to call it. If there are no independent reliable sources on a topic, then we don't want an article on it.
You must disclose your employment per the instructions I'm leaving on your talk page. It's also in your best interest to carefully read our policies on editing with a conflict of interest. After you've done that, you may want to look over these instructions on how to write an article that won't be rejected or deleted.
Any problematic articles that have slipped through the cracks do not justify further mistakes. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:56:47, 30 March 2020 review of submission by Marindthaqi edit


Marindthaqi (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marindthaqi, your article was deleted as it was written in a purely promotional tone. Please remember that Wikipedia isn't for advertising. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_March_30&oldid=985275872"