Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 August 1

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 31 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 2 >
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.


August 1

edit

00:16:08, 1 August 2021 review of submission by HappyMeal69

edit

Hi. I dont understand why my page was not accepted. I have used footnotes, and the sources are reliable. HappyMeal69 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyMeal69: Now that you've added footnotes and sources, you could click the "resubmit" button to put your draft back in the queue. But there seems to already be an article about her; you can find it at Jorunn Gleditsch Lossius. I'd recommend adding the content that you've written into that article. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:52:51, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Mihimatha Thorathuru

edit


Mihimatha Thorathuru (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:14:54, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Mihimatha Thorathuru

edit

Please Submit My Article, Please Thank You Wikipedia Mihimatha Thorathuru (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Mihimatha Thorathuru (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Hashintha[reply]

Page has been deleted as blatant and irreparable promotion/advertizing. We have little tolerance for autobiographies and attempts to advertize. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:22, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Menu maharaj

edit

Hey please review this Draft : CarryMinati videography again because this article is totally different from CarryMinati, it's about his videography and I believe this article have enough content for article creation so it should be approved thanku. Menu maharaj (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Menu maharaj I am the third reviewer to disagree with you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:52:16, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Drmanishgunjan

edit

Kindly check before declining. The article is about Dr who died of cardia arrest post covid who saved patient the day doctor himself died. There is no personal glorification by Dr Manish Gunjan from heaven. If you do due dillegence instead of blindly rejecting it will save lot of emotions and hardwork for me. Drmanishgunjan (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmanishgunjan your user name is that of the person you wrote about. Please read Help:Your first article and try again with pleasure FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used as user so to give respect to doctor so tell me excatly how to change the user name to retrieve the page back

here is details(please enlighten me where it is written that author name & article name cannot be same) : Username and privacy If you create an account, you can pick a user name provided it is available and unique. Edits you make while logged in will be assigned to that name, not to your IP address. You will have your own permanent user page where you can write a bit about yourself. While Wikipedia is not a homepage provider, you can use this to display a few free pictures, write about your hobbies, etc. Many users use their user page to maintain a list of the articles they are most proud of, or to collect other valuable information from Wikipedia.

You will also have a permanent talk page you can use to communicate with other users. You will be notified whenever someone writes a message on your talk page. If you choose to give an e-mail address, other users will be able to contact you by e-mail. This feature is anonymous; the user who emails you will not know your e-mail address.

You are actually less identifiable logged in than you are as an unregistered editor, owing to the hiding of your IP address (so long as you avoid disclosing identifiable information on your user page). You might want to consider privacy and the possibility of offline harassment, when deciding what to say on your user page.

See the section WP:MISLEADNAME.Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmanishgunjan please be clear: You must write about the doctor in a manner suitable for Wikipedia. This is not their memorial page. Memorials are outside the scope of Wikipedia. Pleass do this from your new user name. You may simply abandon this one or request a change of name. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How to change the username to GodSis? Kindly help if it can help me to get page back.Thank you

@Drmanishgunjan: Please sign your posts using ~~~~. Please visit Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:43, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Bananabeer



I'm asking to see if the citations below would be appropriate for addressing the comments "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. "

These are the news article that cover the work of the subject (Soroush Saghafian) we are trying to createa a page on. Could you please let me know? I appreciate your thoughts.

https://www.industryglobalnews24.com/new-research-explores-on-increasing-transparency-in-the-health-care-sector

https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/transparency-healthcare-sector-more-might-not-be-better

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20191211/Increasing-transparency-in-the-healthcare-system-may-not-be-always-better.aspx


Bananabeer (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:25:22, 1 August 2021 review of draft by Bananabeer

edit


I'm asking to see if the citations below would be appropriate for addressing the comments "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. "

These are the news article that cover the work of the subject (Soroush Saghafian) we are trying to createa a page on. Could you please let me know? I appreciate your thoughts.

https://www.industryglobalnews24.com/new-research-explores-on-increasing-transparency-in-the-health-care-sector

https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/transparency-healthcare-sector-more-might-not-be-better

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20191211/Increasing-transparency-in-the-healthcare-system-may-not-be-always-better.aspx


Bananabeer (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bananabeer Those are each to his research. More references for that will not change its notability. The challenge every article about an academic has if to pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I'm pretty sure they do not assist you.
An acacdemic produces research. That is not always a useful reference for their Wikipedia notability. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely.
What is said about the perosn?
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Timtrent Thank you so much for the clarification. Based on the references you provided, I found two secondary sources (books) that discuss the work of the subject. Would it qualify as a more reliable source of a citation?

https://books.google.co.kr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RDplDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA79&ots=HoXzaJbO7f&sig=61nL8V74Hv-krj0aP4X3LnvFKzQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-658-23516-1

11:49:35, 1 August 2021 review of draft by Samsonite Man

edit

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I have a draft article about a Japanese tv show Sukkiri. My draft was rejected because of lack of sources. My problem is that all the sources are in Japanese. I think the article in English should be accepted to be translated and sourced by someone who understands Japanese.

Samsonite Man (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsonite Man we have no problem with Japanese references FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent My point was that the sources are in Japanese. I can't expand the article any further. Samsonite Man (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsonite Man your best hope is to find a speaker of Japanese. Or use Google Translate, whcich is acceptable for reading references and writing from what they say. Or you can let it wither on the vine FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:59, 1 August 2021 review of submission by SiliconProphet

edit


Recent events with this individual may make them finally notable. I understand that due to her trolls attempting to make articles on her in the past we have been more strict on this topic, but I propose a serious reexamining of our policies on the article, perhaps creating the article and making it extended-protected, and applying notability to all elements of the article rather than merely the subject herself to avoid an entire section on her shirts or anything else like that SiliconProphet (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SiliconProphet If you have new information or the situation has otherwise changed, given that it was rejected a year ago I would start over with a fresh draft, or you could ask the reviewer to reconsider given this new information. Notability is judged with regards to the named topic, they are either notable or not. They aren't notable by association with another topic. Articles- if this gets that far- are not preemptively protected. There must be a demonstrable problem requiring protection. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is, 331dot. There's been a history of creating articles to harass/stalk this subject. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:28, 1 August 2021 review of draft by Astrosquid

edit


In Notability_(academics) the second criteria is met "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.". The IOP Silver medal is highly prestigious and competitive. The sixth criteria is also met "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society" by being elected as VP for IAU Division C.

Astrosquid (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:54, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Niketanjha

edit


Niketanjha (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:38, 1 August 2021 review of draft by Govsustain

edit


What kinds of sources would help with this submission in my researchI pulled all of the news stories I could find on the topic but there were not academic articles? 20:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Govsustain (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Govsustain We need independent reliable sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to write about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Press releases, staff interviews, and announcements of routine activities do not establish notability. If no independent sources give this organization significant coverage, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:02, 1 August 2021 review of submission by 2601:406:4D03:49D0:47B:329B:161:1F42

edit


How many articles should we include and what would make this article sound less of a vanity article from a fan? 2601:406:4D03:49D0:47B:329B:161:1F42 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:36, 1 August 2021 review of draft by Pakkapull

edit


Pakkapull (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakkapull, it appears the subject isn’t notable, failing WP:MUSICBIO. The references are lacking and unreliable and the tone may need to be fixed. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_August_1&oldid=1037696000"