Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 February 25

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< February 24 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 26 >
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.


February 25

edit

Request on 09:20:20, 25 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SriAmaraneni

edit


I need help to edit my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SreedharRaoChennamaneni

Thank You!

Sreedhar Rao (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SriAmaraneni, your article has been rejected, it cannot be resubmitted. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Reply. Please Remove my article from draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriAmaraneni (talk • contribs) 11:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SriAmaraneni Are you requesting it be deleted? 331dot (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, thank you for your response! Please Edit my article, if it is not possible then delete it.

Thank you.

10:19:39, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Stefan Gigliotti

edit

Could anyone please give me a feedback on this either let me know what to do next? That would be much appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance Stefan Gigliotti (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Gigliotti, there is nothing to do next, please be patient, there are more than 4,000 articles waiting for a review, it can take months. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan Gigliotti,   Declined as an advert. There is a full rationale on the declined draft and a note of the work required to see if he qualifies for an article here Fiddle Faddle 12:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:07, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Theman465

edit

The subject has become very notable over the past months gaining many articles and references of him. He also has gained 30 Thousand social media followers. He is very notable now and definitely qualifies for the article on Wikipedia. Theman465 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The number of social media followers has no bearing whatsoever on notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:11, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Rajeev Kumar Pillai

edit


It is said that its about myself.. my submission is its not about me and its about a different person

Rajeev Kumar Pillai (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also has zero reliable sources so cannot be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:33:35, 25 February 2021 review of draft by KempeIAGeng

edit


Guess, we need help with the entry on Pyroducts. Please explain why the entry has been rejected and what could be made better. If you need more publications cited, that can be mended. Please mark the paragraphs that are found to be faulty and explain why. Before submitting the current text has been reviewed by US volcanologists Dr. J. Lookwood and Dr. R. Hazlett, the authors of the most recent and encompassing textbook on volcanology (Wiley, 2010, 2nd ed. in review). Therefore there should not be any scientific faults. Thank you, S. Kempe

KempeIAGeng (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KempeIAGeng, the problem with your draft is that you will need to give citations for the statements you made. Please read the Reviewers Comments and especially follow the links given by them, of help might also Help:Referencing for beginners . CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:17:54, 25 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SecretName1234

edit


Robert McClenon sited two 6-year-old "Articles for Deletion" pages for rejecting a recently submitted article about Black Gryph0n (Gabriel Christian Brown; Gabriel Brown (actor)). Black Gryph0n is much more noteworthy than he was 6 years ago. He is mentioned on many current wiki pages,[note 1] and there are hundreds of hits on that name on the internet in general. 

 As I mentioned in the article, Black Gryph0n has over 4 million subscribers on Youtube,[1] has 11 Filmography credits on IMDb, [2] and many albums and singles on Amazon, and is a verified artist on Spotify,[3] with 137k monthly listeners.

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvzWGXYFDiiJ338KIJPhbhQ
  2. ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6437354/
  3. ^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/4ET82ZtSfAK4utfjDauImD
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beep_Beep_I%27m_a_Sheep
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Creber
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_Rewind_2019:_For_the_Record
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Stars
  8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_a_Coin_to_Your_Witcher
  9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_St._Germain
  10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joakim_Lundell
  11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Dance_2018
  12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_in_Equestria_Girls
  13. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Shorty_Awards
  14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Dance_Now

SecretName1234 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName1234 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName1234, Spotify, Imdb and even Wikipedia are not reliable Sources, you will need to provide others like AviationFreak already said. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ see references below
@SecretName1234: The draft you submitted does not provide any secondary reliable sources. See WP:PSTS and WP:RS for more information. AviationFreak💬 20:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:53, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite

edit


Help in getting my article published.

Fitwrite (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:56:51, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite

edit


Help in getting my article published, sorry did not fill our full question a few mins ago:

Hi, I just read the decline to my draft being published, by a reviewer, and I am mystified at why. The reviewer says I have not made significant documentation of secondary sources; my article Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging (at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anonymous_Personal_Sex_Blogging , username: fitwrite) has 70 references, cited over 100 times in APA style citations. They say it reads more like an essay; well I simply documented all the research. I have a few statements about global anthropological universalities that are my own, and more just natural comments on classifying and paraphrasing the research, but apart from that just about every sentence is a non-plagurized paraphrasing from secondary sources. I noticed the reviewer declined my submission in one day, I submitted it on Sunday and it was declined that same day; that is fast, and I thank the reviewer for the fast work, they must have university professor level skills to assess my complex article in such a short time. I am not trying to question the reviewers the decision, I am just trying to understand it and understand how I can get the article published on wiki. I see many other articles on wiki that have few citations and are even poorly written, looking like they are machine translated from another language, but these articles are allowed on wiki; my article with over 100 citations and written in well structure sentences by me, (a university educated person, whose first language is English), and fully proofread down to most, if not all, commas being used correctly; my article is not allowed on wiki. This makes little sense to me. I can not even see how I would re-write it to make it more "encyclopedic" rather than “essay like"; I read entries in Encyclopedia Britannica that are written in a similar format to my article, for example, Douglas, K. M. (2019, January 4). Deindividuation. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/deindividuation ; this article writes about the psychological research about deindividualisation theory reporting on academic research studies in a similar way to my style of article writing. Can you please help me to try and get this article that I have laboured over for over a month, on to wiki? Maybe if you need to send this long question to help wiki help desk, please do so. Thank you, fitwrite. Fitwrite (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fitwrite, too see that your draft is written almost like an Essay a Reviewer does not need more than a couple of minutes. Why the (experienced) Reviewer was thinking that it needs more secondary sources would be best to ask himself so I allow myself to ping him here @Bkissin:. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I will let you all sort things out, please also see my third question here about my suggestion to just let wiki users edit it further, thanks f.w. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, I declined this for the Essay issues and for notability. Perhaps it should have been a decline for WP:NOT or WP:OR. I'm currently on a break/hiatus from AfC for precisely these kinds of issues. If another editor believes the article is ready for mainspace, then by all means accept it. Bkissin (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks, and sorry if I have a critical tone in my questions here. I am just a bit upset and wanting article published. Ignore my possibly over critical tone in my longer question posted ahead, before I read your reply. Well sorry it has just been about three weeks since I first submitted article and I am anxious to get things moving. Please if another editor can publish it to main space I would be very thankfull. Thank you, fitwrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fitwrite, we have editors here waiting for months to get their draft reviewed since we have over 4,000 articles waiting for review so please be patient. But in general please take a moment and review your draft regarding the comments which were made, especially the WP:OR Part seems significant. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:50, 25 February 2021 review of submission by SecretName1234

edit


Theroadislong commented that there are zero independent, reliable sources for Black Gryph0n, so I followed the Wiki advice and looked for internet news sources. There are many [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 

  I don't know if these are reliable sources, if they aren't, please tell me how to find reliable sources.  The  Wiki help pages say to search "news" sources on the internet, which I did.

  I look at Black Gryph0n's contemporaries, and they don't have as big a presence as Black Gryph0n (for example, Michelle Creber), yet they have Wiki pages.

  Is over 4-million Youtube subscribers noteworthy?  Eleven Filmography references on IMDb?  Large Spotify following?  Please tell me why these are not noteworthy reliable sources.

  Thanks!


SecretName1234 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName1234, as far as I see your draft had indeed only primary sources like YouTube and Spotify so of course it was declined by @Theroadislong:. And it was rejected just because this article has been deleted several times before as far as I see. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.hypable.com/10-toss-a-coin-to-your-witcher-remixes-the-witcher/
  2. ^ https://primaryignition.com/2020/06/10/youtube-spotlight-ill-make-a-jedi-out-of-you-by-the-clarkson-twins/
  3. ^ https://azednews.com/santa-cruz-valley-unified-hosts-steam-and-wellness-night/
  4. ^ https://www.simplemost.com/this-guys-harry-potter-impressions-are-amazing/
  5. ^ https://www.slashgear.com/youtube-rewind-2019-tries-to-be-fair-but-is-it-05602412/
  6. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/lil-deuce-deuce-beep-beep-sheep-1.4063071
  7. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/finalists-for-2020-shorty-awards-which-wont-have-physical-event-2020-3#youtube-musician-team-internet-30
  8. ^ https://www.altpress.com/news/man_vocal_impersonation_brendon_urie_billie_joe_armstrong_oli_sykes/
  9. ^ https://insidethemagic.net/2020/06/disney-musical-crossovers-mg1/
  10. ^ https://www.distractify.com/p/shorty-awards-nominees-youtube
  11. ^ https://www.dualshockers.com/just-dance-2018-tracklist-ubisoft-ps4-switch-xbox/

22:21:08, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite

edit


Another question about completing my article: My second question is much simplier: how do I get the table at the top of my article into a nice table form with cell lines and a grey or light blue background. I followed wiki-markup guides to try to do this but it would not take the code and only allowed the table in the current less attractive format.

Fitwrite (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:02:01, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite

edit


The page cut off before I could finish question so I will ask again: I spent over a month labouring away to write not only an acceptable article for wiki but even a good or featured one. I tried to emulate Theory of Literature ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Literature ) as an example. Is the reason my article is not on wiki more just an academic ego struggle where people are saying my article is not a great one etc.? If the debate is over greatness and not simple acceptability then may I suggest my article, which seemed to be, being legible and referencing sources, may I then suggest to deem my article acceptable, publish it and allow wiki users to edit and improve it, to make it more "encyclopedic". This would seem more like what I understood wiki to be about; my understanding of wiki was that it was a place where users were free to add their own edits and articles, the writing would appear published instantly and then other users would be able to improve upon the articles. The need to get an article perfect before publishing is new to me and makes wiki more like a book such as Encyclopedia Britannica, where publishers have to accept a manuscript and it is edited to perfection before going to print, which is not, I thought the original manifesto of wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration, Fitwrite

Fitwrite (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:10:09, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Johnadams11

edit

Hello: my draft article on Richard "Bigo" Barnett was rejected by CommanderWaterford with the comment that I consult Wikipedia:Notability (people) One Event.

I've been thinking about this for most of a week, and would request some guidance based on the logic I've layed out below:

The linked WP article states:

"In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."


So far, so good.

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. "




Clear that the Capitol Riot was highly significant. Plain that Barnett's role was not large. Clear that he fails under this concept. We move on:

"When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."



Clear that this is the standard which must be used. What was the magnitude of Barnett's involvement in this major event? Let's start with an easy measurement using the example given. A Google search of Howard Leslie Brennan yields 7.4M organic search results. A search of Richard Barnett Yields 31.6M. This may not in itself be dispositive, but it does signal that an immediate finding of non-notability appears at odds with a very obvious and objective point of measurement.

Now let's go a bit deeper. The single most notable person in the January 6th attack was one Jake Angeli, for whom there is now a Wikipedia page. A Google search of Jake Angeli yields 3.8M results.

It seems to me that in order to assess that Barnett "is not sufficiently notable for inclusion" one has to be applying some metric of notability that I do not yet understand. It is here, that I'm seeking input.

Many thanks. Johnadams11 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnadams11 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnadams11. Good job working through Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event.
Things go wrong where you try to assess the magnitude of Barnett's involvement. Google searches are a bad way to evaluate or compare notability, for numerous reasons. For one thing, there aren't really millions of Google hits for those three names. If you go to the last result, you'll find there are only 162, 168, and 173 (although results can be different for every searcher, another problem). If Ghits were an acceptable measure, they would suggest that none of these three people is notable. But Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria specifically excludes using search engine statistics to evaluate notability. The "Google test" is also one of the notability fallacies to avoid in deletion discussions.
A reviewer's job is to turn away drafts that more likely than not would be deleted. Comparing drafts to other pages (instead of to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) is fraught with problems, but let's study the example you put forward. Jake Angeli was nominated for deletion. The main argument for deletion was the one given by the reviewer of your draft. The most persuasive counter argument was that Angeli had media coverage before the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. In the end the article was narrowly kept. The draft doesn't show significant coverage of Barnett before the event, so you shouldn't expect that it would be kept if it were moved to article space. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the input. I would make several notes to the points you made. First, the Google Limits as well as the arguments to avoid in deletion are arguments almost exclusively on the limitations of search, and the fact that many sources may not be indexed. The point I was making relied on the presence of results, not their absence. I think Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria is more on point to my question. The reason I thought Google results would be of interest is that I didn't really think it was debatable that Barnett had received significant global coverage from reliable sources. For example: NBC News, ABC News, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Associated Press, Fox News, Reuters, Australia, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Taiwan, Canada, England.
So, my point of course didn't depend on Google. I was merely seeking a common vocabulary for discussion of the RS stories in general. That said, your points on Angeli are well taken. The bit of history he has prior to 1/6 nudges the debate outside of 1E and makes the decision far simpler. For Barnett, I try to have heart for the idea that he was a minor player in a major event, and otherwise a person of no unique interest. However, and this argues in favor of waiting -- I think there's an excellent chance that future histories of 1/6, will often include that iconic photo of Barnett, driving future researchers to ask: "who was that guy?" Thanks again.

Johnadams11 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_February_25&oldid=1009996824"