Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 July 6

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< July 5 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 7 >
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.


July 6

edit

Request on 03:33:36, 6 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Amaria2016

edit


Dear Team, one problem with my article is that most of my sources are old newspapers that are not available online. Is there any way I can provide them as sources? Unfortunately I haven't found the same information online. Thanks for the help!

Amaria2016 (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Template:Cite news. We accept offline sources, if enough bibliographical information is provided to look the newspaper article up in an offline archive. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:55:16, 6 July 2021 review of draft by Cog360

edit


Hi,

I have a few questions in regards to my draft.

1. Overall I want to know if the submission is too long? I have edited it down but when compared with submissions on similar subjects it is more detailed.

2. Should I include a table for the subject, as per the example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Murrell

3. Is it best to change the order of the article so that the 'Early Life and Education' section is below 'Career'.

Many thanks in advance

Cog360 (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cog360, I'll answer your questions as you've numbered them;
1. The length seems ok, though I have not read it in depth.
2. WP:Infoboxes can be a bit fiddly to get right, particularly for beginners, so leaving it for someone else to do is fine.
3. The order is correct. A biography should be in chronological order so the events of childhood and youth come before the subject's career.
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:28:01, 6 July 2021 review of submission by Tedtechno

edit


Tedtechno (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedtechno: Hi, the draft was rejected for being advertising and promotion, Wikipedia is not for advertising, please do not write biased articles or articles that doesn't follow the neutral point of view policy. Essentially, please do not advertise, or write opinionated articles on Wikipedia. Justiyaya 06:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:42:06, 6 July 2021 review of submission by Pankaj todabhim

edit


Pankaj todabhim (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj todabhim You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:38:27, 6 July 2021 review of submission by Krishnarthiindia

edit


Krishnarthiindia (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnarthiindia You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have a relationship with the topic, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:03, 6 July 2021 review of submission by Ahamed.naim

edit


Ahamed.naim (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahamed.naim You have not asked a question. I would advise you of the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:59:34, 6 July 2021 review of submission by Sylviii

edit


Hello, At the outset, please forgive me for my english, I am not a native speaker. Here is what brings me there: I am surprised to have my draft refused, seeing that: - I have used a number of diverse and reliable sources, although I must admit there are not a very many available on the net. - In my opinion, there are no outrageous peacock terms in the draft. But if there are, I would be glad to rectify. - I think Simon Steensland passes the "notability" test, if by that one means "worthy of notice", or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". His musical production is important in qualitative and quantitative respects. The list of criteria I've checked seemed to me perfectly compatible with an article about this musician. Would you be kind enough to help me improve this draft? I certainly hope it can be made acceptable within the rules of Wikipedia. Best regards and thank you for your time. Sylviii

Sylviii (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sylviii You have the common definition of notability correct, but Wikipedia has a special definition of notability for topics. For musicians, the Wikipedia definition of notability is written on this page. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:06, 6 July 2021 review of submission by Mark Mireles

edit


I am just getting back to get this fixed, I am still confused a little as to all the changes I have made to Mark’s page. I would like to resolve any issues, it seems I had too much info before and now not enough. Mark is very much a real person and notable in the martial arts world. Being one of a few who are listed on Jean Jaques Machado’s page next to Joe Rogan and Chuck Norris.

All the Police awards and works are all documented too, I had links to all those articles, but then I had too many external links and it was more of a promotional/advertising page as opposed to being just a brief history and overview of Mark.

I want to fix this, I am new to Wikipedia as you can tell from all my earlier submissions.

Thanks and I look forward to your response.

Mark Mireles (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mireles Your username is Mark Mireles, but you seem to be speaking as if you are not him. If you are not him, you should change your username immediately at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. Assuming you are not him, I will say that the main issue is that you have not offered any independent reliable sources about him, only website associated with the organizations he was associated with. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:28, 6 July 2021 review of draft by Kwokng

edit


With the recent feedback to the submission, it is clear I need help with this submission as the topic meets the notably criteria. There are several books on adapted physical activity published by several leading publishers including Human Kinetics (who also publish adapted physical activity quarterly) - (https://www.amazon.com/Developmental-Adapted-Physical-Activity-Assessment-ebook/dp/B079RLKKVY/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=Adapted+physical+activity&qid=1625585608&sr=8-3) , University of Alberta press (https://www.amazon.com/Adapted-Physical-Activity-Robert-Steadward/dp/0888643756), Mcgraw-Hill (https://www.amazon.com/Adapted-Physical-Activity-Recreation-Sport/dp/0697295133), and others.

Further more this is an academic field so there are many sources available that are credible for wiki. I just have not had the time to build the sources together and had hoped I could start up the page and get the test of the community to build up the page based on the current structure.

Would it be possible for someone to help to get the page up and running, as we (the scientific field/practitioners, researchers, whoever is interested - as many visits to the ifapa page goes to "what is apa?" show on ifapa.net https://ifapa.net/what-is-apa/") really need a wiki page on this topic.

Kwokng (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kwokng I'm wondering who "we" is. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kwokng Is that the nature of your COI? No one "needs" a Wikipedia article(not just a "page"). Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results or aiding your organization or its field. Those may be side benefits but are not our primary goal. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources state about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I see, that is a good point. Perhaps I presented the issue incorrectly. I have only started this page as a response to the commonly search page, that comes from google of 'what is apa'. naturally, I would have thought Wikipedia articles (apologies for the use of the term 'page') would be a good alternative, so they would find this information from Wikipedia, and not that they would come to our site with a high bounce rate for this. So, I am not doing it to aid the organisation. this is a response to a common request ifapa.net website naturally gets.
In terms of notability, there are text books, journals, and conferences on the topic. Can you tell me how that is not considered as 'notable' in terms of significant coverage, with reliable sources (journals are double blind peer-review with no APC - i.e. is not a predatory) and sources. I recognise that there might be some issue with 'independent of subject', and can remove them away, if someone could give guidance on which pieces are deemed to not be independent, Furthermore, the page 'Adapted Physical Education', (it is already linked to the draft), is only one area of Adapted Physical Activity, so it it can stand as sufficiently notable, how can the encompassing body of Adapted Physical Activity be published?
Kwokng I think I might follow the suggestions of the reviewers and expand the existing article mentioned by them. Most of the sources seem to be just basic or routine coverage, not significant coverage. If reputable journals and books have things to say about this topic, summarizing them would be a good start. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:18:22, 6 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ParulBedhotiya

edit


The draft I had submitted was declined with the reason - cited references do not show significant coverage that are published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I have 2-3 articles that talk about the company in detail. But I am not sure if they will get rejected again. If that happens, that is, the article is declined because the reviewer found the references again not significant or reliable, will my draft get deleted? And what happens if it gets deleted, will I be able to rewrite after a year or so, when there are more articles to support?

ParulBedhotiya (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:32, 6 July 2021 review of draft by Shotacoffey

edit


Could I please ask for some help with editing to get this page ready to submit? I made updates to try to address issues, but would love another set of eyes on this, so that I can get it published. Shotacoffey (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is promotion-by-overdetail. You're writing an encyclopaedia article, not an advertorial; describe the subject in broad strokes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:44:25, 6 July 2021 review of draft by Deng92.9

edit


Deng92.9 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't how to add my infobox to my article and I would like to know so that I can add it to my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deng92.9 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deng92.9, Help:Infobox has a very easy to understand explanation. Similarly, you can also base it off of a completed infobox from another page as long as you make sure to remove any parameters that don't apply to the subject. For example, since Yoh is a politician, you can use the infobox in Joe Biden as a template.
If you need additional help regarding this, I recommend you go to the main Help Desk. Curbon7 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:46, 6 July 2021 review of submission by Rehanzebkpk

edit


Rehanzebkpk (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: Draft:Rehan Zeb Khan
Rehanzebkpk, You didn't ask a question. Regarding the draft, ALL biographies of living persons must be supported by inline citations consisting of reliable sources. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:20, 6 July 2021 review of draft by ACDW

edit


Hey there,

I'm trying to help a friend create a page on Ofra Cosmetics. We're both pretty new to Wikipedia article creation, so we adapted the page for Colour Pop Cosmetics. The Ofra page was denied for inclusion even though it has sources from Glamour, Allure, and Bustle, which are pre-eminent publications in the fashion and beauty industries.

Any advice you have on how we can polish this article or what we can add for its inclusion in Wikipedia will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! - ACDW

ACDW (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ACDW Please review conflict of interest. The sources you offered- though from decent magazines- are not acceptable for establishing notability. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Brief mentions, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay -- basically the articles I cited were probably off press releases, etc. I'll have to do some digging to see what I can find (it's harder because I usually go to Wikipedia first for that kind of information, haha). Thanks! ACDW (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ACDW Also check out Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing due to [[1]]. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:52, 6 July 2021 review of draft by 2600:1700:2160:4A70:F1EB:4831:C704:508E

edit


Just wondering why Amazon along with Walmart ,the Library of Congress and all major book sellers are not good sources.

2600:1700:2160:4A70:F1EB:4831:C704:508E (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't offer any sources; the draft is just an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this author, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable author. We don't want simple mentions that merely confirm the existence of this person. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, wait a minute, check out the page history. How did an IP decline this draft? Curbon7 (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Perhaps it was someone inadvertently logged out? 331dot (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably was, but I didn't know they still had access to the toolset. Curbon7 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is possible to decline a draft without the toolset. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The booksellers are because we don't link to, let alone cite, online storefronts (The only reason one would cite them is for release date or ISBN, and the publisher would be a batter source for both), and the Library of Congress because its job is to document/collect every book in existence which makes it meaningless for notability (since most every book published in the US is going to have a LoC catalogue card). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_July_6&oldid=1033161677"