Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 24 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 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.


May 25

edit

03:39:51, 25 May 2021 review of draft by 1.39.250.68

edit


1.39.250.68 (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates the claim or removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing biographical content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:25, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Sneha-SIPL

edit


Need suggestion to improve or submit draft for Dr. Shivani Khetan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shivani_Khetan as the article is having significant coverage, sources and also reliable.

Sneha-SIPL (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without speaking to the non-English sources, every single English source cited is unacceptable - you have interviews, online storefronts, and passing mentions. No third-party in-depth coverage of her. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:10, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Infantry28

edit


Infantry28 (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar pages on Wikipedia. Why it has been rejected when it also followed the prescribed format? What advise can you give to have this page published? Thank you

The draft has no content and no references. If this is an attempt at a biography of a living person, follow guidelines at WP:BLP David notMD (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:42, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Mridula Mukhia

edit


Mridula Mukhia (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC) I am trying to make a wiki page for Siliguri Times which is a news web portal, but unfortunately, I'm not being able to. Every time I upload my composition, it says that it's more like an advertisement. When I remove all the links and just write the basic information, the response says that the info is not enough to make the page. I don't know what am I doing wrong. Could you kindly help?[reply]

Mridula Mukhia Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You have not offered any such sources and it seems unlikely that they would exist for such a new organization. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you are associated with this outlet, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:16, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Nintednic13

edit


Hi I'd like to know what exactly is wrong with the article 'Rahul Suntah' as I made sure there is information from as much reliable sources as possible. Also could I know what exactly is wrong with the way the article was written?

Nintednic13 (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nintednic13 The sources offered seem to be interviews with him or merely cite the existence of his music. A Wikipedia article about a musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Interviews are a primary source and do not establish notability. Having a lot of YouTube views is not part of the notability criteria(mostly because that is easily gamed and/or means little). Merely releasing an album also does not establish notability; please review the notability criteria to see if this musician meets at least one aspect of it. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:33, 25 May 2021 review of submission by 83.218.248.79

edit


Dear editors, please re-reviev the page. We are deleted all un allowed data and correct the structure. 83.218.248.79 (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? If you are E.tsymbalenko, please log in. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Draft:Terra0

edit

Draft:Terra0

I recently wrote my first Wikipedia article. It was rejected due to insufficient, reliable sources. I have understood the criticism and corrected the errors to the best of my knowledge, but I lack insight into whether there are other points of criticism, which is why I would be happy about precise assistance (if needed)! In general, do I just resubmit rejected items after the issues have been resolved or is it recommended to discuss them in Talk pages first? Thanks! PLTPRX (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:34:49, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Hockey4lyfe

edit


Hockey4lyfe (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey4lyfe You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:40:45, 25 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bela Adu

edit


Hi, I have put a lot of effort into creating the wikipedia page for the Romanian musician, Zoli Toth. I have provided a wealth of references from newspapers and magazines that are in no way related to the subject of this article. It is my impression that the reviewer limited his evaluation to the references that are in English. Google translate works very well from Romanian into English, so it should be no problem to provide a fair review. Thank you very much for your help! Bela Adu (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Bela Adu Bela Adu (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bela Adu You have a lot of sources- in a funny way, that's actually problematic refbombing. Wikipedia prefers a smaller number of sources with more significant coverage; if you need a lot of sources each with a little piece of information, that shows the person does not get significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person or a notable musician. Many of your sources seem to be citing the existence of the person's music or the individual pieces of recognition they got. Please see Your First Article. I might suggest focusing a draft on the top three most significant sources about this person, summarizing what they say about him. Sources that just tell what he has done or show where his music can be found or are a routine announcement do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:48, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Josie.mcjoserson

edit


Hello,

I submitted an article draft for the Virtana company. I received a notification that my submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Please help me understand why this is the case. I referred to the Dynatrace Wikipedia page (it is company that is similar to Virtana) and used similar reference publications (except for press releases).

While a few of the historical references in my submission might be brief (after all they are just setting the context for how the subject got to the present), most references discuss the subject or its products/services in detail.

I limited my references to secondary sources consisting of business or industry publications. Also, I did not reference the subject’s web site or its own publications, press releases, etc.

  • I have 26 third-party references from business and technology related publications’ articles related to Virtana and/or its products.
    • 14 references are from within the past 3 years (2018 - present)
    • 12 references are after the company renamed itself to Virtana
    • 14 references are from when the company was named Virtual Instruments
  • Business publications
    • Silicon Valley Business Journal
    • CIO Review
    • ExecutiveBiz
  • Industry/Trade publications or Analyst reports
    • SearchStorage
    • CRN (Computer Reseller News)
    • Network World
    • Network Computing
    • InfoStor
    • The Register
    • eWeek
    • ComputerWeekly
    • Data Center Dynamics
    • ZDnet
    • siliconANGLE
    • Intellyx
    • Bloor Research
    • SNMP Center
    • IT Pro
    • Myce
    • The Silicon Review

I would like to modify my submission as necessary to make it compliant with Wikipedia’s requirements. To that end, would you please help by answering the following?

Q: Which of these publications/references are not considered reliable?

Q: Are there areas of information that are missing? I included the company name, what it does, its CEO, history, partnerships, and industry recognition. Would including a description of its current products be helpful?

Thank you very much!

Josie.mcjoserson (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josie.mcjoserson I am wondering if you have a connection to this company. If so, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.
Regarding your inquiry, it's not usually a good idea to use other articles as a guide for yours. It could be that those other articles are also inappropriate. Please read other stuff exists. We try to address such articles, but we can only address what we know about; it is possible to get inappropriate content by us.
You may not be using press releases, but most of your sources seem to be announcements of routine business activities, this does not establish notability. A Wikipedia article about a company should 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. Significant coverage goes beyone merely telling what the company does, and gives in depth analysis and comments. Please see Your First Article. (your draft is linked to in this posting, it does not need to be reproduced here) 331dot (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:28:13, 25 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ResourceMaverick

edit


Trying to get a page set up for author Marin Katusa, I am not good with computers and the to the bibliography, any help would be appreciated

ResourceMaverick (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ResourceMaverick Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". You have written what this person has done- Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Sources that just tell what the person has done and interviews with him do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. If you work for or represent him, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:06, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Telenovelafan215

edit


The article was declined because: it does not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I have added 21 references for the series from different sources. On my talk page I was told that because the subject is an upcoming TV series. Future TV series are seldom notable, and this is no exception. It is premiering in 47 days (July 11, 2021). I would really like to get the article approved but I don't know what else to do to improve it. I was also accused of being paid for my edits because I want the article to be approved. I have created many articles for TV shows when they were still upcoming series and had not premiered yet and not once were they rejected. This is the first time I have had this problem where an article for an upcoming television series was moved to a draft space.

Telenovelafan215 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Telenovelafan215: GermanKity moved the article to draft on 24 May. WP:DRAFTIFY says "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." You expanded the page and moved it back to article space, plainly an objection. GermanyKity moved the page to draft a second time on 25 May, an abuse of draftification. The correct course of action if they still felt the topic was not notable would have been to take it to AfD. Draftifying a page multiple times is disruptive and a violation of policy. You would be within your rights to pursue the matter at a drama board, but I hope this can be resolved this without that.
GermanKity also added {{Undisclosed paid}} to the draft without explanation, and posted {{uw-paid1}} at User talk:Telenovelafan215#May 2021. Telenovelafan215 replied there, "I have never received compensation for my edits here on Wikipedia". It's fine to use these templates when one has a strong suspicion, but once the question has been answered, one is expected to assume good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. No evidence of conflict of interest, let alone undisclosed paid editing, has been presented, so I have removed the template from the draft. If anyone has evidence, report the matter at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
Afc reviewer Robert McClenon declined to move the draft to article space on the grounds of notability, noting that "The subject is an upcoming TV series. Future TV series are seldom notable, and this is no exception." Guideline WP:NTV says, "[A] television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network". So once the series airs on Las Estrellas it likely will be notable. The guideline goes on to spell out situations in which shows are not eligible before airing (none of which apply here). We can infer that there are also cases in which shows are notable before they air.
The cited coverage is almost entirely based on announcements by the network/producers (i.e. press releases), social media posts by the producers/actors (the modern-day version of press releases), and an interview with the lead actor. None of these are independent sources, regardless of where they're published. The best bets for demonstrating notability are (1) the brief analysis on Infobae regarding how the comedy will have to change from the 1980s and 1990s, because the gynocologist's harrassment of women will no longer be funny,[1] and (2) the analysis on El Sol de Mexico, but that's only about 100 words.[2]
Wikipedia is supposed to treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of them. If you're comfortable that the draft does so, comfortable enough that you're willing to risk AfD, then move it to article space again. Plenty of other upcoming series have never been challenged, such as The Big Leap, La Brea (TV series), CSI: Vegas, and Ordinary Joe. If you aren't sure, then wait until after it airs. Once people have seen it, more is likely to be written about it in independent, reliable, secondary sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Worldbruce, for your assessment of the situation, with which I agree, but I will add a few comments. It appears that this was a case of two overly enthusiastic editors both trying to do the right thing. Reviewers should be held to a higher standard than article authors, and User:GermanKity made mistakes. The more common mistake, which is a mistake, was double draftification. The more serious mistake was use of the Paid Editing tag on an editor whose history is that of an enthusiastic editor, not of a paid editor. I agree with the first draftification. My own opinion is that if the article had been nominated for deletion after the second move to article space, it would have been deleted. So I suggest that User:Telenovelafan215 wait until the middle of July, and add Reception information, and either resubmit the draft, or move the draft to article space. I have reminded User:GermanKity that an article should not be moved to draft space twice, but can be nominated for deletion the second time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:45:32, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Russlowe

edit


Hi! I submitted this for re-review a while ago and I can’t figure out why it’s taking so long… I really need to get it published. Thanks for your help. Russlowe (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the message displayed whenever anyone asks a question here, "If you are waiting for a reviewer to review your draft, please be patient, as drafts are reviewed in no specific order. The reviewing process currently has a 5+ months backlog, with 4,966 pending submissions waiting for review. Please do not ask for a reviewer to tell you the status of your draft or to review it faster." Your draft has been pending for less than two months, which really isn't all that bad. We're all volunteers here, and someone will get to your draft eventually. Thanks for understanding! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_May_25&oldid=1026158652"