Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 April 1

Help desk
< March 31 << Mar | April | May >> April 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.


April 1

edit

04:47:15, 1 April 2022 review of submission by Freetruthteller

edit

Thank you for your quick reply. I translated the article via the Wikipedia tool and used the same sources as in the original. I will supplement them additionally with English language ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetruthteller (talkcontribs) 04:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I translated article according to instruction I found. Due to the fact I'm not autoconfirmed user yet, I'd like to ask for reviewing the article and move it to the mian article section. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me Link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freetruthteller/Squad303

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freetruthteller (talkcontribs) 04:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Freetruthteller: I have moved the draft to Draft:Squad303 and added a template that allows you to submit it for review. It looks like it is probably a notable organisation, but while waiting for review you should try to remove all tweets used as references, especially where they are used to present claims made by the group as facts. "In total, more than 50,000,000 messages have been sent via 1920.in" is such an example; "Squad303 reported shortly thereafter that they had managed to circumvent the introduced restrictions and messages are effectively delivered to Russian citizens" is a little better since it doesn't state it as a fact that "messages are effectively delivered", but it would be highly preferrable to have a secondary source. --bonadea contributions talk 05:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:36:38, 1 April 2022 review of submission by Utilito

edit

What sources are acceptable to prove military service and the rank acheived? THX Utilito (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utilito I assume this is about the Lee Thomason draft(I've placed a link in the template above). It appears you are writing about yourself, while not forbidden(especially as a draft), it is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Please also be aware that a Wikipedia article about you is not necessarily desirable.
Military service should only be mentioned if independent reliable sources discuss your military service. Any article about you should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what is a reliable source to reference regarding military service. I have printed service records, but how could you see them or verify them. Utilito (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Utilito, if you click the blue words in 331dot's reply (labeled "reliable sources"), the resulting page will explain what reliable sources are.
Have any newspapers or magazines written an article about your military service? That is the kind of reference that is needed. Wikipedia won't verify "primary sources" such as your printed service records. Sorry, but WP operates on a philosophy that any reader can theoretically follow your "citation" to a published source (online, or published and printed material in a library, for example). 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:47, 1 April 2022 review of submission by Tanjirokiller

edit

How can I make this topic notable? and also give some reasons for rejecting the article

Tanjirokiller (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjirokiller No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. While this man leads a branch of a political party, he does not hold public office(which would meet the definition of a notable politician) and coverage of him seems limited which would mean he would not meet the broader definition of a notable person. This is why the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:43, 1 April 2022 review of submission by Annonymus45

edit

my draft was deletet , so i want to know why so that i can fix the problem. Annonymus45 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annonymus45 Your draft, Draft:Blacckidd, was not deleted, only declined. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. Any Wikipedia article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. This is usually extremely difficult for people to do about themselves. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Annonymus45 Please see WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:18:50, 1 April 2022 review of submission by Lastsolutiontechnolgy

edit


Lastsolutiontechnolgy (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lastsolutiontechnology: We're not a personal website host.Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:34:00, 1 April 2022 review of submission by Irodri63739082927

edit

I just wanted to help you add more articles and you're rejecting that. Irodri63739082927 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irodri63739082927, you provided no sources and Wikipedia is not fandom, so its unlikely to have a full article on a minor fictional character.Slywriter (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I already put the references. Irodri63739082927 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are valid references on wikipedia. Need reliable secondary sources.Slywriter (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Irodri63739082927 Fandom and Dictionary.com are not reliable sources (not to mention Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Wikis (such as Wikipedia), fan sites/forums and the like are user generated so not reliable. Sources need editorial oversight and a history of fact-checking, similar to a traditional newspaper. S0091 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]