Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 March 3

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< March 2 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 4 >
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.


March 3 edit

08:38:32, 3 March 2022 review of submission by Sethboyk2 edit

Have had the draft for this page rejected, suggestion is that the references are 'passing' as far as i can tell each of the references are from independent press publications and directly relate to the topic referenced, none of the articles are sponsored or paid for and as far as I can tell the company has at least as significant presence in the industry and sport as other companies already present on Wikipedia, any help appreciated!

Sethboyk2 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sethboyk2 The draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean it could not be resubmitted, but a decline means that it can be submitted. Please understand that each draft is judged on its own merits, and the existence of other articles has no bearing on this one. It could be that these other articles you have seeen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, so it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. See other stuff exists.
The issue is not necessarily the specific sources themselves, but their content. The first source you give is based on interviews and a tour of the company factory given by the company. The second source describe the manufacturing process they use and has very little about the company itself. The third is based on an interview with the company founder; interviews are primary sources and do not establish notability. The fourth source is a promotional piece about the company, written by someone invited in by the company. The fifth is a brief profile-like entry about the company, not significant coverage. The last sources seems to describe a new type of helmet technology and mentions the company little(from what I could tell, it is lengthy).
A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article. I see that other than one edit twelve years ago, you have exclusively edited about this company. If you have a connection to this company, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:12:40, 3 March 2022 review of submission by Vandanadhasmana edit


Vandanadhasmana (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied it from my own website. it is my company website and I have written the article for the same.

Vandanadhasmana Yes, we don't want you to do that. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself, it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. Your company website is the proper place for you to tell the world about your company.
The Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to formally declare your paid editing relationship, see WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:35, 3 March 2022 review of submission by NoelNixon2005 edit

Hi Sir. The film got officially announced yesterday and here is the article https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/pathan-teaser-shah-rukh-khan-calls-india-his-religion-deepika-padukone-john-abraham-7797100/ NoelNixon2005 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NoelNixon2005 As the reviewer said, films generally do not merit articles before their release. See WP:NFF. The only exceptions would be if there is some aspect of the production of the film itself that receives significant coverage and is notable, beyond mere announcements of casting, crew, the commencement of principal photography, etc. An example of that is Rust (suspended film). As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. Once the film is released, it will then be notable and you may resubmit this then. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:42, 3 March 2022 review of submission by Kishore pathikonda edit


Am Kishore pathikonda actor Pavan acharya "S big fan I have written about him draft article but his draft has been declined I have given all information about him in draft but not accepted are they didn't moved to article space so kindly approve it his Wikipedia's draft and moved page to article space Even I have given reliable sources but not accepted so kindly fix this issue

Thank you Regards Pavan Acharya Film actor and Telivesion actor

Kishore pathikonda (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore pathikonda Please read the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, it is strongly advised that people not attempt to write about themselves. There are also reasons that an article about you is not necessarily a good thing. It appears that you do not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source. Wikidata is not a reliable source. (Google) Searches are never a reliable source, due to their dynamics (Individual search results might be). The Morning Herald Piece is a repub of a press release. The Times of India links are dead (and it isn't particularely reliable anyway. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:20, 3 March 2022 review of submission by 2601:18E:8201:7B50:806F:263C:209C:4184 edit

I request this draft be re-reviewed - Draft:Peter Gena (without re-submitting) for the reason that the editor who declined cited "non-reliable sources" - unreliable sources may, in this draft according to this rejection, include The New York Times, National Podcast by national journalist and cultural figure Studs Terkel (who is a living figure on Wikipedia), the library archives of the State University of New York, Buffalo - collected papers of this living composer, and the French government, and others. It was a bizarre rejection on that basis. I wrote most of the article and could not parse how The New York Times and SUNY Buffalo, The French Government, and others are perceived as inadequate sources. Can you? A lot of articles would need to be taken down under those editorial decisions. :) I would also ask for a review of this editor for their editing privileges. They did not provide other reasoning of merit. I look forward to the exchange, especially with respect to the NYT, French Government, SUNY Buffalo, Studs Terkel, The Chicago Reader, and other rejected, unreliable sources. Thank you. 2601:18E:8201:7B50:806F:263C:209C:4184 (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All references to his own website should be removed. In most cases the issues are not with the sources themeselves, but their content. If the coverage is not significant enough, the person would not merit an article. Please describe your three best independent reliable sources below. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually only two brief references to his website? Including one that is a record of a book? I suppose that could just be the publisher's website of the book? The only thing on the page is the book's publishing info. You ask for the three best independent reliable sources.

1. This is from the State University of Buffalo of New York. It is this composer's archive at a university library, i.e. his collected papers preserved for posterity. It lists numerus items including scores, letters, photographs and serves to validate the fact that this composer is both a historic figure by nature of having an institutional archive of merit in perpetuity (or at least as long as the university exists, it is part of New York state as a state in the US, I guess you could both check the Department of Education in the Federal government to confirm New York's eduation department and also the Constitution to confirm that New York is part of the USA to confirm viability overseen by the Department of Education. In all serious! Here is the link to New York's SUNY BUFFALO ARCHIVE OF PETER GENA: https://www.empireadc.org/search/catalog/nbuumu_ubmu0085

2. The New York Times. Widely known throughout the world as the best English language newspaper, but refer to Wikipedia article for further verification of The New York Times, maybe they were from another country that has not heard of the paper. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/07/08/260913.html?pageNumber=60

3. It was hard to choose a third, but I would the Studs Terkel about Podcast about John Cage, see Wikipedia, one of America's most important composers, and also the importance and validity of Studs Terkel (again see Wikipedia).

To me, the most profound verification is in the archive at SUNY Buffalo. In general, if an archive at a university has been dedicated to your life and work, it presumes international and national importance, and also provide bounteous documentation. The other sources in addition to the New York Times and the Studs Terkel broadcast mostly back up biographical material and also proof of the importance of the research importance of his work as a professor for 40 years, as well as document his work producing major musical festivals in the 1980s.

The coverage complaint was superficial without commentary, which is why I ask that the editor's privileges be reviewed. There is no further commentary explaining or discussing what coverage is or is not significant and how the article can provide acceptable "coverage". ""Coverage" as a term strikes me as something that amounts to "media coverage" on the internet - I am not sure I have ever heard of books, recordings, inclusions in museums and exhibitions, and archives referred to as "coverage". Have you? In any case, without inventing new meanings for words, let's assume the editor meant "a variety of credible sources" by abbreviation. I believe the sources referred to, in addition to those cited in the article are more than enough to establish functional meaning for publication. 2 out of 12 sources refer to the composer's website, maybe 1/6 is too much? I think a lot of articles would have to be deleted if this formula of percentiles was used. However, if the references should be deleted, I will do that now, the information is duplicated elsewhere. The prospect of removing personal websites as sources across Wikipedia will require a great deal of editing and I will only be able to do this draft, I hope that is ok! 2601:18E:8201:7B50:B876:D611:3420:333E (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:8201:7B50:B876:D611:3420:333E (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Studs Terkel podcast is not a source for Wikipedia. So, it has been removed as a source and only used as an external link. There are so many other sources that are reliable, but I suppose I would go with the Chicago Reader, as it has a circulation of several million and online access, the latter of which seems to be the relevant reference for the online encyclopedia. But, you could also go with any number of the academic papers on JSTOR or the important Lovely Music record label recordings or articles by Kyle Gann as sourced or otherwise. 2601:18E:8201:7B50:B876:D611:3420:333E (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have some good here, but this touches on an area where I have erred in the past (i.e. WP:NACADEMIC notability claims) and so I will defer to someone who has considerably more experience with such matters. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYT is a rundown of the festival acts. However, NYT does not mention the subject by name and that entire paragraph is a bit of WP:SYNTH using the three references. Didn't review anything else, just saw that the NYT wasn't evaluated. Oh and for WP:NACADEMIC, google scholar is useful to see how often they are cited by others.Slywriter (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this interesting in that these are sources for traditional publishers much more prominent than Wikipedia. In any case, other editors elsewhere did not question that notability of this individual with the same sources, especially considering the numerous individuals in this field who already have notability who less accomplished and have established far less longevity or whose pages are more akin to promotional than actual substance (see composer Michael Vincent Waller for a good example of an entry that appear to be written full of promotional quotes rather encyclopedic interest for detail).

In any case, it is useless to try to assess the response and I left this article behind. In any case, he is a notable figure - his collected artistic papers and scores, multiple awards, published articles, and books edited, published by traditional publishers, as well as his professional and public interactions indicate. It is not required that Wikipedia editors acknowledge that, although the very first editor had clearly stated Wikipedia standards of notability were not the problem. His artistic and pedagogical work was acknowledged by numerous real world accomplishments, the highlights of which were listed. He is older now and much less active. The SUNY Buffalo Peter Gena Collection, the award of the French government, the John Cage Reader book, and things like the podcasts with Studs Turkel, Other Minds, and his releases on famous experimental music labels, like Lovely Music, the documentation of the Kyle Gannarticle, etc. will suffice for a legacy and the Wikipedia article can come when are ready to cite better reasons. As it is useless, I gave this up. That said, I will mention the draft to others who have more time and wherewithal to meet your standards while I get back to my own work - with OUP. Like I said, the Peter Gena Collection at SUNY Buffalo, The John Cage Reader, the French government award, the decades of work on DNA Music, the New Music America festival, and the record releases on a historical music label, Lovely Music, known to all as the work of Robert Ashley’s widow, Mimi Johnson, that catalogues the most prominent musicians of that era, with diversity and identity factored in as well, these facts, existing by nature of their production, realization, and occurrence will do for Peter Gena. I think if there were editors that were familiar with the topics they edited this would be helpful. These sources would make more sense to them - for example, papers/collections are held by museums and institutions for notable artists in perpetuity requiring significant archival and research, time, and money and are awarded only in circumstances where it has been deemed of historic importance to preserve the physical materials, artworks, etc. Primary sources now removed had actually improved the draft by providing supplementary commentary on sources with significant independent coverage that offered the context. The removal of them weakened the draft and the resources for the readers. Other sources suggested by Wikipedia, including Wikiquotes, had also improved the draft. I will leave the draft will be given to someone who better understands what is up. I don’t have time to check this for typos, but it is accurate, as is the draft, which will later be taken up by someone more experienced in Wikipedia.2601:18E:8201:7B50:2C09:8AC3:9622:48E4 (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:07, 3 March 2022 review of submission by Hanaan dar edit

The page is about a movie, which is now announced, I request humbly, to review the page once again.

Hanaan dar (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:41:11, 3 March 2022 review of draft by Mobius Gerig edit


So, I made a draft for the Atlantic hurricane season after this season, and I want to know when it would be feasible to put the draft up to review. I do not want to be a too-sooner again. Not that's too bad when it happens once, but still.
Mobius Gerig (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:06, 3 March 2022 review of submission by Leon04ni edit

My draft got rejected. this is my first article that ive written and Im not entirely sure why it was rejected, if I could have some extra clarification that would be really helpful Leon04ni (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leon04ni It was only declined, not rejected, meaning resubmission is possible. Your draft is only sourced to IMDB, which is not a reliable source as it is user editable. Other claims are unsourced. A Wikipedia article about a person 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. All claims about a living person must be sourced, see WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_March_3&oldid=1081351915"