Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 May 30

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< May 29 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 31 >
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 30

edit

03:23:34, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Kenny Hodgart

edit


Hi there. I've had a submission rejected for not meeting minimum requirements for inline citations. My article is short and I have included several citations, so I would like to request help identifying specifically where more / different / better use of citations is needed. This is my first submission and I'm very much at sea. Thanks in advance for any replies. The article is Draft:Bruce Aitken

Kenny Hodgart (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenny Hodgart: firstly, please link to your draft (Draft:Bruce Aitken) so we don't have to go looking for it, thanks. Secondly, you should really make your COI declaration somewhere more visible and obvious than in an edit comment.
Now to answer your question, yes, I can see that you have included three inline citations, but that isn't enough to support the contents, as most of the draft is still unreferenced. (Meanwhile, you have several citations which are just piled together at the bottom, where they serve no purpose as far as supporting the contents goes.) Please note that every material statement, as well as anything potentially contentious, and also any private details such as DOB, must be clearly supported by citation to a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:15:49, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Guiderius

edit

This is my first Wikipedia submission. I have been told I need sources for my first 3 paragraphs. Please help by telling me what you would regard as acceptable sources. The paragraphs in question deal with the subject's dates of birth and death; education; and employment. Thank you. Guiderius (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guiderius It's actually quite simple. How do you know where and when she was born? Where did you find the information about her education, exibitions, scholarships, etc? The books, articles, websites, etc where you found that information are the sources you must reference. If you know something only because she or someone associated with her told you or you have access to private documents that are not available to the public you cannot include that information because it is unverifiable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:04, 30 May 2022 review of draft by DRI HQ

edit


My draft was rejected even though I've tried to write it according to Wikipedia standards and declared my COI on my user page. I've made more edits to make it more neutral, but it would be great if I could get feedback on how to improve it even more. Thank you.

DRI HQ (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRI HQ First, you will need to change your username immediately, please see how to do this on your user talk page. Second, Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell about itself and what it does- any article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Question: the user asked to be unblocked and to get a new username on their talk page, and that was denied. It looks like the user is trying to do what you have directed them to do, but they may have requested it imperfectly. Isn't there a better way to help a new editor? If they aren't going to be unblocked so they can change their username, why are we telling them "you will need to change your username immediately, please see how to do this on your user talk page" in the first place? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reason for this question; I made this message either during the process of blocking or after without checking. I didn't block the user. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:35, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Mwill66

edit

Hi Slywriter Just wanted to thank you for fixing it. All the Best, Mwill66Mwill66 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Mwill66, I have removed from the article. Congrats on publishing to mainspace.Slywriter (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mwill66 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:38:43, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Amarsinghmodels

edit


Amarsinghmodels (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested to delete article. Question has been removed to avoid further editorial assistance.

13:31:25, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Malik Sajid Zahoor Arrain

edit


Malik Sajid Zahoor Arrain (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

              Pesonal Details

Born Malik Sajid Zahoor Arrain 10 December 2004 (age 17) Tehsil liaqatpur, District Rahim yar khan, Punjab, Pakistan Spouse(s) Not spouse yet Parents Malik Zahoor Ahmad Arrain (father) Relatives Family of Malik Sajid Residence(s) Thullhamza, Tehsil Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan Education Islamia University Bahawalpur (BS) Nickname(s) Malik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Sajid Zahoor Arrain (talk • contribs) 13:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Sajid Zahoor Arrain: This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I recommend you put your information on a social media site instead. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:45:05, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Tarkenblo

edit

Hi, I would like to know why my article submission was denied, and what I can do to improve it. The message tells that the article doesn't have significant coverage, even though I have put 6 references from multiple sources (3 peruvian journals (El Comercio, La Mula, PressPeru) and the UNESCO website). Why are these sources not considered enough? I thank you in advance for the help.

Tarkenblo (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarkenblo: that decline notice isn't saying 'the article doesn't have significant coverage'; it's saying that notability is not established, because the sources cited are not adequate, which may mean that they do not provide significant coverage of the subject, and/or that they are not sufficient in number, and/or that they are not secondary, and/or that they are not independent and reliable enough. What you need to do is to carefully study the notability guideline WP:GNG and ensure that your sources satisfy that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:08, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Sourabh10101996

edit

This is a notable article.

Sourabh10101996 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sourabh10101996: it self-evidently isn't (and neither is Draft:Sourabh Kumar Poddar), so I would suggest that you just drop this now. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:17:46, 30 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by CreecregofLife

edit


On the decline that there's been no improvement since, I do not believe is a sufficient decline reason and is an inaccurate representation of the page. Combined with being a canned response, it leaves the page in a bind with no actual suggestion on how to improve the page. I would argue it was not properly reviewed, so I resubmitted it. Within hours, it was reviewed with "No improvement since the previous decline." Which means again, there was no actual proper review of the page itself. They just saw nothing changed after it was declined and declined it again. It's incredibly unhelpful and if resubmitting isn't going to matter, this seems the best place to go. " CreecregofLife (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CreecregofLife: you say (twice) that it was not "properly" reviewed — I'm curious as to what evidence you have for this?
And on a separate point: why resubmit something without addressing the reason(s) why it was declined earlier? Does it not stand to reason that if a draft has been declined as non-notable, and nothing much has been subsequently done to help establish notability, then it might be declined again for the same reason? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence I have is the reasoning for decline is incompatible with what the article actually contains. Claims of no reliable independent sources is completely untrue. Notability was established, the disagreement was subjective, not objective, thus the second opinion. Said second opinion disregarded reviewing the article, and just went by the lack of change. That is not reviewing the article CreecregofLife (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CreecregofLife, @DoubleGrazing I think part of the confusion may be because @Kaleeb18's original decline they referenced WP:NFF which is only applicable to films and this is a television show. I am sure I have done similar in the past (oops!). Even so, I think decline is correct. The sources thus far are standard announcements (it was picked-up and the casting). The best source is TV Insider which does go into some depth about show but not enough to support notability. My suggestion is waiting until the show has been reviewed by reputable critics. S0091 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it still shows significant coverage and the already-present sources are still reliable and independent. The reviewers put in canned responses that were incorrect and/or didn't address it. I'm just saying that I shouldn't have to wait until a fourth opinion to find a proper submission review that actually addresses its needsCreecregofLife (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources is independent, and none of them offers more than minimal (and largely identical) information. That includes the TV Insider source which contains all of four sentences, which are also found in the Deadline piece from December 2021, and part of it was copied verbatim into the draft (I removed the "plot" section which was a copypaste from Deadline). The declines are definitely correct. --bonadea contributions talk 20:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was correctly reviewed, I would have also declined this. Theroadislong (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This response is an example of missing the point CreecregofLife (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined because "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." which part of the reason do you not understand? Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You are welcome to disregard the reviewers and place the article into mainspace, where NPP may send it back to draft or AfD. You can also wait 5 days when it will likely have reviews for first episode and clear notability. What's not welcome is you bringing a contentious attitude to another area of Wikipedia. Fix it, ignore the advice, or move on. Slywriter (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CreecregofLife: The article will most likely get accepted once the series is actually released and is covered by independent sources. Also S0091 I thought WP:NFF also applied to series as well is there a different guideline for that? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18 no, but I understand why you referenced it because it fits but television does not have its own notability guideline. The closest is Wikipedia:Notability (television) but that is an essay, not a guideline. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong (please do!). Also looking at your talk page, I am sure had @CreecregofLife reached out to you for clarification, you would have provided them more specific guidance. I wish that would have happened first. S0091 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the initial verdict rubbed so much the wrong way to me, I sought the second opinion. When the second opinion rubbed even wronger, that's when it became a recurring issue and that's why I brought it here CreecregofLife (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you have had a third, fourth, and fifth opinion from other AfC reviewers who agreed with the first two reviewers. There was nothing wrong about either of the two declines, except possibly that WP:NFF doesn't appply – but that was just an explanatory addition to the actual decline. --bonadea contributions talk 15:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:31:52, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Dr.YousufMiah

edit


Dr.YousufMiah (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:52:48, 30 May 2022 review of draft by Blogger2022

edit


I need help publishing a Wiki page for the company I work at. We are a small business that does not have many references, so it is hard to find multiple sources for the article. We attempted to publish an article with the references we have but it was declined. I think it was declined because we didn't have enough sources but I'm hoping I can confirm the exact reason that it was decline. Blogger2022 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is largely a list of spam links and has virtually zero chance of being accepted, you also need to make the required disclosure of paid editing on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blogger2022 A "small business that does not have many references" is unlikely to be notable (click here) and so an article will not be accepted. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:33:59, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Coldagni991

edit


Coldagni991 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy link: Draft:CoHNA Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:12, 30 May 2022 review of draft by Intelligence addict

edit


I think my article is good but it keeps getting declined, how do I make it acceptable?

Intelligence addict (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence addict, which sources explicitly tie all the concepts listed together? and uses the title of futurism to do so?Slywriter (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I legitimately can't find one Intelligence addict (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's going to be the issue. They may all be tangentially connected in that they are forward-looking but unless reliable sources are connecting them, it's tough to see how Wikipedia can have an article tying them together.Slywriter (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how can I get it submitted if there is no sources that fall in the required criteria? Intelligence addict (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligence addict If you do not have the sources, the topic does not merit an article, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_May_30&oldid=1091621703"