Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 October 31

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< October 30 << Sep | October | Nov >> November 1 >
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.


October 31

edit

01:17:53, 31 October 2022 review of submission by BappleBusiness

edit

I've been making edits to this draft to prove notability and improve the reliability of the sources. I am a somewhat experienced editor, so I don't want to clog up the AfC, but the draft has been rejected four times before so I'm hesitant to move it to mainspace without feedback. Should I submit the draft through AfC, is there another process I should use, or should I boldly bring it into mainspace? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 01:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@bapplebusiness: the draft has been rejected, and you should therefore drop the draft and work on something else. you may not move it to mainspace, either. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 04:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@lettherebedarklight, you misunderstand me. Prior to my edits (as well as edits from other users), it was rejected. Should I still send it through the AfC process? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 05:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@bapplebusiness: yes. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 07:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFC process is voluntary(except for new/IP users and those with a COI); you aren't technically required to submit it unless you want to. "Rejection" does typically mean resubmission is not possible, unless there is new information that the reviewer did not have when they rejected it- in which case they should be asked to reconsider, or a community discussion should take place. BappleBusiness, unless you are 95-100% confident that the draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion, I would recommend running it through the submission process. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @bapplebusiness just be aware this page has previously had quite a bit of disruption to the point where the title is currently protected against creation and moving. It also has had a deletion discussion take place on the topic. Ensure that you have met the concerns of the participants of the discussion, it was only 18 months ago. Things can change. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:14:39, 31 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Trevorstocall

edit


Hi. A few months ago I submitted Matt White (paraclimber) for submission. Yesterday I had it declined due to a potential conflict of interest and I was wondering how to resolve it.

I have seen Matt White climb in national climbing competitions (in the UK) when attending with a friend. I’ve never actually met him and he doesn’t know who I am, so I’m not sure how to resolve the conflict (that I can’t see actually existing).

Is it just a case of putting the conflict tag in explaining what I’ve just told you?

Thanks in advance

Trevorstocall (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trevorstocall If you have no conflict of interest, simply tell that to the user that expressed concern. I'm not sure of the reason for the concern, but it might be related to the fact that your very first edit had a correctly formatted table and infobox, something unusual for a new user to get correct on the first try without additional motivation(like being paid). 331dot (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the fact that the photo was uploaded as 'own work' is a small red flag. It doesn't prove any relationship, of course, but it does at least suggest that possibility. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I’ve left a message on Onel’s Talk page explaining. Thanks for your help Trevorstocall (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trevorstocall You will need to address the image attribution issue. If you didn't take it, it may need to be removed and reuploaded with a proper license, if it is a compatible one. If you did take it, okay, but you would need to explain that seeming inconsistency with not knowing him. Note that images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text; I would suggest just removing it and dealing with the image later. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I was at the event (British National Paraclimbing Championship 2021) with a friend who was climbing (not Matt White). I took the photo…there were probably 100 other spectators there also.
Happy to remove the photo if easier Trevorstocall (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve removed the picture (for simplicity’s sake).
I’ve left a note on Onel’s page explaining. Is there anything else I need to do? Do I need to resubmit?
Thanks again for all your help with this Trevorstocall (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to readd the photo later if you actually took it. Many times new users put "own work" for an image that they actually didn't take, either ignorantly or deliberately. You don't need to readd it for approval of the draft, though. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So do I just resubmit for approval again? Wait for Onel to reply and rep look at it?
If I have to wait for approval it could be another 3 months haha Trevorstocall (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:04, 31 October 2022 review of draft by Holdenjosh8

edit


Im trying to get my article published about Harrows darts which is a darts manufacturer with some rich history, I also feel there isnt many of the Darts brands represented on Wikipedia.

My article got declined because of the references I had used.

Would you be able to assist me in being able to get this rectified or tell me what is wrong with the articles.

Thanks, Josh Holdenjosh8 (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Holdenjosh8: the draft is almost entirely unreferenced, and there is no evidence that the company is notable. You need to show enough sources to meet the WP:GNG standard, and you need to cite those sources sufficiently to support all material claims made in the draft.
In addition, you have to remove all promotional and peacock language. And you cannot copy or closely paraphrase from your sources, like you seem to have done in parts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:47, 31 October 2022 review of draft by Kwadwo Lyrix

edit


How do i fix UPE editing? Kwadwo Lyrix (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kwadwo Lyrix If you receive any form of compensation from, or have any paid relationship with the subject of your edits, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal disclosure, see WP:PAID. Note that "paid editing" is not limited to specific payments for edits. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:09, 31 October 2022 review of submission by VAkarsh20

edit

This player is not the starting point guard for the Illinois Basketball team, and this team is ranked in the top 25 in the country and the defending Big 10 Regular Season champion. I personally believe he is a notable individual and would like to be reconsidered for submission on this article. Would love to have a dialogue on what else needs to be included to make this submission worthy of a published article. VAkarsh20 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VAkarsh20 "This player is not the starting point guard"? What position does he play then? David10244 (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:33, 31 October 2022 review of draft by Matar Gaza

edit


Flying Person (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do i need to make it better?

I have deleted Draft:Yalla_Parkour, Matar Gaza, because a substantial chunk of it was copied from this page within yallaparkour.com. There were two major problems with this. First, it was publicity material for the documentary. Wikipedia isn't a PR conduit; it's an encyclopedia. Publicity material isn't wanted. Secondly, the source didn't say that either that it was released under a copyleft license acceptable to Wikipedia or that the copyright holder waived all their rights to it; thus reproduction in Wikipedia violated copyright. Violation of copyright is taken very seriously here.
You need to realize that this is an encyclopedia, and that copyright must be respected.
(Additionally, your signature [[User:Matar Gaza|Flying Person]] is unnecessarily confusing.)
I didn't bother to examine the draft, because the copyright violation was enough to condemn it. But there may well be a problem of notability. Notability of a film may shoot up upon its release. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:27, 31 October 2022 review of draft by Shunya1508

edit


Shunya1508 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@Hoary

Hello Hoary,Thank you for your support and your advise.

I followed the advice and read "How to improve a draft", added reliable references and removed uncertain statements and information from the person.

I also added English links whenever possible to make the reference easier for English speakers.

I think (3) or (4) is the reason why Bunta Inoue qualifies as a WP:ARTIST.

“In 2010, Bunta Inoue was awarded the 36th Hoso Bunka Foundation HBF Prize for art in recognition of his character design for the Japanese puppet television show The Three Musketeers”

I also thought the Yokosuka Museum of Art exhibit and the collaboration with hyde of L'Arc & Ciel were worth mentioning.

I would like to resubmit this manuscript for re-evaluation by you and other reviewers.

If you are able, it would be appreciated if you could review it and offer your advice.

Sincerely Shunya1508 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is certainly a lot better now, but it still has severe problems. Here's the opening paragraph:

Inoue Takaho (井上隆保)[1], better known by his alias Bunta Inoue (井上文太 Inoue Bunta), is a Japanese painter and visual artist. [2]

And here are its references:

  1. ^ Collaboration exhibition of Takayasu Inoue and Bunta Inoue, two people in one.(Not Translated)
  2. ^ Inoue also works under the name of "Takayasu Inoue", a contemporary painter who inherits pure Japanese art such as Choju-giga and Rin-ha.(Automatic translated)

But the first source isn't "Collaboration exhibition of Takayasu Inoue and Bunta Inoue, two people in one" (either with or without "(Not Translated)". It's 井上隆保さんと井上文太さん、1人で2人のコラボ展. It's about two names: one indisputably has the reading Inoue Bunta (which Wikipedia's MoS says we must render as "Bunta Inoue"), but the other is 井上隆保 (which should look familiar). And it's from Shibuya Keizai Shinbun, and dated 1 June 2005 -- information that should be provided.

As for the second source, I get the impression from the draft that "Inoue also works under the name of 'Takayasu Inoue', a contemporary painter who inherits pure Japanese art such as Choju-giga and Rin-ha" is the machine translation of a (very odd) title. But it isn't. Instead, it's a quotation from the machine translation, whose title, website, etc you don't provide. I can't find the Japanese-language original page; but when I mouse over the particular sentence, its Japanese original appears. "Takayasu Inoue" seems to be the machine guess of the reading of 井上隆保. "Choju-giga and Rin-ha" is a bungled machine attempt at "Chōjū-giga and Rinpa".

I thought I'd sort out the opening paragraph. I started, but I gave up. I'm not even sure of the man's names. When it's used by/for him, is 隆保 (A) always Takaho, (B) always Takayasu, or (C) either Takaho or Takayasu, depending on the circumstances/purpose?

Also, please don't depend on, or cite, machine translations. (If a web page is in Japanese, readers will always have the option of feeding it, or parts of it, to Google Translate or similar.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese (along with other East Asian languages) is also famously resistant to automated translation, particularly for longer strings of text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano
Thank you for the useful advice.
I should have understood that automatic translation of Japanese has many problems. I have corrected the relevant links. Thank you! Shunya1508 (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary
First of all, thank you for your advice. It was an easy mistake to rely on machine translation. I have corrected the relevant link.
I have also removed the artist's name "Takaho Inoue" and that confusing sentence as you pointed out.
If you happen to have a free moment, I'd be very grateful if you could give me your opinion.
Thanks. Shunya1508 (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:20, 31 October 2022 review of submission by MASON FOREIGN

edit

I’m trying to create a google knowledge panel to get verified on Instagram MASON FOREIGN (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MASON FOREIGN We have no interest in helping you enhance search results for you or in a "knowledge panel"(for which a Wikipedia article is only one possible input). Our only interest is in if you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:45:29, 31 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by RastaKins

edit


I think I may be a victim of Wikipedia Backlog Drive haste. (Gotta get those barnstars!) The reviewer does not seem to be willing to understand my submission or to evaluate my rebuttal.

As this was my first scratch-written article, I decided to use maximum caution and submit it via AfC even though I am extendedconfirmed with 713 Wikipedia edits since 2006, and could have submitted directly to mainspace.

The article was originally rejected as having too few citations. I improved the citations and resumitted to AfC. Second reviewer stated reasons for the rejection of the article were: 1. WP is not a how-to manual. 2. needs more 3rd party independent references to establish notability.

Neither of these assertions are valid.

I wrote a rebuttal to the reviewer which was largely ignored. You can review the conversation here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightenbelle/Archive_2#Request_on_17:19:36,_14_October_2022_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_RastaKins

I spent a week writing the article and months improving it. Do you think it is now ready for mainspace?

RastaKins (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RastaKins: You put a lot of time into this. I noticed in the edit history that the article was in mainspace, but was moved to draft space. I just went through the draft and have to agree that it's overly technical, and the sourcing isn't great. The problem with using primary sources such as manuals and brochures is while the info is factually accurate, there needs to be some indication of notability. The reader needs to understand why this subject is important enough for a Wikipedia article. That's why we like to include independent sources. The only source that I think helps is this review. If more of that kind of sourcing was included, the article would be improved. Another thing to consider is you have lines and lines of technical specs that are unsourced. Who is the audience for this? I find it's easier to write articles when everything is sourced, but Wikipedia doesn't want to be the encyclopedia of everything, but instead the encyclopedia of everything that is important. Why not instead focus on adding some of the most significant info to Western Digital#Other products? TechnoTalk (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk, thank you for the reply. There are a number of number of contemporaneous third party sources that indicate this microprocessor as notable: There is the referenced 1977 Dr. Dobbs's article about its development. The computer system built around the WD16 was so significant that the editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal, Jim Warren, wrote his own editorial comments in a column on page 7 saying he was "totally blown away by it." "It comes close to being an order of magnitude more potent than any other system [he has] seen." By the way, Jim Warren is notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography since 2006.
You mentioned the 1981 article that discusses that there were five thousand $10,000 to $15,000 computers built around this processor. That's roughly a $15 million/year industry. Another notable thing about the WD16 and the computer built around it: It spawned a user group (Alpha Micro Users Society) and a monthly newsletter that has been archived by the Computer History Museum which provides more third party references until December 1981. 38 of these newsletters are still available for download from bitsavers. The downloadable newsletters are for WD16-based systems only. The WD16 was a real microprocessor shipped in volume for at least four years.
"you have lines and lines of technical specs that are unsourced. Who is the audience for this?"
This is the WD16 Instruction Set Architecture (ISA). As I mentioned to a previous reviewer, this was inspired by the PDP-11 ISA article. The PDP-11 ISA is notable enough to have its own article separate from the PDP-11. The WD16 ISA is an expansion/superset of the PDP-11 ISA and is probably the most CISC 16-bit orthogonal ISA ever created. It is certainly more CISC than the PDP-11. OTOH, I did not think the WD16 ISA was notable enough to have its own article so I subsumed it in the WD16 article. Would you advise me to split it into a separate article?
WD16 was one of three Western Digital microprocessors of the era. The other two have Wikipedia entries.
The WD16 was one of the first 16-bit microprocessors. There were only four other 16-bit microprocessors introduced before the WD16: LSI-11, PACE, IMP-16, and CP1600. These others have Wikipedia entries. RastaKins (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been waiting for a week for a response. How long should I expect to wait? RastaKins (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:46:34, 31 October 2022 review of draft by Meowsold2

edit


I am trying to publish a brief about a company that is gaining attention


Meowsold2 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meowsold2 Wikipedia is not a place to do that- it must already have attention to merit an article. Any article about a company 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. Your draft is only sourced to the company itself- Wikipedia is not interested in what the company wants to say about itself. Please see the advice given to you on the draft, as well as Your First Article.
If you work for this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures- disclosing employment or any paid relationship with a company you are writing about is a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has attention and multiple independent articles. Also it's not meowsold.com saying anything to advertise themselves. Meowsold2 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meowsold2 Then you need to offer and summarize those sources. They cannot be staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, or brief mentions. Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Meowsold2 When someone selects as their username the name of the subject they intend to write about, it's a fairly natural assumption that there is a connection between the user and the subject. If you're not connected to Meowsold then fine.
You say there are multiple independent articles about the company, well it's those that have to be included in the article, not statements from the company itself. For example the second sentence says they are notorious for excellent customer service which you have sourced to the company website. Well, any company is going to say it delivers excellent customer service, so show the independent sources that say Meowsold delivers excellent customer services. The article also needs to consist of more than two sentences. Nthep (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nthep Just noting that the user says on their user talk "before you assume we are trying to advertise"(my emphasis). 331dot (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Meowsold2: I did a Google search and could only find this article from a local paper. [[1]]. It is not enough to pass Wikipedia's stringent notability guidelines. See WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pitchfork article independent national recognition? Meowsold2 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general a bias, and short sighted response. Meowsold2 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this example, the summary was taken from public reviews, as you can verify for yourself. Per your terms, I started writing a short summary "in my own words". Once again bias response from another reviewer.
TaRell Derry
1 review
3 months ago
I continue to enjoy and be impressed with MeowSold Liquidations and Auctions! The variety is great and the staff are terrific! If you haven't joined an auction, you really need to give it a try. It is fun, easy and very rewarding. Meowsold2 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meowsold2 User reviews are meaningless in terms of Wikipedia notability. They lack editorial control and fact checking. Anyone can post anything in a review. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was explaining where 'they are notorious for excellent customer service" this came from. As the bias reply was asking me to prove where this was stated. If everything written needs 100% to be sources, how come all your articles are not like that? Meowsold2 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of poorly-sourced articles indicates that those articles should be scrutinized so that they can be fixed or possibly deleted. It does not justify the creation of other ones. --Kinu t/c 21:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This review provides no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. If such sources exist, add them. If they don't, then this topic is not sufficiently notable for an article. --Kinu t/c 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, wikipedia information should be true, but this website is very bias as you can see by your replies, and skewed toward the 1%. If the intention of this website is to write only about "big" and "powerful" monopolies, and not let an independent "small company" even be recognized, I see this is a major problem. Meowsold2 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot recognize why the content you have provided is inappropriate for Wikipedia, then there is nothing else to do here. You are welcome to use an alternative outlet. --Kinu t/c 21:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:24:30, 31 October 2022 review of submission by Vedikay

edit


Vedikay (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vedikay You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and trying to publish an article. Can you please provide me specific feedback so that I can get this article up on the site? What needs to be changed. Because i have add cite from google books and other reliable site but still my article get reject Vedikay (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vedikay You misunderstand what an article is supposed to be. Any article about this person should not merely document the work they have released. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" is that which goes into detail about what is significant or influential about the article subject as the source sees it, not as the person themselves or their associates see it. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but for not what i have to do? Can i have need to change cite of the article? to have to make changes in article? Vedikay (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vedikay: you have to support the contents with reliable published sources. Amazon, Goodreads and Notionpress are not reliable, and they account for five of your seven sources. You also have to show that the subject is notable per WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. So far you have done neither. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:48:46, 31 October 2022 review of submission by ElizabethJamey

edit


I am wondering, how much more and what do I need to add? I have added additional resources from actual news sites, etc. ElizabethJamey (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ElizabethJamey: this draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ElizabethJamey Rejection means resubmission is not possible. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. The sources themselves are not necessarily the issue, but their content. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a TV show and its history. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_October_31&oldid=1120591899"