Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 April 26

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< April 25 << Mar | April | May >> April 27 >
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 26 edit

01:45, 26 April 2023 review of submission by 41.232.15.124 edit

I cant understand the reason for rejection.. many source for person. Person is famous musician in egypt. Can i got some help please ? What is the part that needs to be modified? 41.232.15.124 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needs to be modified; this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. After 5 months and 8 reviews, it has still failed to show that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 26 April 2023 review of submission by ThomaMi?q edit

I wanted to create the page of Prof. Hans-Joachim Lauth (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Joachim_Lauth) also as an English version and therefore I created a new page. Unfortunately, this has now been rejected. Is there another way to generate the German version of the page of Prof. Hans-Joachim Lauth also as an English version on Wikipedia? Or: What should I do that the draft won't be rejected again?

I am glad about any feedback! ThomaMi?q (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThomaMi?q: it hasn't been rejected; that would mean you cannot resubmit it. It has only been declined, meaning you can resubmit, after you have addressed the reasons for declining. Namely, there is too much unreferenced information, with several paragraphs without a single citation.
And although it wasn't declined for lack of notability, you will also need to demonstrate that the subject is notable according to either the general GNG or the special NACADEMIC notability guideline. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:10, 26 April 2023 review of submission by Saman daneshi edit

I think this article has all the necessary conditions to be on the main page. The sources are credible and well cited. Please guide. Saman daneshi (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saman daneshi: this draft has been declined multiple times on account of inadequate referencing and/or lack of notability. You have not improved the draft's sources since its most recent decline. You must do so before resubmitting, as otherwise this is at a real risk of outright rejection. Please review the WP:GNG guideline for information on the kind of sources that are required. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 26 April 2023 review of submission by VPatricio edit

Thank you for your response. I noticed that you referred to it as an "encyclopedia article." After reviewing Isabel Allende's personal information and other details, I see that it is very similar to the one I just submitted. Please clarify how I can fix this and submit my work, as well as any future books that are forthcoming. If you search for Isabel Allende, you'll find that I have similar subtitles and ideas on my site. Perhaps this should be submitted as an author. Please, I need help. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Allende 

VPatricio (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VPatricio: firstly, Isabel Allende didn't write her own article, or if she did, she at least didn't write it in first-person voice. Writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, for all the reasons enumerated at WP:AUTOBIO.
Besides the voice, the text needs to be rewritten in a more neutral, factual manner, better suited for an encyclopaedia. Expressions like "became enthralled by the warmth and camaraderie of the community" and peacock terms such as "highly esteemed" are not appropriate here.
And although the draft wasn't declined for its sourcing, you (or whoever comes to write about in the future) also must ensure that all material statements and anything potentially contentious is clearly referenced with inline citations to reliable published sources, and furthermore that the sources cited are sufficient to establish notability by way of either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:16, 26 April 2023 review of draft by Saintambroise edit

After some substantial changes, the current article seems to me publishable. Could some experienced revision user have a look and suggest useful changes still necessary? Thanks!

Saintambroise (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft accepted. S0091 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 26 April 2023 review of submission by Brian.butt edit

The band has over 640,000 monthly listeners on Spotify many YouTube videos with over a million views. Why is that not notable enough? I have cited sources for that information in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Halocene Brian.butt (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian.butt: because notability doesn't arise from Spotify or social media metrics, or more generally from how 'popular' or 'famous' etc. someone or something is; it arises from the extent to which something has been covered in reliable and independent secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this correct, no matter how popular a group or a person is on a streaming platform until some other source documents it they can not have a Wikipedia article? That seems to be rooted in the past and not taking the modern media performance. Brian.butt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brian.butt: I didn't say "no matter how popular... they can not have a Wikipedia article". Popularity does not preclude anyone from having an article, it just isn't the basis for one.
Chart performance is an acceptable criterion (albeit not a guarantee) of notability per WP:CHARTS. Spotify just isn't an accepted 'chart', as it's only one sales channel. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did say popularity is not notability. The Charts are biased for bands that have signed with established major record companies making it unlikely that popular unsigned bands can not gain "notability" regardless of how popular they are. Brian.butt (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did say popularity is not notability; I didn't say popularity precludes notability. Be that as it may, your draft either demonstrates notability according to the currently prevailing guidelines, or it doesn't. That is the scope of the AfC review process. This is not the forum for debating whether the applicable guidelines are 'good' or not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 26 April 2023 review of submission by Radhey8 edit

How can I add offline newspaper as a source. It's not available online. Only in pdf or image form it's available. But newspaper is government registered 

Radhey8 (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Radhey8: see WP:OFFLINE for advice on citing offline sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:48, 26 April 2023 review of submission by InEventOf edit

I'm struggling to see what the issue with this article is. It was at first declined because it did not have enough reviews. I added more reviews, but it was rejected with the claim that there was only one review. I have added another review. The page also has several reliable sources that are not reviews, covering the book's financial success and general reception. I believe that this novel and series are highly notable and should have a Wikipedia page; the series has achieved best-seller status and a rare level of media coverage. InEventOf (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as well, especially by the idea that Kirkus is not an acceptable source. Please resubmit this. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that you had done some more work on it after its last decline. You need to actually press the resubmit button if you have made edits and want an article to be reviewed again. -- asilvering (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the page to be about the series and resubmitted it. / InEventOf (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 26 April 2023 review of submission by Maidenlessbeing edit

Can I have it submitted because I just want wikipedia editors to have a great experience with it Maidenlessbeing (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:13, 26 April 2023 review of submission by TwistedPunk edit

This is my first attempt at creating a page, and I am not entirely sure what citations to include. Also, I am largely driven by circumstance to include certain citations, due to the absence of others. For example, citation [2] of my draft concerns a compilation album on which the subject band appeared. It is a noteworthy event in their history, but as the album went out-of-print approximately 40 years ago, there are virtually no mentions of it anywhere. The only verified mention is on the Discogs website, as this is a music database which contains verified releases. I included this citation as it is the best available. Citation [3] on the draft page also concerns an album from the 1980's. It went out of print approximately 35 years ago, although it has since been made available on digital platforms. Again, I included a Discogs citation. However, I have changed this to Spotify, as I felt this would meet the "independent publishing" requirement. Likewise citation [4]. Citations [6], [9] and [10] posed a slightly different problem. Music releases by the subject band are handled on a DIY basis, and as such are mostly sold directly to fans at live shows, with a smaller number available from selected retailers. Except for one review in a well-known magazine (also cited in the draft) there are no mentions in print media. For these releases I again chose Discogs, as it seemed the only alternative was to cite the website of a retailer selling the items. I was not sure this would be allowed. The YouTube citation [5] was intended merely as secondary information. Likewise citation [8]. This information is relevant to the story, but because it concerns an event held two years ago, there are no mentions of it anywhere except for the line-up confirmation contained within the citation.

Apologies for the lengthy question, but it appears that I would be better to leave certain citations (and thereby confirmed information) out of the draft completely. This seems strange, and I would appreciate any guidance.

Best Reards, TwistedPunk. TwistedPunk (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the reason you're struggling to find sources that have satisfied reviewers so far is that you're doing, or at least skirting around, what Wikipedia calls "original research" (WP:OR). It can be appropriate to use the kinds of citations you've used here for verification of facts in some cases. But the goal is to write about topics that have been covered somewhat extensively by secondary sources. Newspaper articles, books, that sort of thing. If that doesn't exist for this band, then no Wikipedia article should either. Sorry. The ephemeral and underground nature of a lot of the punk scene doesn't make this easy. -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings - and thank you for your reply.
I do understand the need for articles to be cited where possible. I believe the original 7" single was given a (very short) review in Sounds music newspaper back in 1979 and another article about the band did appear in a local newspaper in 1980. If I can find details of exactly which editions carried these pieces, these citations should satisfy the 'Original Research' requirement. I will hunt them down! However, I am surprised that Discogs is not accepted as a reliable source. This is a database which contains verified information and is independent of the bands/artists. Do you know the reasons it is not classed as reliable for Wikipedia purposes? Thanks, TwistedPunk. TwistedPunk (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TwistedPunk Discogs is user-generated thus not reliable just like Wikipedia is not reliable. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and you might want to post at note at WT:WikiProject Music to see if anyone there in interested in the draft and/or may have sources. S0091 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_April_26&oldid=1152750163"