Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 10

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< November 9 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 11 >
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.


November 10

edit

02:54, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Cd634011

edit

Hello! This Wikipedia article has now been rejected two times, very quickly, by two separate reviewers on Wikipedia. This is an academic book that has different standards for notability than other types of books, but it appears the reviewers are using notability standards for other kinds of books (fiction, mainstream press). I followed the guidelines for "Academic and technical books" (see below), and based on these guidelines, this book meets the standards for notability.

This is a highly specialized academic book, so I used those guidelines for notability per the "Academic and technical books" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books). The book was published in Routledge's Scientific Psychology series, which is a prestigious series that includes books by well-known and respected figures in mathematical psychology, such as Duncan Luce and Louis Narens. Books in this series normally undergo multiple levels of peer review. The following quote comes straight from the page regarding using academic presses as a source of determining notability for an academic and technical book: "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.” 

The audience for this book is relatively narrow, as mathematical psychology is not a large field. As a tenured professor in Experimental Psychology, I believe it to be an important contribution and have used Chapters from the book in my graduate seminar in Cognitive Psychology. Indeed, as also referenced on the notability page: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material."

I have made edits to include over a dozen additional secondary references from sources that are independent of the book's author. These include references to textbooks, other academic books, and papers from other fields (e.g., neuroscience, education, economics) that use work featured in the book.

Please also note that while many of the original references are connected to the book's author, they are all from peer-reviewed journals and thus have undergone review by other experts in the field. These references are not independent of the subject, but they are in-depth and reliable, and they are important to demonstrating how the work in the book has been scientifically validated. Cd634011 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cd634011, thanks for reaching out. Can you go into some more detail on why you think this is a notable academic book per WP:TEXTBOOK? Also, can you list the best 3 or 4 sources that go towards establishing notability? Thank you. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Here are the Wikipedia quidelines for establishing notability for "Academic and technical books", which is from the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books): "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions."
The book was published by an academic press (Scientific Psychology Series by Routledge) and has been required reading in one or more reputable educational institutions. The quidelines for establishing notability on the above Wikipedia page mention that books must meet at least one of the criteria (not all of them).
In addition, there are references on that Wikipedia page that provide additional context as to the notability of this particular book (please see my first post with the quoted material). Just as an example, it is cited on that Wikipedia page that "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.” This book was published by a prominent academic press and the book went through multiple rounds of peer review by independent experts in the field before it was published.
Finally, the following reference appears on the notability page for "Academic and technical books" and particularly applies to this book, as it is a highly specialized mathematical book: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material." Meeting this criteria implies that it is not expected to be highly cited by other books or in the media (a criteria for notability that should not be used here), which is OK given its technicality and limited audience. Cd634011 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That looks promising. I'm not an expert on textbook notability so I'm going to hand this over to someone else. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply. This process is new to me, so should I wait for another response from another reviewer? Or, should I create a new thread in this Help desk where I point back to this earlier thread? Any help you can provide is much appreciated! Cd634011 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cd634011: I'd make a new thread and link back to this one. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:09, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Littleboybrew

edit

I would like to understand what would make a museum notable? Littleboybrew (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, those sources aren't that bad. I've seen worse. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Didgeridoo2022

edit

I believe that Ozjasz Wasser qualifies for a Wikipedia article and that the submission is adequately supported by reliable sources. Wasser played a very important role in Jewish life in Lviv from early 1900s until his death in 1941. This fact is mentioned multiple times by the sources provided. These secondary sources meet the Wikipedia source requirements. They are all published, reliable and independent of the subject. The Balaban book on the Tempel Synagogue contains the most extensive references to Wasser. This includes his biographic information and the tribute to him by the Chief Rabbi of the Synagogue. I could offer a rough English translation to the reviewers if necessary, since my guess is that they don’t know Polish and haven’t read the source. The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora Polish Series (Lwow) is a well-regarded and invaluable source that documents Jewish life in Lwow that was obliterated by the Holocaust. Wasser is mentioned multiple times in the series and it is clear he was one of the leaders of the Jewish community in Lwow from the early 1900s until his death in 1941. The Lviv Interactive Center of Urban History is playing a critical role in resurrecting the Jewish culture and life prior to the Holocaust in modern day Lviv. The Center has done extensive research and the fact that they have chosen to reference Ozjasz Wasser in the roles he played at the Tempel synagogue and as a well-known lawyer is evidence that Wasser was an important person in the Lviv Jewish community. The Wikipedia article on the Tempel Synagogue itself includes a reference to Ozjasz Wasser as the longest serving Chairman of the Board of the Synagogue. As we have discussed one of the consequences of the Holocaust, in addition to the tragic loss of life, was the total erasure of the Jewish people and community from cities like Lviv. This makes it extremely challenging when it comes to finding sources for documenting the lives of those who perished. In my view that is even more reason to acknowledge the importance to the community of the leaders of the Jewish community. Ozjasz Wasser was a leader of the Jewish community in Lviv that is well documented by several reliable sources. He qualifies for an article using Wikipedia’s own standards and I hope the reviewers will reconsider their decision. 

Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Didgeridoo2022, thanks for reaching out. I just took a look at all of the sources listed in the article and all of them except refs 1 and 10 are just passing mentions. Even though ref 10 isn't that much. Also, I can't open ref 1 to evaluate it. So, I can't tell where your getting your info from? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 (https://polona.pl/preview/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9) is far more than a passing mention.
I appreciate that you don't know Polish so this document is very difficult to read.
I have attempted to make it easier for you.
His name comes up 21 times:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=340
There is a whole chapter on Wasser:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=10
Because it is in Polish here is a small extract translated into English:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=247
"19. Celebrations to celebrate the twenty years of work of Dr. Ozjasz Wasser.
For twenty years Dr. Wasser held the difficult and responsible office of chairman of the Temple Management Board, devoting much work and time, money and abilities to this institution and trying to maintain it at the appropriate level. No wonder, then, that his colleagues in the Management Board, and especially those who had been following the pace of his work for years, decided to celebrate the anniversary in a solemn way, perhaps in part to reward the president for his efforts and diligence."
Ref 10 in the section entitled B. Progressives he is mentioned numerous times and he is also in a group photo.
So that's where I get most of my information from. Thank goodness that these documents have survived - so much information was lost and destroyed. I believe strongly that it is very important to remember the past so that we don't repeat the same horrendous mistakes in the future. Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Do you know how to go to different pages? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your browser there should be a search option but failing that you have to use the left and right arrows. They don't make it easy! 159.196.103.151 (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops - I was logged out - apologies! Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your research! Let's see what others have to say. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I an not aware that there has been any response from others.
What should I do next to progress this? Should I edit the draft and add actual page numbers from the Polona document to various paragraphs in the draft as per our conversations above and resubmit? Perhaps talk to Tails Wx? Are you in communication with him/her? Perhaps you can explain to him/her that it is difficult to find extra resources because most if not all of them were destroyed during the Second World War?
Thanks for your help - it is much appreciated. Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Didgeridoo2022: If you wanna submit it again, I'll add a link to this discussion so someone can take a look. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have resubmitted. Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Sukeshnr sinha

edit

please tell me how i create my wikipedia. Sukeshnr sinha (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukeshnr sinha only people who meet our special notability criteria may have a Wikipedia written about them. You do not meet that criteria. Qcne (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Sukeshnr sinha

edit

what are the requirements for writting the wikipedia ? please tell me the requirement.i am unable to create wikipedia instead of that i deserve for writting of wikipedia. please suggest. 

Sukeshnr sinha (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Your First Article @Sukeshnr sinha. Qcne (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Marinosk

edit

Hello. I have drafted an article for The American College of Greece. The original version had many references to our website - exactly like many US educational institutions do. It has been taken down because the references were from our site. We have rewritten the article in an as plain way as possible, sitting respectable media of Greece as sources. Again, it was rejected because the "references were not reliable". Can someone guide on what to do? Marinosk (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marinosk. Firstly you must immediately make a paid decleration disclosure. Follow the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so is a breach of the Wikimedia Terms and Conditions and will lead to your account being blocked. Qcne (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My user page stated that I work for the organization - it now states it as per WP:PAID instructions. I need some guidance on references please. Marinosk (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Marinosk. I've had a closer look at the draft and I think it could do with one or two more sources that discuss the history of the school or review the school in some way, but are very specifically independent of the school: this means not database entries, not interviews with faculty. The ekathimerini article for example is just an interview with Dan Smith which doesn't confer notability. Since it is such an old institution there must be sources - even offline ones - in newspapers and journals and books that discuss it? Qcne (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. There are lots of ofline sources - we have a museum full of them. How can I reference them? Marinosk (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marinosk Offline sources are fine as long as they are published in some way. You'd reference them as you'd reference any other source. Qcne (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:15:09, 10 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by 80.180.135.200

edit



80.180.135.200 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR0g76YjLsaE4lIteBxKPFsiknFPxPiDSDIbRf_cggzFID22e2LKEGk3eVQ please restore this deleted draft, give me a chance to prove to you that it has all the notability to be published. Gaetano Minale

Hi IP, please see WP:RESTORE for how to request a page be undeleted. S0091 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Manike23

edit

Hi, my article was rejected again and the reason given as "Removing the IMDb sources, the remaining sources are not enough to establish notability in terms of significant coverage, etc." How ever the subject of this article is well recognised and award winning actor in Sri Lanka. He has also appeared in a few international films as well. I have provided local mainstream online newspapers along with the websites, IMDb pages, and exciting Wikipedia pages for cross referencing. I have see articles of Sri Lankan celebrities with far less referencing, thus, I don't know how to improve mine further. Appreciate your help. Thanks. Manike23 (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manike23 IMDB is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDB) so you will want to find better sources if possible. I went through and wikilinked those that have articles which I think will help and you can check those articles to see if there are any helpful sources. I also found Eka Malaka Pethi which I did not see listed in the draft. Most of the awards are either unsourced or the cited source do not support he won the award though and please see WP:Words to watch. Things like his "he continued his passion" is not appropriate. As far as sources to support notability, interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and routine announcements like casting, release announcements, etc. are considered trivial. Those are fine to use to support a role though. S0091 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @S0091, for this detailed feedback. I will edit the draft accordingly and once done, do you mind if I tag you again to have a quick look at it before I resubmit? Much appreciate your support. Thanks. 2001:8003:EC02:DC01:C458:D7BC:D970:1810 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it is best to get another eye on things and I may not be around so if you have any additional questions about the draft, just post a new query here and a knowledgeable editor will reply. S0091 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Got it. Thank you. Manike23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Tbalaba

edit

Hi, may I ask why my article has been declined? My contributions may seem a little short on reference but the article I am trying to publish is legit. Tbalaba (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tbalaba. I have rejected the draft which means it won't be considered further. You have a single source and the draft reads like an essay for a Catholic blog- not an encyclopaedic article on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Visortelle

edit

While creating a draft article about Apache Pulsar https://pulsar.apache.org/, I was advised to declare a conflict of interest by the Wikipedia admin. I did it by stating it in my Wikipedia user profile.

Apache Pulsar is an open-source project, that's development is controlled by Apache Foundation (non-profit organization).

I'm not an Apache Pulsar developer, I don't and didn't work for any company that spends money on developing Pulsar.

I helped with its site (not with the project itself) for free. Here is the list of my contributions: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Avisortelle+is%3Aclosed

The main reason why I did it, is because it was hard to read project documentation. It looked not accurate, black font on blue background was quite not-readable. Software engineers usually spend a lot of time reading the documentation of projects they use. Another reason is to not spoil the first impression for new users. I declared that I'm ready to help with the new, more clean site version. You can find the old site version in the WaybackMachine if you want to.

Also, I reported several bugs (mistakes in Pulsar code). Something like when you contact some product's support to tell them that they have an error on their site, but in public. Here is the list: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Avisortelle+

I'm just a Pulsar user at this moment.

For open-source projects, it's a common practice when users report program errors or even fix some errors. Similar to if you found a typo or mistake in a Wikipedia article while you read it.

I didn't sign any contracts with the Apache Foundation on the volunteering initiative.

At this time, I didn't receive a single penny for anything related to Pulsar. The projects I use Pulsar in, at this moment also don't make any money. They are mostly a hobby projects to better understand the broader event-driven architecture topic. I picked Pulsar by making own research and evaluating other similar projects about 2 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visortelle (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I'm not sure that I have a conflict of interest here. I'm an Apache Pulsar user who noticed that Apache Pulsar has no article on Wikipedia. Same as some iPhone user add's an article about it's new model.

If I am, then by this logic, anyone who is volunteering for Wikimedia projects in any way (makes edits), also must declare the COI and therefore can't continue to make edits. Visortelle (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proper forum to discuss COI issues is WP:COIN. You don't have to sign a contract to have a COI. You said on your user talk page "I volunteering for the Apache Foundation - also non-profit organization." That is absolutely a COI, full stop. Comparing it to Wikipedia editing is a red herring. WMF employees must and do declare their relationship. Volunteer editors do not have a COI with regards to Wikipedia itself. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot ok, I duplicated the question to the right page. Visortelle (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Maybe I wrongly used the word "volunteering". Probably it's because I’m not yet used to communicating with the audience who isn't familiar with how open-source works.
If we'll look at it with your point of view, then any user who contributes to any open-source project, can't write an article about it. Is it right?
When you use any software library project, you need to report bugs and make contributions to it, otherwise you'll can't use it normally.
From what you're saying, only users who don't have any initiative, are able to write any articles on Wikipedia. But if they don't have any initiative to contribute to the project by reporting or fixing bugs, they unlikely will have initiative to write an article on Wikipedia. Visortelle (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Maybe not my deal, but did you happen to work as a lawyer by any chance? :) Visortelle (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I'm reading the WP:COI page and can't find anything about that volunteering is a full stop even by your understanding of volunteering.
Could you point me to the specific paragraph? Visortelle (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I don't have any of the listed relationships:
> Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial.
  • I don't have any friends or relatives in the ASF.
  • ASF isn't religion.
  • It's not about politics. I'm not a politician.
  • It's not an academy.
  • I didn't sign anything with ASF, not physically, not digitally.
  • I didn't ever get paid by ASF.
Visortelle (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who contributes to an OS project obviously has at least a potential COI in writing or editing about the project in Wikipedia. That does not mean they cannot write an article. It does mean that they should be aware of, and follow, the recommendations about editing with a COI. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Thevikastanwar

edit

I Try to a lots of time but still in draft Thevikastanwar (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thevikastanwar It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of scanned articles

edit

Hello, I am trying to get my draft validated (Draft:Bernhard Ruchti) and I am almost there according to the last comments, but I cannot seem to have a clear answer regarding the validity of scanned articles for the notability of a musician. I have the following sources. The comment that was made is that the sources provide from the website of the artist. It is a fact, since the artist scanned paper articles that are not available digitally. Are scanned articles not considered as valid sources that are external, written about the artist by someone else than him, and that are not interviews? I referenced in the notes 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 that are PDF scans about him. Also the Christo Lelie article (not 16), in Dutch, is entirely about his work. I also received the comment that the "https://www.liszt-franz.com/musicologie appears to be a translation from German to English of an article written by Ruchti which is not acceptable as it is in effect, another self-citation" but I know for sure that it is not the case since I know the person who published it, why is it considered a translation? Finally, I understand that the source 7, written by an academic person for an academic journal is valid, so only two remaining sources could be added. I have extra sources but I would like to know if they are valid:

- This is about the Beethoven recording: https://www.tagblatt.ch/kultur/langsamer-musizieren-braucht-mut-ld.1149042

- This is also about the Beethoven recording: https://www.saiten.ch/langsamer-ist-besser/

- This one is about the Schumann recording: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2020/Nov/Schumann-fantasie-MJMCCK190.htm

Thank you for your help. Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dkoltorcan: there is no need to scan sources, or to cite previously scanned ones that have been uploaded to another website. Instead, you should cite the original publications using the relevant {{citation}} template, eg. {{cite-news}} or {{cite-web}}. If the source is offline, you may include a quotation to highlight the relevant part which supports the statement you're making in the draft. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. Dkoltorcan (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 10 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:4040:98C0:6600:A198:F874:2A80:467

edit

Understanding what can be done before a resubmission.

Can you please explain if more references from independent publications will help? Or your decision is that whatever the references, you will reject any future submission? 2600:4040:98C0:6600:A198:F874:2A80:467 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't necessarily need more, we need enough significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. It looks like the Les Echos (France) piece might be one instance. We'd like to see three. Which other two do you feel represent significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources? Valereee (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Early life and education" and "Persinal life" sections are entirely unreferenced, in violation of the core content policy Verification. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Dogma.geneva

edit

totally disappointed by reviewers advice which completely fails to account how the review met the requirements of the platform. Seek solutions. Dogma.geneva (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogma.geneva: do you have a question you wish to ask?
This draft has been correctly declined, as the referencing is inadequate. Moreover, the subject does not appear to meet notability requirements, per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dogma.geneva please have a read of WP:NBOOK, which I linked to you before on my first decline notice. There is zero evidence that Petriots meets our special definition of notability, the criteria of which you can find at that link. You have at least now cleaned up the overly-promotional language so I assume you correctly understood and read the WP:NPOV guidance. But you do not seem to have understood the WP:NBOOK criteria yet? Let me know when you do. Qcne (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dogma.geneva, by far the most common way to show the notability of a recently published book is to provide references to several in-depth reviews of the book published by mainstream reliable sources. Your only independent source does not seem to qualify, as it seems to be more about the dog than the book. I can only read the first few paragraphs because of a paywall, but it does not seem to be an in-depth book review. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:00, 10 November 2023 review of submission by 2001:4060:C00F:F8B0:0:0:0:367D

edit

Hello! Please let me know what else needs to be done. I have been trying to submit the article for months, fixing things according to how I understand what needs to be done, but unfortunately making no progress. I am new to Wikipedia, and this particular article is very important for promoting the Ukrainian ballet, for letting the world know that not only Russian ballet exists, especially in today's realities. Whatever I do, I still get the same reason for declining the submission. I need someone to show me point by point where the so called "unsourced claims" are. I will not give up! 

2001:4060:C00F:F8B0:0:0:0:367D (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below. Qcne (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Konanado

edit

Hello! Please help me understand what needs to be done for my submission to be eventually accepted. I try to improve my article every time it gets declined, but I fail to understand what "unsourced claims" are. The last decliner took wikiholidays now, and I have no one else to ask for advice at the moment. This article contributes to promoting the Ukrainian ballet, which is very important in today's realities where the world only knows the Russian ballet. Thanks in advance! Konanado (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Konanado. Another user (you?) had a discussion on my Talk Page where I went over the issues with the draft. I hope it will be of help.
I'll go through the draft and point out some unsourced claims:
- Her Date of Birth and Location of Birth
- Her parents
- Her stage debut
- Her career at KMATOB
- Her career as a teacher at Kyiv National I. K. Karpenko-Kary Theatre, Cinema and Television University
- Her career as a ballet master at National Opera of Ukraine
- People‘s Artist of Ukraine award
- The entire Repertoire and Tours sections.
Every single bit of information that I've highlighted above needs an in-line reference. If the information is already found in existing references, then feel free to repeat a reference more than once (using the same citation number), or change the layout slightly so that each paragraph has about one citation at the end. If there are no references for these pieces of information then they must be removed or references found.
Please also be aware that promotion of any kind (including of Ukrainian ballet!) is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. This is a site to document notable topics, not to promote them.
My genuine opinion is that this draft could be accepted if you could just fix those missing references from the highlighted information above. If you do, please let me know on my User Talk Page and WP:PING me, and I'll have another look. Qcne (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Gudwise

edit

Is there anything to do when article/subject doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG at all? Gudwise (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gudwise Yes. Something else. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the answer is yes then what else? You can contribute on that article. Gudwise (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gudwise, there are 6,743,121 Wikipedia articles that you can help improve. Please do not waste your own time or the time of other volunteers trying to write about non-notable topics. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_November_10&oldid=1185346499"