Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 18

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< November 17 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 19 >
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 18 edit

00:14, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Masonlaine83 edit

its fye trust Masonlaine83 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:01, 18 November 2023 review of submission by OrdinaryContributor edit

Several of your editors have been unjustly denying this article submission on completely frivolous grounds. This article has been a painstaking effort at translating the German version of the article and it features the *exact same* references and citations found there. The German version was approved without issue, but because the editors don't speak German (unlike myself, a German citizen), they claim that they can't verify the authenticity of my translation (even though translators exist) and are blocking the approval of the article on that ground, as well as for other absurd reasons like some imaginary requirement for each paragraph to have an in-line citation - which is ridiculous, considering the article is almost a word-for-word paraphrasing of the speech, and the citations literally include primary sources, such as a recording of the speech in question (but because the seemingly-politically-biased English-speaking editors that need to approve this article don't understand the speech and the reference annotation, which are in German, they refuse to recognize any of the sources). If the German article was able to be published just fine with these exact same citations and references, why are they repeatedly rejecting this article without any real grounds? I set out to spend many hours painstakingly translating this article, bit by bit, to allow English speakers to read about arguably the most consequential speech of the 20th Century, which led directly to the meteoric rise of radical Nazi ideology within Germany, and all of the horrible consequences that followed. To censor this article for such an absurd reason is to censor history, at a critical moment in time where we are once again on the precipice, facing the potential emergence of Fascism around the globe, but especially in Anglophone countries like the United States of America. This is a pivotal time in history - we CANNOT censor the past. Please approve this article, as it is an accurate translation and meets all criteria. OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Teahouse - Article Denied For Frivolous Reasons. The objections raised are that the article is poorly referenced, not that the translation is unfaithful. This is a pivotal speech for which there must be any amount of scholarship, none of which has been brought to bear on this essay. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look who joins, one of the biased editors to defend his act of political censorship. It meets the criteria. OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is WP:GNG which calls for WP:RS, which are missing from the article. Until you see that the problem is lack of referencing rather than some dastardly political plot by fifth columnists, you will make no headway. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those exact criteria have been met, and you continue to gaslight and lie. The media will hear about this. OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:GNG
- "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage"
- "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language."
- "addresses the topic directly and in detail"
- "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
- "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
Every single criteria was met. There are three reputable, reliable sources - including primary and secondary. OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OrdinaryContributor, please see WP:MINREF for when inline citations are needed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was referenced. Do you not read citations? OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single quote is clearly sourced in the citations section. Did you even bother translating them, or listening to the speech and realizing it is word-for-word? The sources speak for themselves, yet you continue to censor accurate, well-sourced factual historical information. OrdinaryContributor (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could get past the foot stamping, OrdinaryContributor, and you could do something constructive to move the article forwards? There is right now a single citation, in the form Erschließungstext im Deutschen Rundfunkarchiv dazu: "Adolf Hitler (Reichskanzler): Zum Antrag für das Ermächtigungsgesetz / Der „durch die marxistische Irrlehre systematisch herbeigeführte Zerfall der Nation“ soll verhindert werden / Wiederaufbau etc etc. It seems that each section of that, denoted by the forward slashes, is to a section of the speech as recorded in Deutschen Rundfunkarchiv 2590218. The single monolithic citation could be broken into its sections, and each could be linked to the pretinent part of the article. Each, too, could be translated for the English language reader. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:02, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Ethel Del edit

Hello there, my question is regarding why the submission was declined for "WUDPAC"? The reviewer's note said "lack of reliable sources," however the two sources given: 1). comes from The American Institute for Conservation and the Foundation for Advancement in Conservation (which are the professional associations in cultural heritage in the U.S.); and 2). comes from the programs' website (which is an accredited American university, the current U.S. president attended this university).

I'm not sure how these sources are "unreliable." Ethel Del (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethel Del Sorry, that decline is a bit unhelpfully worded. What the reviewer means is that there are not enough reliable, independent sources to show that the article topic meets notability guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:11, 18 November 2023 review of submission by 110.151.68.10 edit

Hi, I'd like to know specifically why this submission is declined, with some examples if you can. Thanks. 110.151.68.10 (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that you have read both decline notices. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes I have read both decline notes. However I'm unsure as to specifically why the article is declined on notability given the film's wide release, starring of well known cast with notable media coverage from well known established media outlets. 110.151.68.10 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:38, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Piusmoney edit

I'm writing to inform you that my account has been put in draft Piusmoney (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:03, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Tarkik Bhawsar vevo edit

I am a professional musician . I have two YouTube channels, 1 with more than 2.5k subscribers & other with more than 5k subscribers. Please help me to publish this draft. If you want, you can search about me

Thanks. Tarkik Bhawsar vevo (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Your draft has no sources. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:20, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Citizenzen edit

I have a question about "significant coverage". The Wikipedia page that explains notability describes what "significant coverage" is, but is short on details about what the discovery process of "significant coverage". In the case of an article like this one, about the Malaysian entrepreneur Emmanuel Daniel (not the Nigerian footballer Emmanuel Daniel), how do administrators go about determining "significant coverage"? Citizenzen (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. I haven't opened all the refs in your draft but Youtube does not count and judging by the titles of the other sources, there doesn't appear to be independent, significant coverage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the role of admininistrator is not to judge articles- administrators have no more authority than any other editor. The community as a whole examines articles. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:52, 18 November 2023 review of submission by 14.143.225.250 edit

I want to know how exactly can I make a page for myself 14.143.225.250 (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can make a page for yourself on social media or a personal website. If you want to write an article about yourself here, thst is highly discouraged, though not forbidden. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. Please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 18 November 2023 review of submission by SHTIB edit

Would anyone be able to help me improve it? SHTIB (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SHTIB: doubtful; we don't normally get involved in co-editing, here at the help desk. Your best bet is probably to ask at some of the relevant Wikiprojects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh or Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals. Otherwise, the responsibility for editing largely rests with the draft creator. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Dubaiali edit

Ali Zulfikar Zahedi is a famouse film director and producer. Also a Lyricist. Would i request how to add this article?? In any search engine there is many news and source exist if anyone search with this name. Advice me please Dubaiali (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dubaiali: this draft has been rejected for lack of evident notability, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Pedantic Aristotle edit


At the moment, the main article Javier Milei has grown very large and disorganized. There is an attempt to clean-up the article, and create two spin-off articles instead, for public image and political positions.

The comment for rejection was "it contained too much information on himself rather than just his public image". I'm confused, since the only content that was copied from the main article, was the content related to public image, including media perception, academic analysis etc. I agree the content is not particularly neutral, but the previous attempt to create the other spin-off article as neutral Political views of Javier Milei was sabotaged, and criticized for not starting with the content of the main article first. The idea this time was to start with the content from the main article, then iterate on it.

Which parts of the article does not relate to his public image? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the discussions following Political views of Javier Milei here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_views_of_Javier_Milei Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Drayden475 edit

I would like assistance in making my article up to scratch for Wikipedia. I attempted and thought i had corrected everything that was initially brought up, but would like some more assistance in where I went wrong so I can improve the article :) Drayden475 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Jojherman edit

This is my first ever article and I need assistance in ensuring it meets Wikipedia standards in terms of the tone, reader voice etc Jojherman (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jojherman: It kind of reads like an ad: "To support the commitment to environmental conservation". It's not that bad though. I'm almost inclined to accept it. Looks notable. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Yoeltkd617 edit

I am having difficulty editing a specific article on Wikipedia. I've tried making changes, but there seem to be some inconsistencies or formatting issues. I would like to request assistance in improving the structure and writing style of the article. Are there any specific guidelines or advice that can help me in making effective edits? Thank you. Yoeltkd617 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After three declines, this submisttion has been rejected, and will not be considered further. You should stop trying to work on it, as you will be wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:22, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Ronev edit

Please could anyone help me with this? I received the feedback: "Please remove the external links from the body" and the submission was declined because of this. Which part of the body section should I remove the links from? The links are necessary as sources after all, to verify what is written in the entry. Thank you. Ronev (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ronev:, the only external link I see in the body is "Heresia". ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, thanks! --Ronev (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:43, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Kayennepepper edit

My article was rejected but I'm not sure why. I used reputable news articles and used multiple sources. I covered the case fully and did not use any biased language, and only stated facts. Furthermore, Anthony Robinson was notable in the United States. He had significant coverage, even some from the UK. Thanks for your time! Kayennepepper (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kayennepepper: did you look at the decline notice? There are some unsourced statements. Everything in a WP:BLP needs to be sourced. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only unsourced claim I could find about him is his birthday, which can be removed in this article as it is not very relevant. Can you point to other things that need sources? Once again, thanks Kayennepepper (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of paragraphs that don't end with citations. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 18 November 2023 review of submission by Sylvan1971 edit

I would like to appeal the non-accpetance of the current draft. The subject of the proposed article has created and had published a sustained and substantial body of work related the the specific genre of urban matters writ large. She is considered to be an expert in this genre and, as documented in the draft, is sought out for her expertise by radio, conferences, television and print. She has written and had published at least 100 more stories than I have cited. The subject appears to meet Wikipedia's criteria for Creative Professionals.

With all due respect to the reviewer, I think they may have overlooked notability standards for Creative Professionals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)). I also find no requirement for the reviewer's ostensible requirement of "in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject." There are thousands of wikipedia biographies that do not meet this standard. Perhaps the wrong criteria were applied by this reviewer.

Finally, I note that the review was completed in 4 minutes. Sylvan1971 (talk) Sylvan1971 (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sylvan1971 are there any sources that are not what she has written, speaking engagements or interviews with her? Being an important figure or widely cited means others have written about what a person has written/said with sources explaining why they are an important figure. Participating in discussions, speaking engagements or being interviewed does not meet that bar. I will also note the reviewer is correct in that three sources with in-depth coverage is often the measurement editors use to determine notability (see also WP:THREE). Some of that depends on the source and depth of coverage and also be mindful WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, meaning there are tons of articles that do not meet today's notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have missed the part of WP:NCREATIVE that says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. ... conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
Meeting the criteria means that it is likely that suitable sources exist. This does not absolve the article writer from having to find those suitable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sylvan! The fact the reviewer made an edit, then declined four minutes later, isn't really significant in any way. They could have been reading through the draft for hours before making their first edit, for all anyone knows.
I've opened a section at the draft talk page and pinged you there to discuss notability. Valereee (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_November_18&oldid=1186554027"