Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 18

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< August 17 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 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.


August 18

edit

04:36, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 122.52.65.67

edit

Hello HurricaneEdgar submit the draft can review the draft? 122.52.65.67 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 18 August 2024 review of submission by SDsharkie

edit

Sorry, my article on a musician in the metal band Dark Angel got declined by an editor who says its not worthy of wikipedia but this musician is already listed in wikipedia through the band and her prior band and most of the article is valid, the editor just cited issues with a few of the sources, not the majority. So, why decline the whole article and how do you fix this? I also do not know how to link to the existing wikipedia page articles that exist, but since the musician is already listed in wikipedia in a couple spots and clearly as worthy as the other musicians in the band, not sure how it can be deemed not worthy of wikipedia?? 

SDsharkie (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Laura Christine StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SDsharkie! I've just gone through your draft and named some references so your ref list isn't encumbered by multiples of the same thing - giant ref lists, especially with duplicated sources, make life harder for reviewers and thus your draft takes longer to be reviewed. More info in WP:REFNAME if you add any more sources!
The thing with biographies of living people is they have incredibly strict requirements - see WP:BLP for more information. Among other things, this means that every single statement must be sourced. You can only use interviews for basic things like her name, her birthdate, that kind of stuff. To show she's notable, you're looking for sources that fit Wikipedia's 'golden rule', WP:42. In short, you need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). The reviewer has said Encyclopedia Metallum is not reliable because it's user-generated, YouTube is also not reliable (no oversight, not a reputable publisher), and interviews are all primary sources. This is excellent advice for you and also, unfortunately, means most of your current sources can't be used. I suggest having a go at replacing all the sources that have been flagged and trying again. Your other option is to remove any information that doesn't have an acceptable source, but I think you'd be better off replacing the sources since without them most of the draft would have to be deleted.
Sorry I don't have better news for you. Please feel free to ask any further questions and someone - maybe me, maybe another of our lovely AfC helpdesk volunteers - will be back to answer soon. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this detailed response. I did edit and add new sources, and remove ones that were not up to snuff, and removed just a little bit of the article to make it fully credible and cited properly. I do hope this gets accepted, as it is my first article and I worked hard to try to make a good one! SDsharkie (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome @SDsharkie! If your article isn't accepted this time around, please feel free to come to my talk page and I'll do a more thorough source check for you. Good luck and happy editing to you! StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65

edit

local public like this Company, more then 5000 farmer helping 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 year helping local farmer 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence whatsoever that this company is notable, not in this attempt, and not in any of the previous ones. If you keep spamming, this title will be protected.
Also, please note that once your user account has been blocked, you are not allowed to register new accounts, nor to continue editing from an IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I will delete your spam post you've just added to a new thread below. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 24.101.104.246

edit

Well ... my article was turned down for lack of a reference. But I made no statement in the article that was not "common" knowledge. Everyone on the planet who has any interest at all in the history of the number Pi is aware of the Liebniz series. And that is why I did not give a reference to it. There are TONS of other articles in Wikipedia that I could refer to. If I choose one of those articles already accepted by Wikipedia, will my article then be accepted. Was there any reason (other than lack of a reference) that my article was rejected? If that was the only reason then I will go back and put in a reference. I obviously cannot give proof that a teacher 100 years ago presented this to his second grade class -- so I can just eliminate that fact from the article and let the numbers speak for themselves. This is an important contribution to the body of human knowledge because most articles regarding the Liebniz series do not mention the power of averaging that this article illustrates. 24.101.104.246 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a viable encyclopaedia article draft, this is more like a personal essay or exposition, and completely unreferenced at that. With all due respect, we are not interested in your reflections on some mathematical problem, we want to see what reliable and independent published sources have said about a subject, appropriately summarised and referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Perfectcheck373

edit

My article had actual information and reliable sources, unfortunately it declined for no apparent reason, can someone help me tweak the article, so I can submit it again. Perfectcheck373 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfectcheck373: There is no evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Her LinkedIn is neither reliable nor independent. This is an interview, a primary source, and does not count towards notability. This is another interview. C F A 💬 14:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has very likely been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user who has attempted to create this article in the past [1]. User reported to SPI [2] Barry Wom (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that account tried to create the article, but was blocked indefinitely. Perfectcheck373 (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked 331dot (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:17, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 103.138.11.0

edit

WISPAP has been instrumental in representing the interests of wireless and internet service providers across the country, advocating for fair policies, and fostering innovation and competition in the industry. Given the relevance and impact of our association on the telecom sector, I am surprised that an article about WISPAP has not yet been included in Wikipedia.Could you kindly provide insights into why WISPAP is not featured on Wikipedia? If there are specific criteria that need to be met for our association to be considered for inclusion, I would appreciate any guidance or recommendations on how we can fulfill those requirements.Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response 103.138.11.0 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced, and summarizes routine activities.
You must disclose your relationship with this organization, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 136.55.28.55

edit

The reviewer said the references where unreliable sources. MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC, and other sources used are very credible sources.

I think this reviewer has a personal bias against Patrick Bet-David.

Considering I have in the span of two days edited live wikipedia pages that have no sources at all. 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Claims of bias need hard evidence.
Google Books is not a source itself, you should be citing the book/publication directly. Interviews do not establish notability.
If you're aware of articles with no sources, you are free to point them out so action can be taken. That cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles, see WP:OSE. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is just letting people know the book was published and has an isbn number. What you said is not even applicable to what is being discussed.
And how is Google Books not a reliable source? It is filled with books... All types of books
If that is the metrics. Wikipedia is not a reliable source
"A wiseman speaks because they have something to say. A fool speaks, because they want to say something."
~Plato 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need mere documentation that a book exists. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We know this. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I went to the reviewer's creation page. This reviewer literally has pages published with the same type of sources I used in my article. News Media and Newspapers. How are my sources not credible, when this reviewer uses the exact same type of sources to publish their articles?

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

Look at the sources in his article. They are all media outlets and newspapers. Either this guy is biased or very unfamiliar with credible United States based media sources

By the metrics used by this reviewer, his own article should be rejected.

Make it make sense 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, IP, "this guy" here.
"Same type of sources" means nothing. You can cite the most reliable source in the world, but it may not support what you say in your draft, and/or it may not contribute towards notability. And either way, citing that source may still leave a lot of the other content in your draft unsupported.
If you have a problem with the Villa Bogensee article, by all means start AfD or other deletion proceedings, that's your prerogative.
Oh, and BTW, please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature below as "critiques"):
None of your sources are any good. We do not go entirely by the outlet to determine how useful a source is; we have to read the source as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about the subject, plus possibly a small amount of uncontroversial factual data from reliable published sources connected with the subject. Nothing else. ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Saksham Singh Yogi

edit

Why is this article written on Swami Avimuktesdhwaranand Saraswati (The Current Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth) who is the topmost saint in Hindu religion and is the most famous and holds the supreme dignitory amongst saint of Sanatan dharma, Article is getting declined by Wikipedia team again and again kindly look into it and help me to make this article public in interest of hindus and indians Saksham Singh Yogi (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saksham Singh Yogi: We have zero tolerance for proselytising and hagiographies. And that includes what you wrote in this section. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:47, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Injusticegod

edit

i want someone to help me create Marko Meko article please Injusticegod (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Injusticegod I do not believe he qualifies for an article. There are no sources that show any notability. It may be too soon in his career 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well how can we make him notable?
i see there's also many people on wiki they are not notable! Injusticegod (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Injusticegod You cannot make him notable. If you cannot find references which prove him to be notable then it is time to give up. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Injusticegod, we cannot make anyone notable - the rest of the world does, and it takes time. Maybe Meko will produce a world-famous track, or will DJ some major events and become famous for that. What needs to happen is for independent people - people who write news articles, or books, or who make documentaries - to notice him and write about him. If enough people do that, he becomes notable by Wikipedia standards, and then you can write an article about him. StartGrammarTime (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
got it, thank you it's time to give up Injusticegod (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to ask for co-editors; please see the advice left by reviewers. Do you have more specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_18&oldid=1241937271"