Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 January 2

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation‎ | Help desk‎ | Archives
Help desk
< January 1 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 3 >
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.


January 2 edit

00:19, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Twelve31 edit

This submission was denied on the basis of the subject doesn't show "Significant coverage". The subject's work is already well noted on multiple wiki pages that have already been approved and are active which is why the work is linked internally within wiki. You can look at those artists discographies and see the subject as credited as a writer of the work. What other external sources are needed here to verify "significant coverage"? Twelve31 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve31, writing a hit song or even several hit songs does not make a person notable. Being mentioned on other Wikipedia pages does not make a person notable. Far from it. What is required is significant coverage of the person in reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of the person. An example might be a detailed article about the person's life and career in a respected music industry publication like Rolling Stone (there are others). Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for shedding some light what was missing here. Appreciate the clarification. Twelve31 (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:16, 2 January 2024 review of submission by AliM7mdd edit

What exactly do I change Which category do I edit

I wanna make it official I’m Marlon’s nephew and I wanna make a wiki for him to show his kickboxing accomplishments AliM7mdd (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC

AliM7mdd, your draft incorrectly uses external links instead of references. Please read Referencing for beginners and convert those that are reliable sources to references. Get rid of the rest. Since you are his nephew, you have a conflict of interest. I highly recommend that you disclose that on your user page and on Draft talk: Marlon Hunt. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AliM7mdd. Like most new editors who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have learnt how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. First, find independent, reliable, sources, which discuss your uncle at some length. If you can't find any, then you will know that he does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should give up. If you find some then second, forget everything you know about him, and write an article which is a summary of what those independent sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:52, 2 January 2024 review of submission by 180.241.29.161 edit

My article didn't get through. 180.241.29.161 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it didn't, it has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please remember to log in when editing. Seawolf35 T--C 06:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:55, 2 January 2024 review of submission by GriffinRosinski edit

so I can write this better so my friend can get the recognition he deserves GriffinRosinski (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GriffinRosinski Sorry to be blunt, but you don't. Your friend is not notable and the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Seawolf35 T--C 06:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GriffinRosinski, giving someone the recognition that you think they deserve is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, a serious reference work. Your draft falls under WP:BLP1E, plus YouTube and Facebook are almost never accepted as reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:11, 2 January 2024 review of submission by 103.179.70.210 edit

What Problem 103.179.70.210 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been deleted as a copyright violation. You are not permitted to copy and paste content from copyright protected websites. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:51, 2 January 2024 review of submission by PublishCo. edit

Dear Wiki support, after editing the first draft writing about my self it has come to my attention that there are conflicts of interest. My team and I never posted on wikipedia. Please review the draft and advise how to publish. Thank you in advance. PublishCo. (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PublishCo., this is your only live edit to Wikipedia with this account, and so there is no draft for me to comment on. Please be aware that team accounts and company accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia, and neither is promotion or advertising of any kind. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PublishCo.: you have no live contributions in your edit history, only some deleted ones from ten years ago. A draft (Draft:DJ E) that was deleted previously seems to have been created again, but not by you – are you working under more than one account yourself, or collaborating with other users?
In any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:23, 2 January 2024 review of submission by GeorgetownPress edit

I do not know how to use the code to add in my reference links. GeorgetownPress (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgetownPress, please read and study WP:REFBEGIN. You can do it just like millions of other editors have. It can be helpful to use the source editor to study the wikicode of a Good article to see how things are done, and to study the WP:CHEATSHEET. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeorgetownPress You may find using the visual editor, which is a bit like Microsoft Word, easier. Check the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 2 January 2024 review of submission by 31ch153 edit

Hi, I have been editing an article about a German artist Helga Franz since December 2023, which was declined several times. Therefore, as you are suggesting, I cut most parts of the article and left only 2 lines, which are supported by 2 secondary sources.

One source is a website of a community college of Berlin which is run by a public organazation, i.e. Berlin city itself. The other souce is published by "Landesverband Bildende Kunst Sachsen" which is an artist union in Sachsen-province. I am sure these 2 sources can be classified as reliable. They mention either "Helga Franz" herself or her work as the main topic.

Can you let me know whether the modified article would meet the criteria for publication or not? If this modification would not be sufficient, I will stop editing the article until I find further reliable secondary sources. But if you could suggest another solution, I would be very thankful for your kind support. 31ch153 (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have gone too far in the other direction. An article needs to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. You have two sources, and the article does little more than state that the person exists and that they have a piece of artwork in a public space. You have not summarized sources that discuss how this artist meets the definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your advice! I summarized the reliable sources and also mentioned her works are displayed in public places in Germany. Do you think this version would meet the criteria? 31ch153 (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot
I forgot to mention you. Can you give me your feedback again? 31ch153 (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to remove the word "multifaceted" or attribute it to a source that states that. You say she has gotten recognition but don't say what it is. You say the Justitia monument is important but not who considers it so and why. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot
Thank you very much for your comments. I added some information. Can you check the article again? 31ch153 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@31ch153: click the 'resubmit' button when you feel you've addressed the decline reasons, and a reviewer will assess the draft at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing
Thank you for your message. I will try again. 31ch153 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 2 January 2024 review of submission by 185.185.168.136 edit

I cannot see why the page is declined again. Made the changes to the page according to your advice, writing the page referring the independent research sources. Can you help? 185.185.168.136 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does not describe how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company according to what independent reliable sources say about the company; it just summarizes the activities of the company and its offerings. That the CEO was named as an influencer isn't relevant to the company itself, and doesn't add to notability of the CEO personally for that matter(as only awards that themselves merit articles contribute to notability, like Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the clarification! In my point of view, as a Finnish person, I think that Solita is a notable company as it is one of the few Finnish tech companies that has been able to grow its business and become international. It also played a huge part in the corona virus pandemic in Finland as it helped to develop a app to prevent the spread of the virus. So, if I add this info to the text, could it be published?
Thank you! 185.185.168.136 (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have independent reliable sources that discuss these things on their own(not an interview with someone from the company, not a press release) that may help, though I can't make a guarantee.
Note that the Finnish Wikipedia probably has different rules than this Wikipedia, and what is not acceptable here may be acceptable there. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Alenjohnj edit

Please could you help me with the rejection of my article Malpan Andrew Kalapura. Alenjohnj (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alenjohnj Your draft was only declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means that it may be resubmitted. What specific help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you just looking at the first line, "was a person who gifted invaluable treasures to the Kerala Malabar Syrian Church with his Syriac scholarship and keen interest in service" is highly promotional. Articles need to be written very dry and should not talk up the subject. If he was a church official, it should just say "Malpan Andrew Kapalura was a church official who (what he did)". If independent sources describe him as gifted, that can be discussed later in the article in that context("X source says that he was gifted for the reason....."). 331dot (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Lisapaulinet edit

Hi, This was recently declined. I'm not sure how to improve it. It was said to be too commercial yet there are other company profiles on Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Lisapaulinet (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisapaulinet I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. We don't have "company profiles" here, not a single one. We have articles about companies that meet our special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that can be summarized in an article. Your draft just summarizes the activities and offerings of the company, it doesn't summarize what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about the company.
If you work for Labthink, that must be disclosed, please read WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:13, 2 January 2024 review of submission by MickelClark edit

I have included all the available information for the upcoming season of Great Pottery Throw Down. We (Wiki authors) will add more information with time as the show progresses. I can see a similar page of the previous season live on Wikipedia, and it only has one reference. The Great Pottery Throw Down (series 6) MickelClark (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MickelClark I fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. Please see other stuff exists; the existence of other article that themselves may be inappropriate cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. I suggest you hold off on submitting the draft until you have more information to place on it. It hasn't even aired yet; to merit an article about it before it even airs, there must be substantial significant coverage in independent reliable sources to summarize.
You don't need the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article or page, simply place the title of the target in double brackets, as I've done here. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed reply. I completely understood your point and will edit this page after the show is done. MickelClark (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Jazz4575 edit

I HAve Attached 12 references , about of 12 not a single references can make my article approved? Jazz4575 (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

out of 12 refernces not a single refernce can make my article approved? Jazz4575 (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are writing about yourself, please read the autobiography policy as to why this isn't a good idea. Please also read why an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
Most of your references simply document the existence of your music, they are not significant coverage of you that can be summarized in an article, showing how you meet the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then If I Want To Have My Wikipedia As A Singer Or As A Music Producer. Then How Can I Fulfil It. I Have Blue Badge ( Verified ) On Spotify , Apple Music , Musixmatch ,Amazon Music , Aghami Music And Also Have Google Panel ( If You Search " Coffey 08 " , You Will Find Me.
Will This Type Of Search Can Make My Wikipedia? Jazz4575 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no. ltbdl (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how can i upload or create my own wikipedia , what should i provide wikipedia that it can create my wikipedia article?
what kind of references or format will i provide? Jazz4575 (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves and what they do like social media is. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, and are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. My suggestion is that you go on about your music career and forget about Wikipedia, and when independent editors take note of coverage of you, they will write about you. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:17, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Shmego edit

This article is definitely notable. But it keeps getting rejected even though it has a lot of information and has >30 sources. Shmego (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shmego: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. And given its edit history, I would advise you to drop it and find something else to write about.
If you do wish to keep beating a dead horse, however, your only option is to appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer. You will need a reasonably strong case, however; just saying "this is definitely notable" when multiple reviewers have concluded otherwise is not a very persuasive argument. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rejector. The governing determination of notability is not number of sources. It is determined by the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(weather)#Tropical_cyclones. (And a lot of the 30 sources are simply from noaa.gov's standardly generated messages)Naraht (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Carrolleditor edit

I'm just trying to share my knowledge on one of the districts in my city. (Mirror Lake, Villa Rica). I don't work for the city or the Mirror Lake District Association. But the page for this district needs to exist. I don't understand what financial gain would come out of me making this draft, considering this is a public neighborhood district. Carrolleditor (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrolleditor: this draft is highly promotional in tone and content, as well as being almost completely unreferenced; pretty much a definition of promotional writing – see WP:YESPROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You shouldn't "share [your] knowledge"; that's not how Wikipedia works. You should summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... None of what I said in the article is incorrect. I shared the written history and different neighborhoods within the district. This is my first article I don't understand what about this looks like an advertisement. A page for the City already exists with references to the district and the page doesn't exist. Carrolleditor (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrolleditor: whether what you said is correct isn't the point. As I said already, we only want to know what secondary sources such as newspaper/magazine articles, books, TV/radio programmes, and the like have said about the subject. This is important for reasons of notability and verifiability, both core requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Expressions like "serene and picturesque view", "luxurious and diverse housing", "a place to explore and enjoy", "rich history and a vibrant atmosphere, full of charming shops and eateries", etc. may be appropriate for the marketing material of whoever is promoting this place, but they are categorically inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Cool90630 edit

Hello, I need help submitting the article of creation by using more source hints a short description, WikiProject classification tags, and appropriate category without declining the submission or I could leave it as is without doing anything to submit the article of creation repeatedly what I can do. I am here to clarify and I am not trying to deal with disruptive and persuade here. Thank you! Cool90630 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cool90630, I'm afraid that none of those will make any difference at all. The only thing that can make it worth spending even a moment more on that draft is to find some independent reliable sources which discuss TVB dramas in 2024 in detail (see WP:42). When you have found such sources, then you need to go through the draft making sure that every piece of information you have mentioned can be found in these sources. (What you have done, as most people do who try to create an article before they have learnt enough about how English Wikipedia works, is to write your draft WP:BACKWARDS). ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Suelica edit

Hello, I am not sure what needs to be fixed on this article "Draft: Monica_McGoldrick". Can you please let me know what is needed? thank you, Sueli Suelica (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suelica Please see the messages left by reviewers on your draft, they tell exactly what is needed. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suelica, none of your references are independent of McGoldrick, and therefore, they are worthless for establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 2 January 2024 review of submission by Tartou edit

Hello,

Can you check and let me know if there are any errors or omissions about the content in draft status?

I will make arrangements again according to your feedback.

Thank you in advance. Tartou (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tartou, I have declined as:
- you did not prove this person is notable under WP:NPEOPLE
- many statements are unsourced
- you have very little in-line citations. Qcne (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will make the arrangements according to your feedback now and send it to you again. thank you Tartou (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you can make a review about noteworthiness from the link below. I have added source addition and tagging as extra. If there is something missing, I can make the edits if you let me know again. Thank you in advance for your contribution.
https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=/g/11s3zjgp_f&hl=tr Tartou (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tartou you've provided a Google search link, but that does not prove notability. It is up to you to prove notability using reliable, secondary, independent sources. Qcne (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_January_2&oldid=1194412267"