Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scsbot (talk | contribs) at 02:07, 9 June 2024 (edited by robot: archiving June 3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Help desk
< June 2 << May | June | Jul >> June 4 >
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.


June 3

02:10, 3 June 2024 review of submission by 154.91.163.41

Please create this article thank you sir 154.91.163.41 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected and will not be considered further. None of the sources are usable, and the draft is promotional in tone. Please see WP:NBIO and H:YFA. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:05, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet

So I submitted lot's of article draft for review,which were abandoned by authors.One of them was Draft:Don Bosco College Panjim but it got rejected.I checked on internet,it was good presence and notability but I don't know how to include it.There are 8 references,But I am seeking a great editor who can help protect that abandoned draft,as I am not good at this. Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet: this wasn't "abandoned", it had been rejected. Rejected drafts cannot be resubmitted, hence why I rejected it again.
Why are you going around submitting drafts that you've (presumably?) had no involvement in? Did you think we don't have enough work with over 3,000 pending drafts?
And would you mind explaining your username, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I've added them to this SPI. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi: haha, beat me to it while I was making coffee! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the fastest man alive. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you part of Gloss Media,specializing in Wikipedia articles,I got a message when the article was rejected Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell us a bit more about this "Gloss Media"? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got this message from them
Gloster Media Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Ritesh Kumar, representing IDIGITALAKKI MEDIA Pvt. Ltd. Where we specialize in Wikipedia moderation. We noticed that your Wikipedia page submission was recently rejected. We're here to help you with that. If you're interested, please let us know. Thanks & Regards, Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet this is a scam. Please ignore the message and report it to Wikimedia by following the instructions at WP:SCAM. Qcne (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was so such rejected tag when I came across the article. Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there wasn't, was there? Because someone removed all the tags. Funny that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

Hello! I submitted a reviewed version of the current article, but none of the changes show up. Kamila Fomin (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamila Fomin Instead of editing your sandbox, please edit Draft:Daniel Druhora. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin: are you talking about User:Kamila Fomin/sandbox or Draft:Daniel Druhora? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing the draft Daniel Druhora. However, after I published them, I can not see them. Kamila Fomin (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin: are you talking about those IMDb citations? They were removed in this edit. IMDb is user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable; it is pointless to cite it – see WP:IMDB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Jatingarg9368

Plese suggest what should I do to get it uploaded. Jatingarg9368 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jatingarg9368 It's completely unreadable and has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. There is random text in all caps all over the place, references formatted poorly, and the only readable parts are promotional. Is there a coordinated effort to create these Indian regiment articles? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...or is there, as was suggested by Secretlondon, user/-s registering multiple accounts from which to submit these drafts? This question has now been asked several times, in several places, but never answered (AFAICT). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think we know. There’s a comment on one of them that they were asked to make it by someone more senior. Secretlondon (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so now. We don’t know if it is one person, or being organised by the military themselves. One comment suggests that it might be run from a military HQ. Secretlondon (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would #17:28, 3 June 2024 review of submission by GokulChristo be related to this? Formatting looks similar and it's on an Indian military regiment. If it is, this might be something we may need to bring up somewhere given the nexus to a contentious topic (Indian Subcontinent). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Savannahhannah

I resubmitted with requested changes in March, and I don't see that it has been either accepted or rejected again. Savannahhannah (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Savannahhannah: this draft shows the most recent submission date as 2 May. We currently have a backlog of over 3,000 drafts awaiting review. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Kalinators

Hello. My article has been declined twice due to apparently not having reliable sources. This is clearly not true as I have posted the pages confirming each statement. After I asked at the Teahouse, I was told that all details in biographical articles need to have a reliable source, however, the article I used to refer from, while writing mine, has only 2 sources, none of them about any detail, and both of them being a dead link. Please confirm this for yourself below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Vischjager

This is why I insist that my article has, indeed, sufficient and clear reliable sources provided, regardless of the fact it is about myself. If you deem any part of the article is not neutral, please go ahead and edit it. However, declining it due to "not reliable sources" is simply incorrect. Or if it would be correct, please specify which information is missing a reliable source.

Thank you! Kalinators (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalinators: oh, but it is true. YouTube and Blogspot are user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. The WBIF ranking is just that. So what you're left with is two cites of the billard-stuttgar.de website, which may or may not be reliable (my guess is not), but in any case it alone isn't enough to verify the contents, let alone to establish notability per WP:GNG (which wasn't the reason why this draft was declined, but I'm mentioning it anyway as it's pertinent). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, what is the WBIF ranking? It is an official federation's results. What can be more reliable than that? YouTube is just showing the final that was live streamed and it is as an addition. "Blogpost", as you call it, is not a blog, but once again an official tournament's page with an article about the tournament. You can also see pictures with the trophy there, which for an unknown reason I was not allowed to upload.
The billiard pages are just confirming that the club is the oldest in Germany. They do not reference anything about myself. But to call them non-reliable is complete ignorance and nonsense, considering it is (1) an official club's webpage and (2) used as a reference under another article in wikipedia.
You call the references "user-generated", what is not user-generated? Every page on the internet has been created by someone. Every news article has been created by someone.
All this comes up in my mind as you being completely biased against the article for an unknown reason. If you open the page of Philip Vischjager, you can clearly see that it contains information that cannot be verified and both its sources are dead.
Compare this to my article where I have multiple different sources confirming each and every statement. Can you see the difference? Kalinators (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing tagging you to make sure you get this... I am looking forward to your next, less biased, reply.
Thanks in advance Kalinators (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators: how can I be "biased against the article"? I didn't decline it. I'm only trying to explain why it was declined. However, I can only explain, I cannot understand it for you.
Please review WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:USERGENERATED.
What I didn't mention before, but am mentioning now, is that three of the YT links are to a channel called 'The Kalinator himself' (presumably you?), and one to 'JediMasterBG'. Can you explain to me how much editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc. these channels apply to their content? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing You can be biased against it by assuming that it was rightfully declined. Simple psychology.
I said youtube is an addition. And it just confirms that the events were true. Yes, the Kalinator's channel is me, as stated in the article itself: "This is the name of his Youtube channel". JediMaster was doing commentary on that final, linked.
When you look at the WBIF link, however, it shows that the final of the WBIF world youth championship 2023 was contested between Kalin Stefanov (me) and Yuta Takimiya, and won by the latter, as stated in the article. What can prove more that a sport event happened, than the federation organising it's official website?
When you look at the Geneva Open post, it says what happened in the 18th (!!) Geneva Open, and confirms the statement. Once again, what else can prove it more than that?
How are my references less reliable than the references under Philip Vischjager's page, where both references are a dead link and, respectively, none proves any truthfulness?
And for the third time in this message:
What else can prove more that the events did happen than what is already posted? Kalinators (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply below which will shed some light. I've tagged the Philip_Vischjager article as perhaps not being notable. Qcne (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators Wikipedia is a volunteer project and, unfortunately, has many tens of thousands of poor quality articles that no one has gotten around to improving or deleting yet. I would not have accepted Philip_Vischjager if it came through AfC today. That article was created in 2006(!) when our standards were more lax.
We certainly don't want to be adding more poor quality articles to the project.
What we need for your draft is at least three sources that meet the following criteria:
- provide significant coverage of Kalin, not just a passing mention.
- are independent of Kalin, not from his own website or team's website or an interview.
- are from reliable places, not random bloggers or forums. Qcne (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne I assume by "random bloggers or forums" you mean the Geneva Open. This is more than insulting to an established backgammon event that has been held almost the entire century, 18 years as stated above. Additionally, that does not provide "a passing mention", but a review of the tournament which states that Kalin (me) has won it, also with a photo of Kalin (me) with the trophy.
"His team's website" is used to provide evidence that the club is indeed the oldest pool-billiards club in Germany. It is not used to verify Kalin's identity or whatever, just to verify that the club is the oldest in Germany. Below you can see Kalin's profile in the state pool association, which I deemed unnecessary, as Kalin's (mine) main successes are in backgammon:
https://billard-bvbw.de/verein-mitglied-statistiken.php?p=999%7C%7C%7C2497%7C%7C368372
The WBIF website does, once again, prove the factuality of the events, and it is, apparently, NOT Kalin's or his team's. After clicking on Kalin's name under the tournament, you can see his (mine) profile, which shows his (mine) results in all WBIF tournaments:
https://www.wbif.net/index.php?nav_id=41&tn1_id=4064
Below is the German Backgammon Federation's ranking, where unfortunately Kalin (me) is not up to the top, because only recently he started participating more in ranking tournaments. However, when you use Ctrl+F and type "Stefanov, Kalin", you can see his presence on the list:
https://bgverband.de/ranglisten/live/alphaliste Kalinators (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators Please do not assume anything, my "random bloggers or forums" comment is my go-to phrase when replying to anyone about reliable sources.
You seem a bit distressed about this, which is why we actually heavily discourage writing about yourself on Wikipedia as tensions can run high and it is very difficult to remain unbiased.
I will go through your sources one by one:
  1. WBIF: obviously not independent as it is the organisation that runs the tournaments. It can be used to cite your scores, but doesn't contribute to notability.
  2. A YouTube Channel, user generated, and does not prove notability as it is just a recording of your match.
  3. Your YouTube Channel so obviously isn't independent.
  4. billard-stuttgart: can be used to cite you are a member, but doesn't provide notability.
  5. As above.
  6. Your YouTube Channel again.
  7. As above.
  8. Blogspot: we don't consider blogs reliable unless they are written by a subject matter expert. I won't pass any judgement on this blog in particular, it does mention you twice but doesn't quite provide the significant coverage we are looking for.
As such, you do not pass the notability requirements for sportspeople and do not merit an article on Wikipedia yet. You may at some point in the future, but we would encourage you not to write about yourself, and let a volunteer interested in Backgammon write about you if you become notable.
Let me know if that helps and if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like to assume when something is not clear. Thanks for clearing it up.
I am not distressed about this, I am only trying to show you why my page has a place on wikipedia. And, again - if you see anything biased, feel free to edit it before posting.
1. How doesn't it contribute to notability? It is the sole world backgammon internet federation and the link posted proofs that what happened is true.
2. As I said, this is just a reference to the match itself, under the sentence "This match can be watched 'there'.
3. Of course not independent. It is not there to prove that the events happened, of course anyone can create a video about that with events that didn't happen. It is, once again, there to prove different things (look more carefully under which sentences the links for my channel are)
4-and-5: I posted these to prove that the club is the oldest in Germany as written. One of the links I took straight out of the club's Wiki Page in German. So, if it is a valid source there, it is a valid source here too.
8. I posted it as it is the official source for that tournament. I could also provide the newspage under the Swiss Backgammon Assosiation website, if that would be deemed more reliable:
https://www.swissbackgammon.ch/
It is just the first thing that shows up, but in French.
I hope we will eventually come to the conclusion that the page has its place on Wikipedia. I believe not many people in the world are world youth 2nd placed in anything and this, alone, makes me notable enough. Kalinators (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, we follow the guidelines on WP:NSPORT. They key bit being:
A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject
The sources you have provided do not meet that criteria, it is as simple as that.
It is very impressive that you are 2nd place! But impressiveness does not contribute to notability, unfortunately. Qcne (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators: this is a pointless argument, the sources cited in this draft are simply not sufficient to verify the information, let alone to establish notability. That's about the short and the long of it.
You also shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, even with a COI disclosure in place; please see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing OK, I will ask the same question that Mr. Qcne was unable to answer to: What can verify a sport event better than the federation organiser's official website?
Remove "federation" from that sentence and ask that same question about the Geneva Open.
As this question was tactically ignored, I still consider that you both clearly see that the information is true.
I already have read the conditions of writing about myself and followed them neatly. It clearly says it is not forbidden, but discouraged, which is a different thing. I could have asked a friend to do it for me, but it doesn't change a thing. I have not used one hypeful word in the article and instead, only stated factual events with the sufficient evidence provided. Kalinators (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Kalinators. I didn't ignore the question, just missed it. Sorry about that. I will answer it now. (one could suggest you have ignored my review of your existing sources above...)
You are correct that a primary source is often the best thing to verify an event! That is not in dispute.
However we need to establish notability first. That is the question at play here. So far there is no evidence you pass our special criteria of notability as defined here. Qcne (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QcneI just finished my answer to your message above. Thanks for replying to that now too. Can you please specify what the "criteria of notability" are? The article you link doesn't seem to be too clear about it. Afterwards, I will gladly provide you with whatever would be required for that to be achieved Kalinators (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just replied above, apologies we are cross-talking over each other. One of the downside of asynchronous communication.
But to reiterate, the key bit you need to understand is:
A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject
The sources you have provided do not meet that criteria, it is as simple as that.
It is very impressive that you are 2nd place! But impressiveness does not contribute to notability, unfortunately. Qcne (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, do I understand correctly, you are asking for newspapers writing about the events? Kalinators (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be newspapers. To prove notability we need sources that are independent of the event/you, are reliable (ideally have editorial control), and provide significant coverage. That could be newspapers, sports magazines, reliable sports websites, etc. Qcne (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. In this case, the Swiss Backgammon Association is a perfect one: It is independent of the event in Geneva (is just that the event is part of its calender) and under news posts about the Geneva Open:
https://www.swissbackgammon.ch/
I believe I heard about one or two local bulgarian having an article after that too. I am currently on the look for them. As soon as I find them, will it be sufficient if I post them as a reply to this thread? Kalinators (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got a direct link to the association article? Qcne (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This link opens the main news page. The first post is about the tournament in Geneva, it is in French though so you may require to translate it.
The paragraph that starts with "Le 18e Open de Genève de Backgammon" Kalinators (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, got it. It's a start. We'd usually require three or more sources to prove notability, similar to that. Qcne (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Cheers. I just found another one: https://www.bta.bg/bg/news/sport/682772-balgarin-specheli-prestizhen-turnir-po-sportna-tabla-v-zheneva#%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0
It's in Bulgarian, here again I recommend using translation. For context, a friend of mine told me about that a few days after the tournament an now I remembered and looked it up. The BTA ("Bulgarian Telegraph Agency") is a national news agency for all spheres. In the website it has all topics like politics, economics, etc. Sport is one of them where this article is.
I did not look it up in the first place because I was interpreting the references as something that proves the event did exist.
So now we have two which means we need one more? I believe I heard of at least another similar Bulgarian agency or news-provider posting about it. I will try looking it up in the next few hours. Kalinators (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators that is a better article, and the kind of thing we're looking for. @DoubleGrazing, thoughts? Qcne (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We need three like this, and then the draft needs to be rewritten by summarising what such sources have said (so that they can actually be cited as sources), and we might have a viable draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne @DoubleGrazing
Here's another one: https://www.iskra.bg/balgarinat-kalin-stefanov-kalinatora-stana-shampion-na-zheneva-oupan/
I'm currently on the look for more. But @Qcne did approve the swiss association post yesterday, so I assume we have the three required now?
If that's the case, could I ask one of you to edit the draft in the required way citing everything the right way, etc?
If someone would take this up, it would be nice if the youtube links to the final and my review of the world youth championship could be kept, even if not under the "sources" part.
Please keep me updated
Thanks Kalinators (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, the Swiss Backgammon Association is a primary source, which does not count towards WP:GNG. And in any case, that piece on their home page only makes a passing mention of you, whereas we need to see significant coverage. So by my count we need one more solid source.
As for editing the draft, I can't speak for others, but I for one won't be doing that, as our role is to review drafts, not get involved in co-creating them. You might find someone at one of the WikiProjects, eg. the Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games, interested in doing this; you can ask on the project's talk page, if you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Well, if you go back a little, yesterday @Qcne did say that the swiss association is okay: "Thanks, got it. It's a start. We'd usually require three or more sources to prove notability, similar to that." They aren't the *organiser* of the event, just *report* on it. I don't know what a primary source means in this context. As to only having a passive mention of me, I don't think that being on the sole picture in that report and having my name mentioned as "champion" is a psssive mention, it just reports the events of the tournament and is not an article created for hyping me. Anyway, I'm looking forward to @Qcne's comment on that too.
In the meantime I'm still on the look for further news providers' articles which would solve the problem completely.
If you couldn't help me with the draft, that's alright, I hope you could at least provide me with clear guidelines under which it should be written, similarly to how Q provided me with the guidelines on the sources yesterday and then I could look in a more specific area knowing what's to be looked for in detail.
Cheers Kalinators (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators iskra-bg works. Both that and bta are better than the backhgammon sources, so let me know if you find a third one? Qcne (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Alright. I'll send here once I've found one Kalinators (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI this thread may auto-archive soon, but you can always msg me on my User Talk page. Qcne (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Qcne,
I ran upon another. However, it looks like it's taken straight from iskra (same text). Don't know if that's valid. Have a look please:
https://novini247.com/novini/balgarin-uspya-da-specheli-mejdunarodno-sastezanie-po-sportna-tabla-negovoto_7956545.html Kalinators (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kalinators. Yeah, we'd need sources that are independent of each other unfortunately which are not just regurgitating the same text. Qcne (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators: primary sources, such as associations and other similar organisations, do not establish notability per WP:GNG.
Also, when you say "writing about the events", it's important to bear in mind that if you're trying to show that you are notable, the coverage (or at least enough of it to be "significant") must be about you, not just about an event where you have played. Routine tournament reporting and similar coverage is unlikely to suffice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators: I wonder if what's confusing you is that this draft was declined for lack of reliable sources, rather than lack of notability? Because I can tell you that even if all those sources you're citing were judged to be reliable (which they're not), they provide zero evidence of notability, and the draft would still be declined, just for a slightly broader (and also more fundamental) reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:14, 3 June 2024 review of submission by DryasRap

Enlighten me on the requirements for a wikipedia new article! DryasRap (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DryasRap. Please read the requirements for musicians here. You also should not be writing about yourself. Qcne (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was "legal" to do, sorry about that (also a way to just tell more)
Is there a way I could get someone to do it? Or (being honest) I'm just still not as relevant as for having an article? DryasRap (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DryasRap: you could (not saying you should, but could) get someone else to write it for you. They would need to disclose their conflict of interest, and possibly paid-editing. And even then, they would be subject to the same notability, verifiability, etc. requirements as anyone else.
It's usually best to wait until you become so notable (which is probably what you refer to ask 'relevant') that someone entirely unconnected to you, and without any prompting or encouragement by you, writes an article about you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't notable, someone is bound to write an article about you eventually. If you aren't, then no article should be written. Please don't use Wikipedia to attempt to make yourself notable; we don't care about what you want to write about yourself, we care only what significant coverage has been written about you by independent reliable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not pay anyone to write an article, that is often a scam. If you become notable at some point in the future, someone will eventually write an article about you. Qcne (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No no! I would never pay someone for that, I'm just still learning about everything (as wikipedia as art itself).
Sorry for the inconvenience, I didn't mean to disrupt anything, and thanks for the info! I really apreciate it! 181.117.29.234 (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Dr pangloss

I had some questions about citations:

1) If I mention something that has a very detailed wiki page with 50+ citations. Like "This guy lived here, and he did this thing". Is linking to his wiki page not good enough? Do I have to grab references from his page and bring them over to the page mentioning him or is linking good enough?

2) I have noticed that the initial paragraph intro on wiki articles doesn't often have lots of citations, because it's a general overview of the page, which has details and citations. Is this correct? It feels better for a link in the overview to an anchor/div in the subsection with details and citations, but I haven't seen this a lot.

I care a lot about citations, which is why I am asking. Thank you, Dr pangloss (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dr pangloss. Good questions!
1) You can use WP:WIKILINKS to link to other articles, but it's always worth reusing references from existing articles if they are specifically applicable to your draft.
2) Check out WP:LEAD - we don't expect many citations here.
For your draft, what we are looking for is evidence of notability criteria matching WP:NPLACE. I think Oberlin Village is likely notable, but I'd want to either see every statement cited or uncited statements removed (sometimes a shorter article is better than an overly detailed but poorly sourced one).
Be careful you're not adding any original research which isn't allowed. For example the 20th Century and Beyond section is unsourced and seems to be original research: I would remove it. Qcne (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dr pangloss:
  1. You have to cite those sources in the article in which you're hoping to rely on them; it isn't enough to link to another article that has them, because that article might not be there tomorrow, or those sources could have been removed.
  2. The Lead section does not need to be supported with referencing, if everything it says is supported elsewhere. But if you make a statement in the lead which doesn't appear elsewhere and which requires an inline citation to support it (say, a person's DOB), then it must be referenced in the lead.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I wasn't just talking about this one! Agreed, some sections use the same source, like the 50 page NC Historical review, i can sprinkle that citation with page numbers. Dr pangloss (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Twinkle1990

User:Hildreth gazzard in this diff raised that the subject passes WP:GNG. Per WP:NCRIC and other notability guidelines for a cricketer, I am hesitant as the subject played only two FC and one LA. I declined the submission first but reverted and left to some CRICK experts for review. However, being an AFC reviewer I wanted to know whether that draft was acceptable? Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990: I'm sceptical that it does. Discounting the statline source (too sparse) and the GC3 sources (connexion to subject), all others are match recaps or contract signings, nothing really out-of-the-ordinary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Brolin26

Why is it that I cannot create this article/page for my self? Brolin26 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brolin26: Because you are unlikely to write neutrally. You also have zero sources, which is unacceptable for content about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this reply automatically or someone using zero logic? What do you mean with zero sources? I'm the person whom I'm writing for myself. Who would write with better sources than myself, or with neutrally? Brolin26 (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brolin26: No, this is a manual reply from someone who understands Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project that hard-requires sources with no connexion to the subject, especially when writing about living people. We absolutely cannot accept "just trust me, bro" as a source, especially from a subject who may have an incentive to lie about themselves or otherwise omit pertinent details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Than I think you should make some research before deciding into something if it's false or true. Anyway it was a waist of time for me now maybe next will be easier for both of us, take care. Brolin26 (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 3 June 2024 review of submission by GokulChristo

We being the original source of information. Being 207 Field Regiment ourselves. Our content is being declined. Stating that not being from reliable source. And we being the only source available in the world. GokulChristo (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GokulChristo: We do not accept the subject themselves as a reliable source. If the regiment is "the only source available in the world" on itself, then we can't even discuss a potential article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Xeimen129

can you help me with my reliability with sources because my article keeps getting declined IamNotTheRealStevenWalling (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeimen129: your draft cites sources that confer no notability. You need to find ones that meet the WP:GNG standard, and not just one but multiple (=3+) thereof. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Xeimen129. Steam is not independent, and the reviews are not reliable. Play store webpages are not independent.
We need game journalism websites. Qcne (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_June_3&oldid=1228023334"