Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 26 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 28 >
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.


October 27

[edit]

04:00:39, 27 October 2019 review of submission by Indianbeauty

[edit]

May I know the reason for why the Google books link 'WOW! INDIA: 500 INCREDIBLE RECORDS AND FASCINATING FACTS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY' https://books.google.co.in/books?id=JVilDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT88#v=onepage&q&f=false is not a verified source. Please advice. Thank you. Indianbeauty (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indianbeauty, I don't see anyone questioning the verification of that source. But that's not the issue here: the issue is notability, which this statue does not seem to have. To be included on Wikipedia, sources need to have coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Of the three sources, 2 are not independent, as they are written by the theme park that built the statue. The book may be reliable, but additional sources would be needed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:08:43, 27 October 2019 review of submission by Jibola Toriola

[edit]

{{Lafc|username=Jibola Toriola|ts=07:08:43, 27 October 2019|page=

I have tried on many occasions to successfully submit this Wikipedia for my client/artist - Jibola Toriola ( artist - Jhybo )

I can tackle most things but I’m finding this very over complicated . Do Wikipedia offer a service where the draft can be completed by an experienced agent ? And if so what are the fees ? . My client is very deserving of a Wikipedia but I do not have the experience to complete this . 80% of the information is there and I understand why the draft has been declined . I am not finding this easy at all and we really want it finalised . I joined two years ago and have been writing this on and off . I would be grateful if you can advise if that service exits . Thanks


Jibola Toriola (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked for promotion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:08, 27 October 2019 review of draft by IsuzB

[edit]


Hi, I tried to publish this page on Marek Szczesny previously - I am not directly in touch with the artist, but have met him at exhibitions and I'm in touch with his wife, so as the page isn't about me or my business, I did not declare conflict of interest originally, but the page got rejected and deleted on this basis. I have again edited the text following feedback, guidelines of neutrality, credible references, stated conflict of interest on my profile and, as I now understand that I am still not an autoconfirmed editor (I'm slowly building up my edits), I submitted the proposed article through AfC back in May 2019. It looks like there has been one review other than myself and a friend (Davefantazy), but it has not yet been reviewed or considered for publication. Is there something that I should do that I haven't? Do I need to press 'Submit your draft for review'? I haven't done this as I don't want to risk deletion again or a negative impact on my Wikipedia account. I've tried to follow the guidelines as stringently as possible and as much as I understand them, but please let me know if there is something more I need to do.

IsuzB (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted the draft for review yet, so yes, you need to press 'Submit your draft for review' BUT your draft has very few independent sources, the galleries are primary sources so cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:15, 27 October 2019 review of draft by NeWiPl

[edit]

Respected Experienced Wiki Editors,

I am editing a page created on this subject. I am not doing it for any commercial reasons neither do I represent the person. This person’s books are widely used and I have it in our library too. He has gathered world’s leading intellectuals and have done some laudable work in publishing volumes on the foundations of science.

Anyone with a science background can affirm this. His books are widely accessed and are published with Springer (not with some random paid journal abiding the rules of Wiki). You can see the download rates of his both books here and here.

Can someone tell me what else does one need to improve this page?

I have included the Google Books citation and so on.

Thank you,

NeWiPl (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NeWiPl, While the subject seems to have edited many books, nothing has been written about him. To prove his notability, you need coverage of him by news sites, newspapers, books, media, etc. The fact that he wrote a book is not enough (unless you try to prove that he meets WP:NAUTHOR, which I do not believe he does), other people need to have written about him. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:42, 27 October 2019 review of submission by Shannonfairweather

[edit]

Hello, I am requesting a re-review as I added more references that prove Dirty Water Media is a subject of significant coverage. The company has been around for over 10 years and is one of the biggest local media companies in Boston. Please consider a re-review. Shannonfairweather (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shannonfairweather, There are many local media companies, but very few make it onto Wikipedia. I do not agree that DWM is the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Almost all the existing sources are not independent, i.e. they are written by DWM or closely affiliated with DWM. Additionally, the existing article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Regrettably, the subject just isn't notable at this time. There are millions and millions of companies, so we have to have high standards regarding inclusion, and DWM just doesn't meet those. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:16:00, 27 October 2019 review of submission by Pholcomb9

[edit]


Pholcomb9 (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Is there anything that I can do to get this page live, or does the fact that Nick is not "notable" yet make it an automatic no? Within 5 minutes, I found multiple pages on top basketball recruits in high school (examples below).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaden_Springer • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalen_Johnson

I find it a little unfair and inconsistent that these pages can exist, but the page that Nick and his mother reached out to me to create cannot? Can you please provide me with more clarity on this?

Thanks,

Pat

Hi Pholcomb9. A conflict of interest is created by the fact that Nick and his mother asked you to create the article. Editors are strongly discouraged from writing about topics with which they have a conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's requirements. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So it generally isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. When discussing whether a draft is acceptable for publication, it's safer to argue from policies and guidelines
The relevant subject-specific guideline is WP:YOUNGATH. The draft cites a local newspaper and a stats site, neither of which does anything to demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia). In the reviewer's evaluation, no sources exist that would. If you can prove that wrong, you may ask that the draft be reconsidered. Also, as his career progresses, and the guidelines WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NHOOPS come into play, he may become notable. Until then, it may help to bear this in mind:

Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."

— Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)
--Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:11, 27 October 2019 review of submission by Bdushaw

[edit]


Bdushaw (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To report a puzzling situation... Yesterday I created a stub for the article Montjuïc (Girona). I was in the process of several other related edits having to do with the generic "Montjuic" term, so I wasn't able to immediately develop the article as much as I would have liked, but still I thought it was barely sufficient to stand until I could get back to it today. In the mean time, the article was moved over to this system of new article creation review for new users. I am not a new user, having created several articles and brought others up to "Good" rating. But now my (newly revised) article is stuck in limbo with a notice saying that the review to release it could take 8 weeks! There are several errors in process that I can think of, one of which is that I should perhaps have begun the article on my Talk page as a start, though I wanted to include the article in the Montjuic disambiguation page. Another error, seems to me, is that the person who shuffled the article in to this review process should first have checked the status/experience of the article creator. (While I am here I note that according to the rules I should be able to review my own article!) Anyways, here we are! All in all, I would have preferred to have the stub article just deleted, or, better, a pause for 24 hours say to wait to see how the article develops. (Even the main Montjuic article is severely lacking in proper citations.) Bdushaw (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I've just noticed there is already an article Montjuic (Girona), a redirect. - the difference is in the "i". Bdushaw (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bdushaw. The stub you created was subjected to WP:DRAFTIFY by a new page patroller. That's a different process from Articles for Creation, so I don't want to speak for them, but the stub cited no sources, so you can probably see where they were coming from. They meant well. You developed Montjuïc (Girona), and it's back in article space, so hopefully all's well that ends well.
In case you ever experience this again, WP:DRAFTIFY says anyone may object to a draftification, and if they do, the draftifier is required to undo their move. They may then take the article to AfD, though, so the simplest and least drama-prone thing to do would be to improve the draft and move it back to article space yourself. As an autoconfirmed user without a conflict of interest, Articles for Creation is an optional process for you, there would be no need to wait for someone else to review the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:52, 27 October 2019 review of submission by 100.8.176.146

[edit]


All citations seem proper. Please help identify where the credibility issue is.

100.8.176.146 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources linked, they don't talk much about Zaidi as a person, just in relation to his company. That makes me believe that his company might be notable, but there isn't even an article for that yet. As is, hes always presented alongside his couisins, so perhaps the "Zaidi couisins" would make for a notable article. But as is, the coverage is just not enough. See WP:42 for a succinct explanation of notability requirements. What you'd need is more articles that focus just on Nabil Zaidi or give him significant coverage. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_October_27&oldid=985270622"