Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 February 13
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 12 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 14 > |
| 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. |
February 13
[edit]06:09:18, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Carl Carlington
[edit]can’t figure out how to post a pic- would like to add the one from this link
Also there are a few links in the sub categories that need to be set as references thank you
Carl Carlington (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Carl Carlington, In most cases, with very few exceptions (logos the most common), we can't use images unless the photographer has licensed them under a free license, which allows anyone to use an image for any purpose. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
06:15:12, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Daphinevadhera
[edit]
Hi, the article was posted six months back and after several changes due to references, lack of clarity over the Indian environment and allied issues, it has been re-submitted, the editors feel that the content is better now. Please have a look Thanks Daphinevadhera (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Daphinevadhera Who are "the editors"? Only one person should be operating your account. You have submitted the draft, it will be reviewed due course; this may not happen quickly so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks 331dot. The editors I was referring to were the experienced editors who helped me during the live help section. Regards. Daphinevadhera (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
10:14:53, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Sohaibchoco
[edit]- Sohaibchoco (talk · contribs)
I want to publish a new page on wikipedia about this organization Tanzeem-al-lissan. I've tried many times to publish this page but could not done. Please help me in this regard.
Sohaibchoco (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Sohaibchoco
Sohaibchoco (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sohaibchoco The draft reads as a promotional listing for the organization. Any article about this organization should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the organization showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization(please read). This does not include routine coverage, brief mentions, staff interviews, directory listings, or other primary sources. Wikipedia itself should not be used as a citation as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You may want to read Your First Article for more information.
- If you are associated with this charity in some way, you will need to read about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
12:43:37, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Marilen.buenviaje
[edit]
I went to livehelp and they mentioned that the article is extremely promotional. I just need help as I am quite confused. Not trying to be promotional. but the page is about him and his accomplishments. Otherwise, without those accomplishments he is not suitable to be in the wiki ? (sorry if my understanding is wrong..i just need help as im confuse as how not to make it promotional about himself when the page is actually about himself. if not, what else to write then?... Please advise. Thanks.
Marilen.buenviaje (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
13:15:14, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Manishsinghon
[edit]
Manishsinghon (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Manishsinghon, for a business to have an article here, it has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources - the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise what reliable sources have written about a subject. If this coverage doesn't exist, there can't be an article, and there is nothing we can do to make one. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
14:59:50, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Spiritletters
[edit]- Spiritletters (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!
The article title above (The Toven) was apparently rejected. Reason; "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Please breakdown the meaning of "sufficiently" as it relates to notable. As I understand the guidelines. "notable" is the requirement and while accompanied with the word "sufficiently" can come off as ambiguous and unclear to the author. Currently I can find no such language in Wikipedia guidelines and rules referring to the phrase "Not Sufficiently Notable". Please assist with pointing this verbage out if I am missing something. Respectfully. Spiritletters (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi Spiritletters. You are correct that notability, as Wikipedia uses it, is binary. A person either is notable or isn't. I don't know how much thought or discussion went into the wording of that rejection message. The word "sufficiently" may have been included because the target audience (novice editors) are usually familiar only with the common definition of the term and not with the technical way Wikipedia uses it. It may also have been considered friendlier, less bitey, less as if we're saying their subject is a nobody. It may have been a nod to the fact that notability is not fixed. Someone who is not notable now may become notable later. Or the word may refer to the sufficiency of evidence. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant information about their subject. A draft that cites one or two such sources might be said to be closer to demonstrating notability than a draft that cites none.
- With regard to Draft:The Toven, mostly it cites Wikipedia, which, being user-generated, is not a reliable source. The only other cited source is their website, which is not independent. So the draft cites zero of the recommended three sources. The reviewer did their own search and could not find sufficient sources to demonstrate notability, so volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
16:07:54, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Udaya Thami
[edit]- Udaya Thami (talk · contribs)
Udayatt 16:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Is my article name is National Thami Museum?
- @Udaya Thami:, this was done as there was a previous abandoned draft with the same name. If the article is promoted to mainspace, then the name will be changed upon promotion.
- Thanks, ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Devarius McKinney (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Musicvideogod, firstly, I don't think he's received significant coverage in reliable sources, a prerequisite for having an article here.
- Your second problem comes from the first, your sourcing is very poor. As stated by another reviewer,
YouTube, Twitter, Vimeo and Instagram are not suitable sources
. In order for our articles to be reliable, they have to be based on good reliable sources. See wp:rs for the guide. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)- Subject is simply not notable. This is not going to change no matter how many edits your make or how many times you submit it for review. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
20:08:29, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Millie Vago
[edit]- Millie Vago (talk · contribs)
Millie Vago (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to have a piece of advice on my article. I am editing it since august :( Thank you!
On hold pending- @Millie Vago: Thank you for your response. I do not find it credible, so I will not give you a hand with the draft and will not communicate with you further. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
