Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 15 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 17 >
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 16[edit]

07:47:44, 16 January 2020 review of draft by AJMUSICTZ[edit]

because discount centre is the one of trusted company in tanzania

AJMUSICTZ (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AJMUSICTZ, Wikipedia does not exist to promote it's subjects.CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:13:07, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Brainwash480[edit]

This is my first attempt at making a wikipedia article, so I think I might be having trouble understanding what the requirements are. She's been published/interviewed in multiple 3rd party articles, as well as has a big presence as a trans/LGBTQ+ advocate. What type of references/evidence of credibility would suffice as this person being notable? I understand if the 3rd party sources aren't enough to merit a Wikipedia page, but I'd like to understand what would be enough to have this page published. Thank you. Brainwash480 (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brainwash480. Examples of independent sources that prove someone's notability are this profile of Charlotte Bunch in The New York Times and this chapter about Roberta Achtenberg in a book by a notable author from a mainstream publisher. Things Ripley wrote wouldn't demonstrate notability, but a review of something she wrote, by an academic or a professional book critic, would demonstrate notability. Interviews are primary sources. If they're mostly Ripley talking about Ripley, without significant independent analysis by the interviewer, then they don't show notability. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what other people say about a person, not so much in what they say about themselves.
Writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can attempt. It's better to start by improving existing articles. 98% are rated below "good" by the community, so there's much scope for improvement. If you're interested in writing about LGBTQ+ activists, browse Category:LGBT rights activists or Portal:LGBT for ideas, and consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:00, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Veraluciaobrigado[edit]


The article was significantly revamped, adding 8 more news sources for the news release (including not just English ones, but also sources like GamerFocus, Voxel and PSX Extreme), 6 more sources for the reviews (including two YouTube channels with 235k and 442k subscribers) and info about a recent fan translation. This is a huge amount of work since not all info was got from the official website.

Veraluciaobrigado (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Veraluciaobrigado: Sources have to be in-depth, not just passing mentions, short blurbs or part of lists. News releases are not generally significant coverage and usually they contain mostly primary-sourced content no better than a direct press release. YouTube channels or random websites are not normally reliable, because they are not peer reviewed or under editorial purview. Quickly looking through the sources, I don't see any that would pass significant coverage mark. The only ones are [1] and [2] but there is no indication these are reliable publications, such as WP:VG/RS. And info should almost never be from the official website. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:21, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Sallywu11[edit]

I am asking for a re-review, since I think the wiki topic I created needs attention and to be known. It's a free alternative to XMind and MindMeister. It would be helpful for those who are looking for free alternatives. Thanks！ Sallywu11 (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sallywu11: Wikipedia does not base article creation on any kind of popularity or necessity factors, such as needing to be known or being helpful to someone. Wikipedia required reliable in-depth sources for an article to pass the notability threshold. You have not added any additional sources after the last review, so there isn't anything to re-review at this time. It also seems very likely there just aren't such sources at all. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:41, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Tam.t2020[edit]


I was completing the article and this was just made and the comments were being completed. Please do not reject the story tam 12:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tam.t2020: The draft is declined at the current state, but not yet rejected permanently. You can keep editing as long as you need and resubmit afterwards. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

count to 10

Hello my friend I have tried to keep the article in mind as I am a novice in order to add at least some edits and resources. The film will soon be screened at foreign festivals. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COUNT_TO_10&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam.t2020 (talk • contribs)

Do not recreate the page, but continue to edit the draft. See Help:Editing if you need guidance. The draft is at Draft:Count To 10. If you need further help, you can ask general questions about editing at WP:TEAHOUSE. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:31, 16 January 2020 review of draft by Arjunsingh5478[edit]


Have resubmitted the draft, with the changes and the reliable source which were asked for. Did i do the right thing just wanted to confirm. Arjunsingh5478 (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:00, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Frakes928[edit]


Added 3 new articles about Tite by music blogs and industry media companies. See citation 2, 12, 15 for reference.

Frakes928 (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Frakes928: Blogs, interviews, and interviews in blogs are not independent, reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate notability.
Rejection of a draft is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable, so volunteers do not intend to review it again. This is the eighth time that you've asked for reconsideration of the rejection:
  1. August 13, 2019
  2. August 19, 2019
  3. November 5, 2019
  4. November 26, 2019
  5. December 10, 2019
  6. December 11, 2019
  7. December 13, 2019
Six experienced Wikipedians have told you that you're wasting your time on this topic. It will not be published. Your time is your business, but stop wasting other people's time. You are dangerously close to being blocked from editing for not listening to consensus and editing tendentiously. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Frakes928: Unconnected editor and page stalker here. I can't find any media coverage suggesting notability. I would give up if I were you. TechnoTalk (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:33, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Jane Freiman[edit]

I am requesting a re-review because I read your suggestions and changed the wording of many sentences in this article. I believe the language is now more neutral and less related to advocacy. Thank you! Jane Freiman (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Freiman, I'm afraid it is still not in the encyclopedic tone expected, and that it still seems fairly promotional to me. Examples of unencyclopedic sections include "For decades, students have expressed concerns"; the entire "walk in our shoes" section. Some sentences lack sources, that makes me question them and if they are also promotional. The student unionism section seems disconnected to PSU. Other issues remain, but in general: tone needs improvement. Step back, and realize that an encyclopedia article is written from a neutral and disinterested perspective, seeks to present facts without bias, and that we present our subjects in a neutral, not positive or negative, light. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:25:17, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Veraluciaobrigado[edit]


Added 14 (!) more links, including the whole new section, more links about reception, a link to a documentary with an interview, a link to the official game thread which has 71k views and 268 posts just on Sega-16 alone. Reliable sources like JeuxVideo, Unseen64, Siliconera, MO5. I'd like to ask for a moderator who has a knowledge of retrogaming scene and who would actually read the whole thing. I don't understand why another Sega Genesis homebrew game Coffee Crisis was approved with barely any links and without any reliable sources at all, yet this one is being rejected and a second moderator openly says he quickly visited just some links, not checking everything. Veraluciaobrigado (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Veraluciaobrigado. You will not get volunteers to reconsider the draft through WP:BOMBARDMENT. Nor by comparisons with existing articles (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to understand why). Your best approach would be WP:THREE, but understand that rejection is usually final. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:38, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Charlieadguerilla[edit]


Wha is wrong with the article? Charlieadguerilla (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlieadguerilla: As the reviewer stated, it is not an article, it is an advertisement. Wikipedia publishes articles for companies that have been covered in-depth by reliable independent sources, which you can read about if you click on the link in the rejection reason. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:37, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Jane Freiman[edit]

I removed the mission statement. Jane Freiman (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the lead section, and did some minor reference formatting. It's still a bit heavy on the advocacy, wandering too far into WP:NPOV, but the sourcing is good and suggests that this should be an acceptable article. Maybe hatnote for POV and let it get fixed. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:58, 16 January 2020 review of submission by Delfino319[edit]

Hello! I wanted to discuss the submission I put in for a Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) wiki page. It was declined, the justification being that "he subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia." The editor was referring to the Thanos comic book character's wikipedia page, however the page I had worked on is for the Marvel Cinematic Universe's rendition of the character. Many MCU iterations of characters already have their own unique wikipedia pages, like Tony Stark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Stark_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe)) and Thor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe)). It's also worth noting that a few of the MCU characters that already have dedicated pages are substantially less important to the franchise than Thanos, such as Erik Selvig (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Selvig) and Trevor Slattery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Slattery).

Furthermore, the Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) page has significantly more detail than what's provided on the comic book character's "in film" section. There we get a simple overview of the character's plot line. A dedicated TCU page allows Wikipedia to expand on his behind the scenes development, character arc, reception, cultural impact, and more. It's one thing to say the Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article needs more work - I might even agree with that argument - but to say it's not necessary because it already exists is erroneous. Every MCU character has a comic book equivalent, but the MCU's rendition of the character unique and should get the attention and detail it deserves. If this Thanos' page shouldn't be on Wikipedia, than neither should the Tony Stark page, the Erik Selvig page, and the countless other MCU character pages that are either in draft form or already published. Delfino319 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Delfino319 - with the character having different arcs depending on the media, it's too much to keep straight in one article, and warrants a fork. Courtesy ping to David.moreno72 as the declining editor. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support TechnoTalk, still no word from David.moreno72 regarding this. Should we submit for consideration again in case another editor can take a look? Delfino319 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine - he may not be on every day. TechnoTalk (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_January_16&oldid=985274870"