Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 10 << Mar | April | May >> April 12 >
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.


April 11

[edit]

00:03:23, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Elijah King Bethel

[edit]


Major changes made to page and notability and outside sources now at an arguably reasonable level. Review requested.

Elijah King Bethel (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah King Bethel The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can make the subject meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:47:29, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Baseballnewz123

[edit]


Baseballnewz123 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baseballnewz123 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:49, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Legotwin

[edit]

I am confused by the reasoning for the declining of my draft. I saw the film today at Seattle International Film Festival and was inspired to create a page for the film. I can guarantee that principle photography has been completed and cited so in my article. If additional sources are all that is needed, that is understandable and I can create a new version with more references to corroborate the information present. Legotwin (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legotwin Most reviewers look for at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. You only have one, not including the film website(which is not independent). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:10, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Dokta Moyo

[edit]


Good day, Kindly assist as to where I can improve on this submission.

Dokta Moyo (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dokta Moyo please confirm that you have read the message in the big, pink decline box. This gives you advice. If you find something difficult to understand, please add to this thread and ask with precision for the explanation you wish for Fiddle Faddle 11:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:17, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Jonh takuma

[edit]

I want to write about this person who is the best artist and rapper in Cambodia. Jonh takuma (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonh takuma uploading pictures of doubtful licencing to Commons is not the best place to start. Those have been nominated for deletion there.
Here, your draft is set for speedy deletion as an advert. Likely this is the total lack of references. Nothing shows he passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) and you need references to do that. You will be welcome to create a new draft is this one is deleted, with references, or, and this is important, you can contest the deletion using the bog blue button the deletion box, and state that yiu will be improving its to add references to it. If you succeed in contesting the deletion successfully then you must approach @ CommanderWaterford, the reviewer who rejected the draft and seek retraction of the rejection Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


10:07:55, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Profgeraintrees

[edit]


I'd like some guidance on why my editor is requesting inline footnotes, as these were already provided in the draft to evidence any potentially contentious statements. I don't know whether my editor is asking for *more* footnotes for statements that s/he considers inscope, or wants me to format the footnotes in a different way (perhaps I have missed some key information), or remove footnotes that are irrelevant? I'd very much appreciate any guidance so I can continue editing the draft as a newbie. Thank you. Profgeraintrees (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Profgeraintrees I share your perplexity and am studying the draft and references to seek to determine the reason. All reviewers are human and errors do happen. @Tom (LT) - courtesy ping to see if you are able to shed some light? Fiddle Faddle 11:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Profgeraintrees Accepted It is to be expected that reviewers will disagree. I do not guarantee to be correct; I believe, simply, that the best place to enhance this is as an article, not as a draft. I've left a comment about referencing on the article's talk page. There is no compulsion on you to enhance the article further, nor to enhance the references, but you are welcome to choose to do so Fiddle Faddle 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddle Faddle Thank you very much for your help, much appreciated Profgeraintrees (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and for your contributions in writing the article. There are a number of statements in the article that I considered to need citations, the most notable of which was His work focuses on the pathological mechanisms that underpin neurological disability, and on recovery through neurorehabilitation. However, I also recognise that reviewers may disagree so am happy to defer to Timtrent here. All the best, Tom (LT) (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:10:19, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Jonh takuma

[edit]


Jonh takuma (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I need advise from you.

Jonh takuma Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonh takuma I gave you a details answer above. Please do not keep asking the same question. We are volunteers and answer as soon as we can Fiddle Faddle 11:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:49, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Hercules Anton

[edit]


I am rather confused. This article was not been accepted within hours of posting it. How much more significant coverage from reliable and independent media one should have (both print and online)? At least 10 sources about the article/subject were mentioned in the references, and more in the body. Please help. Hercules Anton (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that you have read Help:Your first article first. This draft has simply been pushed back to you for more work. The Daily Gleaner is obviously a reliable source, but we need things dome somewhat differently. All you have provided is a list or references. We need citations as follows
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
In other words the facts that you assert need to be cited directly, rather than leaving that for others to do. It's not only sensible, it's courteous to readers.
Not good form to upload to Wikimedia Commons a picture for the draft of questionable licencing. That is being handled there.
Obviously you are important to yourself. But read Wikipedia:Autobiography and realise that we do not really care about what you wish to say about yourself. Wikipedia is a great leveller. Approaching volunteers with "what more do you want!?" is unlikely to further your cause
If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:GNG does that. Fiddle Faddle 13:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has declared that they are not Antaeus. Struck comment about that. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:42, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Rawalrajendranath

[edit]


Rawalrajendranath (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rawalrajendranath Welcome to the Helpdesk, unfortunately you do not ask any question regarding your draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:01, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Rawalrajendranath

[edit]


Rawalrajendranath (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:39, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Grebbsy

[edit]


Grebbsy (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grebbsy Welcome to the Helpdesk - your sources are simply not so-called reliable ones - which are needed to proof notability for your subject. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners - find a grave for example is not a reliable source because it is freely editable. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little experience in creating new pages. Can someone explain what is wrong with the sources quoted? Thanks

17:51:12, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Maxmarsh2021

[edit]


hello. I am unsure of the feedback initially received. I have re-edited the article, and would appreciate feedback at this point to know if the article is improved or needs further editing. thank you.

Maxmarsh2021 (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:54, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Lfcfan2007

[edit]


Lfcfan2007 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


19:34:32, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Pattygeorge

[edit]


Hello. Im a stroke survivor who has been trying to make a positive impact by writing or editing articles by researchers in this field. I experienced another relatively minor stroke and its taken me a while to make this new reply to you.

In the interim, I noticed a different Wikipedia article about a less prominent stroke researcher named Darcy Reisman. It appears that my currently-rejected article has much more information than the one about her, and is being held to a higher standard than the article about her. Her article is much shorter, and Im being asked to supply information that does not appear in the article about her.

Please know that Id be happy to revise mine as you have requested, but it would be preferable to apply the shorter format that appears to be acceptable to you. Can you help me format my article in a way that would be more desirable to you?


Pattygeorge (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:37:32, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Formfactor

[edit]

Hello,

The article that I summitted was rejected for the following reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I just wanted to understand if there was a threshold or measure I could compare to. That would help me see if there is anything I can add to correct it.

Thanks!

Formfactor (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Formfactor please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:18:34, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Meehowski

[edit]


Meehowski (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Hi. The Gisto Draft which I created has been declined due to not quite meeting the WP:NM, WP:GNG criteria.... I would love to move this page to the appropriate holding location where I can edit it for future usage when there comes a time that actual notable sources become available. Is this possible and what are your recommendations. Thank you.[reply]

@Meehowski I=t hangs around here for 6 months if unedited in that period. then gets deleted Wikipedia:G13. But see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 which brings it back. Or, in fewer words, it's in it Fiddle Faddle 22:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:38:56, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Aiseeyah

[edit]


The review just said the article wasn't "sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", I didn't submit this article but I was planning on working on it and am relatively new to creating articles from scratch so I was wondering, number 1: will this draft be deleted? Number 2: if not, what do you propose should be added to make ensure it meets standards of notability? More citations to specifically third-party news articles?

Aiseeyah (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aiseeyah This draft will not proceed further. It is rejected. You are at liberty to start a fresh draft if you can improve it. Please read Help:Your first article Fiddle Faddle 09:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:39:04, 11 April 2021 review of submission by HumanHistory1

[edit]

We have an article on the 2019 Dallas courthouse shooting in which the only person killed was the perpetrator and there were no injures, in the shooting at Kent Moore Cabinets, one person was killed and six were injured including a police officer. I am a little confused as to how this recent shooting in Bryan does not meet the notability requirement by the shooting in which no one died or was injured does meet it. HumanHistory1 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanHistory1 your draft requires expansion with text and references. We do not weigh drafts by numbers of victims, but in coverage in reliable media. As the comments say, a little time needs to pass. Wikipedia is not an organ to be first with the news. It is a distillation of what is said by others in reliable sources Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_April_11&oldid=1018254649"