Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 16 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 18 >
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.


August 17[edit]

02:19:31, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Findganignunt[edit]


Hello, I'm attempting to create a wiki. The page was rejected because wiki is "not a missing persons site." Yet...

Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Jennifer_Dulos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_People https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Missing_person_cases_in_Maryland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Hae_Min_Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Levy

Findganignunt (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Findganignunt. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a medium for advocacy or showcasing of any kind. This edit indicates that however noble your cause may be, you are here for the wrong purpose. Wikipedia is not a missing persons site. It contains articles about some disappearances, when the event meets certain criteria, but routine disappearances – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Several of the draft's sources were self-published or group blogs, which are not reliable sources. The remaining sources are heavy on directory/database-type sources, which do not help establish notability. The Washington Post is routine crime reporting. Bethesday Magazine is better, but is insufficient on its own to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

05:05:28, 17 August 2021 review of submission by OverLord Official[edit]

I don't know why my wiki thing was deleted because it wasn't a hoax at all... It actually is for my Twitter account https://twitter.com/AntivaxxerNews and I'm trying to get that verified so I really just need to have a wiki or something that mentions the account so please just let it be posted so I can get the link then you can just delete the wiki in like 15 hours and then I won't really care if it gets deleted as long I get verified lol OverLord Official (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. You will have to find another way to promote your stuff elsewhere. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OverLord Official Wikipedia has no interest in helping you get verified. If your Twitter account does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of notable web content, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it will not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@OverLord Official: We don't do temporary articles, and I personally consider Twitter accepting a Wikipedia article for verification to be completely and utterly r-------. It's there mainly for the benefit of older personalities who have a history outside of the Internet, not for up-and-coming clowns who think it's that "one trick" that will get them verified (spoilers: We block users for that). I should also note we do not allow usernames implying official or shared use and urge you to change it ASAP. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:36, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Fastwaq[edit]


Fastwaq (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moot - page and editor were eighty-sixed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:57:14, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Mohammad Liyaqat[edit]

I want to know that how can I improve my draft page Draft:Yamaleela Aa Taruvatha.

Thanking you, Mohammad Liyaqat Wikipedian Editor

06:27:13, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Ahammeddiya[edit]


Ahammeddiya (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahammeddiya You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is for summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage, showing how the person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:09:49, 17 August 2021 review of draft by Rachele Canetti[edit]


To all whom it may concern.

I am a passionate sim racing gamer and I couldn't help but notice that there is no article about all the major brands linked to sim racing (Playseat, Fanatec, TrackRacer, SimLab, Simucube, etc). After many talks with mechanic institutes students who would like to find more notions about the evolving world of Sim Racing (as one of the most representative phenomena exploding during the COVID19 pandemic), I started writing articles about the major brands to be published in Wikipedia, starting with Playseat, which is one of the most representative in the market.

I am aware that one fundamental principle for publishing on Wikipedia is a list of authentic and recognized sources of information to be quoted, but at the moment is hard to find sources to validate it, as the intelligentsia is still not willing to write about it, especially about the single brands, as we are in a constant situation where new, emerging cultures are not considered "culture" unless they are at least 40 years old. As a Master of Degree in Asian Contemporary Culture and Economics, I had this problem many times, when willing to prepare documents regarding Japanese Pop Culture in the first 2000s, when nobody was writing anything about it and those who dared to raise their voices were accused of not promoting "proper culture", while now, 20 years later, seems to be one of the most important subjects to analyze the current Japanese society.

I do not want to address anybody of Wikipedia, as I think you are doing a marvellous job in spreading knowledge between people of any age and country, indistinctively, but I would like to address a problem which is going to haunt me and many people who would like to know more about the subject of Sim Racing and which names, which technologies, which cultural impacts are linked to it, but I am blocked in writing as it's difficult to find valid sources to quote for each fact.

At the moment in my article, I wrote small strings of content quoting international institutions like the FIA, WRC and Red Bull Racing, which are not "academic" sources, but we cannot deny their authority, but it's hard for me to add more as it's difficult to find source to quote which could be considered eligible.

What else could I do to make my article eligible to be published in Wikipedia?

Please, I strongly believe in this project and my dream is to publish a whole network of information about this subject. Can you help me?


Rachele Canetti (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachele Canetti A company must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please review Your First Article. If no such sources exist, then the company would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that. If you just want to tell people about this topic or the companies involved, you might consider using social media or some alternative forum with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:01:19, 17 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 58.11.14.199[edit]



58.11.14.199 (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally no content on the page other than the decline notice, and there never has been any substantive content on the page, full stop. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:00, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Arsenalfanguy[edit]


Arsenalfanguy (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cochise (rapper)
Submit the draft for review by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page while using the source editor. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:56, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Indiansocialwork[edit]

Dear Reviewer, May I please request a rereview of this article based on the subject's selection as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA) which is in itself a notable achievement. Royal Society website reads ' FRSA is an award given to the individuals who are recognized by RSA as made a remarkable contribution to Social Development'. thank you in advance for considering this if you do so. Indiansocialwork (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connexion with Baikady? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:45, 17 August 2021 review of draft by Shenaw2016[edit]


I would like to receive some help getting my article published. The review said my article is more like advertising than an encyclopedia. However, I have looked at EWTN and Twilio articles published on Wikipedia and find my content to be similar. Is there a way to make my content sound more like an encyclopedia? My references are from respected published sources. Are there any references that are inappropriate and are causing my publishing to fail? I can remove those resources. Thanks.

Shenaw2016 (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very first paragraph "The Sacred Heart Enthronement Network has been established to assist and equip those wanting to promote and live out the Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus." is totally unacceptable and promotional, we have no interest in their mission statement. Theroadislong (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:47:05, 17 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Li-reg[edit]


Hello, my draft was declined due to Reliable sources and formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article BUT this draft is on a proffesor and all the sources are reliable (i.e Bar-Ilan University, gondabrain, researchgate, globes, Weizmann Institute of Science, Google Scholar and more) and the tone, according to all my checks are ok as well as compared to others in her field. I ask you to recheck it again please, I have submitted it a long time ago. Thank you. --Li-reg (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Li-reg (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You actually can't use the absence/presence/status of other articles to argue for your own. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A little blue Bori Ok, so what can be done? Im here to get help, Li-reg (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined, see my comments on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:52, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Findganignunt[edit]


Findganignunt (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Requesting a re-review. Edited, moderated, included cited public information for wikipedia.

@Findganignunt: You can cite all the public information you wish, this is still not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. (In the absence of actual proof that she is dead, we must assume that she is still alive, meaning that BLP protections apply here.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Findganignunt, You'll want to make sure the subject of the article meets Notability per WP:VICTIM (which is in line with the WP:BLP1E concern, Jéské Couriano noted. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:55, 17 August 2021 review of draft by Official Dieborg[edit]


My draft got declined because of the sources which I had already guessed would happen. The sources are all from the same organization which makes it seem very one sided on paper. But the article is about a sports discipline and the source is the official governing body over this sport, no one else has a say in the rules. There are other sources that explain the rules but I dont want to create a mess in the sources. Do I just add more sources anyways? Or is my article in fact sufficiently sourced, or is there something else I'm missing? Official Dieborg (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Official Dieborg: to establish notability we need to see others have noticed and written about the subject in detail in reliable sources. We can use primary sources to confirm simple facts, however notability can only be established through the use of independent published, reliable sources. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody else has written about it, then there is no justification for an article in Wikipedia about it. Wikipedia is not for articles about stuff you made up one day. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:30, 17 August 2021 review of draft by 122.161.66.193[edit]


122.161.66.193 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team,

The Article written on Yogesh Yadav qualifies to be published . As , Yogesh Yadav is a public figure. Same has been verified by Instagram and Facebook notably. Please look into the matter

We have no interest whatsoever in what Instagram or Facebook say, they are not reliable sources, neither is YouTube. Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_August_17&oldid=1040163849"