Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 7 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 9 >
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.


July 8

[edit]

Request on 02:28:51, 8 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ShawnMayberry

[edit]


Hi Wikipedia,

This former alderman has made history in the State of Illinois, passing the United States of America's first reparation bill in Evanston, Illinois. So I thought it would be great to get her featured here so that people can easily access this information about her.

I would like to know what needs to be done to have her added as an entry within Wikipedia.

Thanks!

Shawn Mayberry ShawnMayberry (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:37:01, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Dr Hibban

[edit]


Mr Aafi as I recreated this draft, I don't know what's wrong in it why you are rejecting it as far as I know the mentioned person is notable more than the articles you had worked on so far you can check Google tho all apart you know this guy is already famous in your area too, can I say this is something personal thing with this person that's why you are rejecting the article ? BTW see you soon.

Dr Hibban (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Hibban The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because it appears that this person does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable photographer. Wikipedia is not just for telling about someone and what they do, it must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that they are notable as defined by Wikipedia- which may be different than how you or I define it. Interviews with the subject do not establish notability, nor does announcements of their work. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(User: 331dot) Apologies I don't mean that but If we will go through the whole wikipedia's special definition a notable photographer. We can see there is clearly mentioned it makes a person notable if he has done something for the photography community like had published book, film or anything as we can see this person has individually Authored Two Books On Photography and so far about coverage he has enough coverage I guess there are lot of wiki articles of persons who just have one or two media coverages, I don't have any personal with this I don't seriously care about weather this article will be published or not but I guess it's not fair to neglect this article thank you.

331dot The article was deleted by community consensus on 31 March 2021, and the deleting admin JGHowes also salted it. There is nothing new and the community has already decided that the subject of this fails the notability criteria of the Wikipedia. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:33:40, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Esmeraldaemy

[edit]


Esmeraldaemy (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For revision of the first rejection of Pahunkat: citations from independent sources were added. See citations: 4, 6, 7, 32, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55... For second revision of second rejection of LJF2019 and similar of Noah: peacock terms in previous version were already removed, replaced by neutral terms. Could reviewer SL93 or other reviewers of Wikipedia tell me why you think the issue has not yet been addressed?

@SL93: courtesy ping Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Esmeraldaemy: I was referring to "The external links should not go in the main body of the text." You have a lot of those. Please fix them. I was also referring to the Education section being unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:53, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Karthi346

[edit]



Karthi346 (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Karthi346: Your draft has been rejected, meaning reviewers don't intend on reviewing it again. Please read over WP:CITEHOW, zero of the "sources" used in the current draft are verifyable. In addition, Wikipedia isn't interested in what a subject wants to say about itself, only what other people who have not been feed by the subject have written in reliable sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:11:06, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Silentmessengers

[edit]


Hello,

Thank you for keeping Wikipedia relevant and useful. However, I'm hoping for a re-review on this article or advice on what changes will help:

1) Relevant disclosures were made prior to posting. 2) Painstaking attempts have been made to keep the language, neutral and factual. 3) References from notable and eminent publications have been provided for facts.

Look forward to your response. Thanks! Silentmessengers (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silentmessengers You are a paid editor. It is assumed that you can hit the ground running because you are earning money from this. Wikipedia is an amateur project. If your work was rejected it has been judged to be one that woudl never survive in mainspeace. `A reviewer has simply called a halt to this draft. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Just don't expect to be spoon fed by we amateurs who give our time freely buty to other amateurs
Since you are paid youi might as well get back om the horse. But first read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure again and make the correct disclosure on your user page. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:57, 8 July 2021 review of draft by 1.7.180.194

[edit]


This help is requested to understand better as to why the draft wiki page for Dr. P.B. Salim was declined.

The reason given for declining the draft is passing mention about the subject in the quoted references. However, it is not mentioned that exactly which reference is being talked about. Most of the given references directly and elaborately mention about the subject. Therefore, it is very important to know which reference is being said to have a passing mention of the subject.

1.7.180.194 (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI
Draft was accepted by reviewers Justiyaya 06:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:28:54, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Tommymul

[edit]


Hi all. I recently submitted an article for a local amateur senior football club in Ireland - Newtown Rangers AFC. It was rejected this morning based off not having reliable/or any sources to back up the club's honours list. The issue is the online archive of such leagues and titles for Irish football is shockingly poor. All I have is the 60th Anniversary annual which has a complete list of all the club's honours since 1957 - 2017. It's printed and published locally but not online. I don't know what to do now. I can take a picture etc of the annual but I am unable to find an online location of it. It's really disappointing as this club is over 60 years old, has a great history but now I can't disclose the actual awards it has won. Any suggestions at all?

Tommymul (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommymul Before expending too much energy please read WP:NFOOTBALL and only do further work if the club qualifies. If out does, non online sources are wholly acceptable as llmc as they are cited correctly so that an educated reader could find them if they so chose. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. 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 referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have confused myself use WP:NCLUB instead FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:33:18, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Skelley4195

[edit]

This page was edited by one of your editors, many thanks! I selected the button to request a review and was sent to a page to add a section with a Captcha and edit box etc. I do not wish to add a section. I completed the Captcha and selected Publish because those were the instructions on the page, but the page simply refreshed. I can't tell if the page has been submitted for review. Thank you for any guidance you can offer. Skelley4195 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skelley4195 No idea whathappened, but I have submitted Draft:Vision Rehabilitation Therapist on your behalf in your name FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:39:59, 8 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Anna-Sara Reinisch

[edit]


I would like to create a new Wikipedia page for the Baltic Forest Hiking Trail with more detailed information and pictures. There is some information about the trail on the Wikipedia page "E11 european long distance path". I think a new Wikipedia page is needed because the Baltic Forest Hiking trail is a part of the E11 path but still it is its own path. My new Wikipedia page about the Baltic Forest Trail has been taken away and I'm also involved in a COI now. How can I get out of this situation? I am not paid to write this article. I'm a volunteer and see a need for more detailed information with help of two different Wikipedia pages. If I for example would split the article "E11 european long distance path", into E11 European long distance path" and Baltic Forest Hiking Trail, how much of the information on the original page can be left without being duplicate?

Anna-Sara Reinisch (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Sara Reinisch, Don't worry about the COI warning, that's just someone had a suspicion there may have been a conflict of interest, but it seems you've cleared it up here.
Regarding the drafts (there are two mostly identical ones: Draft:Baltic Forest Hiking Trail and Draft:Baltic Coastal Hiking trail, firstly, even though they were declined, you still have access to them and can still resubmit them after you make improvements if you would like to. However, I agree with the reviewer that you have not yet presented enough reliable sources in either draft that proves that this should be a standalone article. I think it is much better right now as a section in E11 European long distance path, which is what the reviewer suggested. That being said, if you do provide considerable reliable sources, perhaps the determination may be made that it could function as a standalone article.
Also, please choose one of the two duplicate drafts and work only on that one. You can pick whichever you want, but having two duplicate drafts may cause confusion for both us and you. Curbon7 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:08, 8 July 2021 review of draft by Mynameisian

[edit]


Mynameisian (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article i drafted is being rejected. i had tried to rewrite it to make it neutral. Is there anywhere else i should take note of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisian (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mynameisian: The first thing you should do is you should search for some independent, reliable sources that actually support your content, as verifyability is one of Wikipedia's core principles. If you can't find any, its time to stop, as anything else will be a waste of everyone's time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:28, 8 July 2021 review of submission by 196.188.95.21

[edit]


196.188.95.21 (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:05:08, 8 July 2021 review of submission by AJTANDY

[edit]


AJTANDY (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a page for review called BDS the truth and it was refused

Your draft here User:AJTANDY/sandbox/The Truth About BDS consists of three links to YouTube that is NOT what Wikipedia is for. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:51, 8 July 2021 review of submission by GreenEli

[edit]


Hi there,

Last month, I submitted my very first article for review. I went through the Wikipedia Adventure, used the Article Wizard, and, once I finally felt it was close to ready, reached out to some of the great folks on the live help chat IRC to get their thoughts before submitting the article for approval. I got some great feedback, and was told that it looked good to go. After a couple of weeks, I didn't see any activity on it, so I reached out to the live help chat IRC again to get some more input, after which I added some more details to the Career section.

I realize that there is a backlog of articles awaiting approval, so the process takes time, but the facts that the backlog is not simply a queue, and that the person about whom I wrote fits within a specific niche (biographies of living Orthodox Jewish singers) leaves me concerned that it may take longer than normal to be seen (or may not be seen at all out of a given reviewer's lack of interest in the topic). I am not worried that the person (Shlomo Simcha) not being notable, as there are plenty of other articles about other people within that niche (Benny Friedman, Mordechai Shapiro, Yaakov Shwekey), and his name even appears in some of them (e.g. Abie Rotenberg). It's just that I don't have a clue how popular that niche is with reviewers, and what that means for it being seen and eventually reviewed.

I believe that I've gone through this properly,, and that my article is of a good quality (or at least a good start). I also hope that this is the appropriate place for making this inquiry.

Thank you kindly,

GreenEli (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been accepted in the meantime. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Yes, I just noticed that as well! A reviewer took a look at it and made some comments. Then, after I asked for more details and advice on improving it, it seems they changed their mind, or maybe dug through my references some more? I still have a photo to add, which is awaiting copyright clearance, and I know there are a lot more details to add about Shlomo Simcha's charity work, collaborative work, and maybe something about the fact that he is often hired for private (corporate and personal) functions, but it's great to know that the effort I put in was worth it. I'm quite happy I got a Start-Class rating on it rather than a stub. Thank you to anyone and everyone who looked at this, and for however it got to the reviewer's attention! GreenEli (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:13:17, 8 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ShawnMayberry

[edit]


Hi Wikipedia,

Do you all think Alderman Simmons is worthy of a Wikipedia article for her passing the first reparations bill in America? Also, if you all do, what changes would I need to make to the article for you all to accept.

Thanks!

Shawn Mayberry

ShawnMayberry (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ShawnMayberry, Possibly. The subject certainly fails our notability criteria for politicians, but may still pass our general notability criteria if it is proven that her reparations bill is something noteworthy and if her mentions in reliable sources aren't just passing mentions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:46, 8 July 2021 review of draft by AlexanderKopelman

[edit]


My draft of an article was rejected because of issues with references. I resubmitted an updated draft with additional references on April 5th, 2021. I have not received any additional feedback on the draft. AlexanderKopelman (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not re-submitted it? Press the blue button that says "resubmit". Theroadislong (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:07:19, 8 July 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:5502:C97D:E915:C31F:9A6:95F6

[edit]


2405:201:5502:C97D:E915:C31F:9A6:95F6 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Curbon7 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:21, 8 July 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:5502:C97D:E915:C31F:9A6:95F6

[edit]


Respected Concern Authority, on the behalf of Kashmir News Bureau I am writing to request you kindly consider the article for publication as This is one of the top news agencies of India.

2405:201:5502:C97D:E915:C31F:9A6:95F6 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should definitely read our policy on undisclosed paid editing and conflict of interest editing, as from your use of "on the behalf of Kashmir News Bureau", it seems you are associated with the company. Regardless, as you were told in the reviews, the draft lacks reliable sources, and the subject does not demonstrate notability, per our notability guidelines for companies. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:18, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Gavin 78

[edit]
My Wikipedia biography about my favorite musician was approved today and whenever you look up “Edwin J McEnelly”, the Wikipedia page shows up but with an odd picture of two guys posing with eachother and has nothing to do with the article. I’m not sure why it’s there and when I check the page itself on Wikipedia it isn’t anywhere on the page. I’m wondering if you know anything about it or how to fix it. It wasn’t there in the draft page either

Gavin 78 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gavin 78: Where are you seeing this picture? If it's not on Wikipedia itself there's probably not too much we can do to help. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Gavin 78 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ:

It shows up when you look up “Edwin J. McEnelly” on Google. The Wikipedia page is the first thing that comes up but there is a photo of two random guys next to it where there should be the picture of Edwin on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin 78 (talk • contribs)

Gavin 78 Wikipedia has no control over Google search results or knowledge panels; you will need to contact Google for assistance. The knowledge panels provide a Feedback link. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:28:48, 8 July 2021 review of submission by 182.188.180.119

[edit]

I think this town should be on the internet because it is a massive effort to lessen the burden of connecting with other cities. 182.188.180.119 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:33, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Youtalk2021

[edit]


Youtalk2021 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youtalk2021, the draft is clearly an advertisement for the subject. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:37:52, 8 July 2021 review of submission by 182.188.180.119

[edit]


182.188.180.119 (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question. To be frank, I have no idea what this draft is supposed to be about, and whatever it is, it's apparently not notable, as it isn't supported by reliable sources. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_July_8&oldid=1033491266"