Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 8 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 10 >
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.


October 9

[edit]

07:09:44, 9 October 2022 review of submission by TheAssassinAgent

[edit]

What things need to be changed so that this page can be published TheAssassinAgent (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAssassinAgent: TBH, many things. First and foremost, you need to address the reason why this was declined, namely lack of evident notability. We need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites no such source; not a single one.
Second, you must support every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private information with inline citations to reliable published sources. Currently eg. the 'Early Life and Education' section is entirely unreferenced.
You also need to remove all those inline external links, of which there are many.
I can't guarantee that this would still be accepted, but that would at least go a long way in the right direction. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
okay I will be sure to add reliable sources. maybe in 6 months people would automatically start to know this person. I just wanted to be the first one to write an article on wikipedia of someone before they get famous. TheAssassinAgent (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAssassinAgent Please see wp:TOOSOON. David10244 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheAssassinAgent Wikipedia does not have articles about a topic before it is "famous". The topic must achieve its fame first- here "fame" is defined as notability. Once can be famous and not notable, or notable and not famous, the terms are not necessarily interchangable. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:15, 9 October 2022 review of submission by 2401:4900:6068:875A:0:0:634:463

[edit]


2401:4900:6068:875A:0:0:634:463 (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:14:43, 9 October 2022 review of submission by 160.119.228.228

[edit]


Dear Sir/Madam, I posted this publication out of the best of my knowledge about myself, indeed this should been submitted by another which could've been easier for me to "fake" an identity to submit but its for a good course . Moreover, I have been crowned nor have exceptionally impacted my community "WORLD" yet but it's all coming together and soon will be. I'm not requesting this because I want to be on the internet if so I would've build for myself a website and created social media platforms, but I'm creating this foundation for other in the near future and when the time comes. Unfortunately I don't have words to convince you to accept, but I can only ask you to do a review accept my submission and or if you have any advise as to how I should write an acceptable article I will appreciate it.

Sincerely yours, Felix J Asubonteng Dwomoh 160.119.228.228 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered again. Please find some sort of social media or blogging platform instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:43, 9 October 2022 review of submission by Carrotsandpeas

[edit]


Carrotsandpeas (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my page get deleted? I have references and cited my information.

Your draft is here Draft:Jessica Gabsi though it probably should be deleted, it has zero independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:35:27, 9 October 2022 review of submission by Socialmakeover

[edit]


This editor is rejecting because they have done zero review of the Music Artist themselves. Please allow actual "experts" in Music to submit new artits.

Socialmakeover (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialmakeover The reviewer correctly rejected the draft, as you offered no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the musician,.showing how he meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. His social media accounts do not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a directory where mere existence merits inclusion. If this musician is a client, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. Please read about the role of expert editors on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot. Not a client. Im a fan and a campaign volunteer. I reposted it with as plain with links to the accreditations. This is a musician running for President of the United States of America. Just because they're not Kanye level of stardom doesn't mean that the artist isn't a real musician.... Socialmakeover (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, given the admitted (and undisclosed) conflict of interest and the extremely volatile nature of this topic area you shouldn't be editing this. This is like taking an introductory piano lesson and then skipping years of practise to play in a concert. Their being a "real musician" or a candidate for President is irrelevant as to whether or not they are (1) notable in any context or (2) the article on them is sourced properly. Your sources fail to demonstrate the former, and none of them can be used to help satisfy the latter. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is notable and reference...

Socialmakeover (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialmakeover For follow up comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. The fact that you think everything is notable and referenced means that you fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is and what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. We can use literally none of the sources you have provided:
Please do yourself a favour and read up on the sorts of sources we consider acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB has more oversight than Wikipedia. Sorry. I'll remove myself from the platform. Socialmakeover (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb's editorial policies have actually been discussed on Wikipedia before, and they've always been considered lacking. There have been 32 discussions about IMDb's suitability as a source; none of them have been in favour of using it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally hundreds of people who say they are running for president of the US. Doesn't mean anything unless sources write about it. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:58:56, 9 October 2022 review of submission by Kwanele Skele

[edit]
i would like to know why my arcticle draft was decline

Kwanele Skele (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwanele Skele: your draft was declined for lack of notability, and speedily deleted for being inappropriate. Can't say more, as I didn't see the content, which is now gone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_October_9&oldid=1148189294"