Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 16 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 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.


September 17

[edit]

00:36:15, 17 September 2022 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7

[edit]

Just needed to find out where my previous message went about the article. How long does it take to receive help here? Thanks! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Lightspeed7 "How long does it take to receive help here?" Well, it can certainly take more than the 6 hrs you waited before posting again. We're all volunteers, some of us are busy IRL, and occasionally it's nice to sleep a few hours, even. We do get around to most things, eventually.
In any case, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. And given that you and the rejecting reviewer have been discussing this at some length already, what is it that you want us here at the helpdesk to do? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing. Thanks for your reply! Nice to make your acquaintance!
I apologize if I gave the impression as though I was honking my horn while waiting in line at a McDonald’s, but this is the first time using this Wikipedia communication medium and I wanted to make sure that I was not waiting due to erroneously being in the wrong place. I’m relatively new at editing here, so I’m still learning.
Anyhow, I will briefly describe my concern. First of all, this article was originally reviewed nine months ago the following day after submitting it. Well, it was removed and placed in the draft department about a month later. I added a little bit of new content and references each time I resubmitted, but same thing happened a couple of times. Long story short, this last time, I revised it a lot for about a week...submitted it and was rejected the following day because of notability concerns. I contacted the editor and posed this question: “How could someone who is heard on a weekly basis by 5,000, 000 listeners on 500 syndicated stations not be notable? That’s more than most people on Wikipedia.” This person replied, stating, “you didn’t mention that in your draft.” Then it dawned on me that he or she was right, it was a “duh” moment for me...so I revised the intro of my draft and mentioned Kates’ notability right from the start. That’s just one of the many things he’s famous for. Anyway, after I mentioned that i did that, it got quiet...no replies for days. I thought maybe he or she had a personal issue to deal with and so I didn’t bother them...until a few days later when I checked their activity and saw some recent comments. I then took it as if this person didn’t want to admit that my notability points were well founded and was avoiding me for some reason. I sent one final reply to them, asking to do a nomination for deletion, which would give the community a chance to chime in on it. I received a quick reply and they mentioned to go to Teahouse for a review instead of doing that. I thanked them and mentioned I’d try that. I received their reply after I had already contacted this avenue of help.
Forgive me for the lack of brevity here, but this issue with this subject has been somewhat of a mystery to me...first reviewed and accepted immediately, then this... Kates is not only very well known by many, but is extremely intelligent about all things space! I strongly believe he should have been on Wikipedia many years ago!
Thank you! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Lightspeed7 Notability (click here) refers to how much the subject of the article has been written about in independent, reliable sources. It is not the same as popularity or number of listeners and stations. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I guess I can rewrite it and remove questionable sources. If I do, how shall I submit it anew? It’s been rejected...does this article need to be deleted? Are you able to just hit “delete,” or does a nomination for deletion need to be initiated? Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Lightspeed7: You're not understanding the position the draft is in. Steve Kates as a topic has been deemed not notable for Wikipedia by an AfC reviewer (me). You cannot resubmit this draft nor can you submit a new draft that is substantially the same as this one without the community explicitly agreeing to a resubmission. So far everyone appears to agree that it's not notable. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FormalDude. Ok! I understand now. I’m not planning on resubmitting as is. I’m reworking the draft with respect to yours and others advice/suggestions. I’ll notify you when I’ve completed it for you to take a look at. Thank you! I appreciate your objective overview of the situation! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Lightspeed7: Again, I'm not going to look at it because there is nothing you can do to make the topic notable. You can continue to work on it but that is essentially meaningless as it cannot be resubmitted in any form without prior approval from the community. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FormalDude. I’ll probably only spend another day or two reworking Kates’ draft. I’ve found more revealing content with reliable references. (Nearly all of the references I’m using come from organizations that are on Wikipedia. I read somewhere, that matters a lot, because they’ve already been deemed notable by default of simply being on Wikipedia. I’m sure there are those exceptions!)
You mentioned getting approval of community. When I’m done, should I randomly contact several Teahouse members in order to ask their opinion regarding his article? That’s why I previously mentioned to nominate for deletion, to have the community weigh in on it.
This is another one of the examples I mentioned regarding their lack of reliable references to prove notability. Lucy Clarkson has been on Wikipedia since 2007, with just two references that don’t even function? There are multitudes of articles all over Wikipedia like this one. They pale in comparison to the Kates’ article. Is there a logical answer for this gross violation that runs rampant throughout Wikipedia? Thank you in advance for satisfying my curiosity about this matter! Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First off, just because a reference comes from an organization that has a Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean that it meets WP:GNG. You're much better off checking WP:RSP if you want to determine reliability.
Secondly, you should post a message at the Teahouse requesting a review of your rejected draft for possible resubmission–not contact individual members.
Last, the nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. From the logical perspective, this argument is an example of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as"). There are always going to be articles on Wikipedia that are of low quality and possibly need to be deleted. Lucy Clarkson is one of those, and as such I've nominated it for deletion. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:18:41, 17 September 2022 review of submission by 2409:4063:4292:C4B4:0:0:23F5:20AD

[edit]


2409:4063:4292:C4B4:0:0:23F5:20AD (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question regarding this rejected, unreferenced, non-English, apparent autobio stub? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:26, 17 September 2022 review of draft by Rainbownautinspace

[edit]


Hi! My article got declined again after i made some changes based on he first reasons(referencing) and some great advice from the help desk! Could i receive some guidance? Draft:Tanya Abraham Rainbownautinspace (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbownautinspace: the number of sources seems to have increased, but I don't see a corresponding increase in their quality, and we are now starting to get into REFBOMBING.
Could you please highlight the three strongest sources in terms of establishing GNG notability, namely being independent, reliable and secondary, and providing significant coverage of this person? Note that this expressly excludes interviews, primary sources, reviews of her books, things she has written or said herself, and any sort of sponsored content and churnalism. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @DoubleGrazing
I think these are the references (none of these are interviews/book reviews but mention the works in the article)-
[1]
[2]
[3] Rainbownautinspace (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the first and last of those sources are about TAOS and what they do, not about her as a person. She is being quoted, but that's her speaking as a representative of the organisation. And the second one is about the cookbook, and written in the context of its publication; yes, there is a bit of personal background included in that piece, which someone might try to argue amounts to significant coverage of her, but I'm not at all sure. In any case, that one source isn't enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:27, 17 September 2022 review of submission by Dux96

[edit]

I was drafting an article in my user sandbox and it was deleted. I want to recover my work, help! Dux96 (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dux96 Your account has no deleted contributions. Did you click "Publish Changes"? Note that "Publish Changes" should be interpreted to mean "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". 331dot (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dux96: I don't think you have a sandbox, nor have you created any pages, and it doesn't look like anything has been deleted. Were you perhaps working in the common sandbox? (That gets reset periodically.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I believe it was in my sandbox, it had the box saying, 'This is the user sandbox of Dux96 ...' I don't know what else to say other than I've started over with a draft page this time because I must have done something wrong. Thanks tho! Dux96 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably like 331dot says, if you didn't click the 'publish' button, it doesn't get saved anywhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGlazing @331dot the only thing I can think of is as I was done with the draft and trying to figure out how to add a TOC. I switch from visual editing to source editing, checked my other tab for the code, switched back to the sanbox tab and it was gone. So no more source editing for me ... Dux96 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dux96 The text likely got lost during switching ... not really tgs source editor's fault. You should have seen a prompt saying you would lose your text. Sorry. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:24:22, 17 September 2022 review of submission by Sathiyarajraj1

[edit]


Sathiyarajraj1 (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sathiyarajraj1: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:52:50, 17 September 2022 review of draft by Dynamic-Gaming-Twinz

[edit]


Hi There, about a couple of months ago I noticed my page had been declined so I reached out to the person who reviewed it for more help, but I reckon due to the volume of submissions, that person wasn’t able to respond to my plea of help, so I’ve decided to movie my questions and seek help here instead.

Could I possibly ask a couple of questions if that’s alright? Firstly is there any way in which I can improve the article enough to warrant it’s own page, I have a lot of experience with the item in question and can add more information where necessary, I just may need a bit of help with what you would class as “Important” for improvement of the article as I feel that it is indeed a machine that’s significant for the format and stands separate from other devices using a similar name.

Secondly, The intention of the compatibility list was to show which games were compatible. The ones listed are all those that do indeed work with this particular system, where some do not boot or load at all, I agree however, that it is a long list, but was unsure how I could shorten it and explain in detail what games work, which is why I had added a dropdown to it. Also, the merging Idea does appear to be a good one, there’s just a couple of issues I have with it. The Ivo V10/V11, though originally carrying the Discman logo and name, isn’t reality a Discman at all, in the same way that the Ebook readers of the same era are. It is a functioning multimedia Cd-I viewer, much like the Cd-i Itself, which I feel Is more likely that it could be merged better with that page instead? but it’s an odd device to place. That’s why I felt that it’s better situated on it’s own page, due to the importance of the direction and abandonment of the format and also led to why Sony took the company in another direction before they invested their own time in computer entertainment. Also the fact that it’s one of a few systems to carry CD-i technology that wasn’t branded as Philips, is something unique, where other devices of this nature differ and lastly, it’s also the only Portable Cd-i ever made for market that wasn’t branded Philips, that also has a sub line of portables such as the absence of the LCD on the V12 unit. This may not sound too important to some people, but it’s a big thing within the history of the format and multimedia devices itself and as a whole, leading to where we are today with mobile/cell phones.

Again thank you in advance for the help on how I can improve the article, I look forward to hearing back from you. I’ve spent quite a bit of time, research and photography on this Item and would love to see that work go somewhere. Also if it’s not too much to ask, I’d like to work with you to get this article as good as it can be, so that it can hopefully be accepted in the future.

Dynamic-Gaming-Twinz (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dynamic-Gaming-Twinz: I don't feel competent to comment on whether or not this warrants its own article, but I'll remark on this ancillary point: you seem to have 'reached out' to the reviewer on your own talk page. In that case, you need to ping them, as reviewers don't necessarily watch every page related to every draft they've reviewed. Alternatively, you can go to their talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:03, 17 September 2022 review of draft by Snowtemplon

[edit]


Hello! I recently tried to change the title of an existing wikipedia article, as the information pertained more to a gallery space than as an owner's biography, who's name was the title at the time. When I was unable to edit the title, I attempted to create a new wiki page for the gallery, using the same sources and information, though in a different order and with different subheadings. It was reviewed and rejected twice, for appearing to be an advertisement. I have disclosed that I work for the gallery, but I'm confused what about the page seemed like it wasn't neutral, especially considering it was so similar to a linked page that already exists.

I'm looking for some aid as to how organizations may be represented on wikipedia. The gallery I work for has a long history and it would be wonderful for that information to be available and collected on one place online. How can I create a wiki pages for the gallery, it's owners, and it's artists? Does anyone have experience being in this position? How do organizations create their pages, and if they don't, who does and how do they get onto wikipedia?

Any help would be much appreciated. I am totally new to editing wikipedia and this is something I've been tasked as part of my job, so I'd really like to know how to solve this issue I'm facing. Thanks so much!!

Snowtemplon (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Snowtemplon: I haven't looked into the specifics of your draft, but in general terms I would say it is very difficult, borderline impossible even, for someone representing an organisation to write a neutral, non-promotional article about their organisation. They tend to want to 'control the message' and say what they want to say about themselves, rather than summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said. And there is great temptation to put a positive spin on things, use puffery, and generally try to make themselves look good. (In this context, you may wish to read WP:AUTOBIO; I realise writing about your organisation isn't an autobiography per se, but many of the same issues apply.) If this gallery is genuinely notable, and noteworthy enough, someone will one day write an article on it. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for your help! Is there any way to change the title of an existing wikipedia article, to make it more accurate? In my case it would just be to change it from "Galerie Daniel Templon" to "Galerie Templon." Thanks again! 2603:7000:4B3D:FBFD:C8E9:72A0:5C15:4CFE (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, how could I petition for an article to be written about this topic by someone else? Also why is this draft being rejected when it has the same information/sources as an existing (approved) article that was written by someone not associated with the gallery? Thanks. Snowtemplon (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snowtemplon You can go to Requested articles, but the backlog is so severe as to make it functionally useless. Your best bet is to just allow someone out there to take note of the gallery and decide.to write about it. That's the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_September_17&oldid=1111818000"