Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 10 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 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.


December 11

[edit]

02:12, 11 December 2023 review of submission by 74.64.97.57

[edit]

not familiar with page creation 74.64.97.57 (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:31, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Brownandorange

[edit]

I have had a number of attempts to create a page about Matt Rutherford. Each attempt has been rejected by reviewers. I don't know how to improve it further. As far as I can see, all the information I have included in my draft page is well supported by contemporary news articles I have quoted as references, as well as the film (available on YouTube) which covers his remarkable voyage to be the first person to sole circumnavigate the Americas.

I'd be grateful if anyone could give me some hints about what else I could do to make my article acceptable to reviwers. Brownandorange (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brownandorange: of the five sources cited, only two (#1 and 3) count towards notability per WP:GNG, and we normally require three or more, so this is almost but not quite there. (It also doesn't help that #3 is being cited via YouTube, which makes it look like an unreliable source.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brownandorange The movie itself is covered at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/movies/red-dot-on-the-ocean-the-journey-of-matt-rutherford.html . While it does lead to the question as to whether the movie should have an article as opposed to Rutherford, the New York times article is about as good as you are going to get and adding *that* as a reference should be enough for the article. You might also want to add https://www.wxxi.org/pressroom/2016/07/red-dot-ocean-matthew-rutherford-story. Naraht (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've tried to improve those references and reduced the size of the entry and hopefully now I'll get it across the line. Thanks again. Brownandorange (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:12, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Testnaya123

[edit]

What is reason reject this article and how can fix it. Testnaya123 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Testnaya123: this has been declined (not 'rejected') for lack of evident notability, as detailed in the decline notice, just like all previous times. You can 'fix' this by demonstrating that the subject is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you improve it for me Testnaya123 (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Testnaya123: in a word, no. The onus is on the draft author to improve their drafts up to an acceptable standard. I'm here to answer any questions you may have regarding the process. In any case, this draft is so far from what is required, that you may need to rewrite it pretty much completely.
BTW, what is your interest in this subject, and do you have some external relationship with it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Sathya Palaniyappan

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Staff,

I am writing to address the concerning issue of the Wikipedia article titled "K Annamalai (politician)" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Annamalai_(politician) ) not being indexed or displayed in Google search results. I implore you to urgently investigate and address why this specific article is not being indexed or displayed in Google search results.

Despite my repeated attempts through previous emails to seek clarification and assistance on this issue, I have yet to receive a satisfactory response or acknowledgment from your team. This lack of responsiveness to a critical matter is deeply concerning.

The current handling of user inquiries and the delay in addressing issues demonstrate a shocking level of neglect. I insist on a swift resolution and a drastic improvement in the service provided to users.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I look forward to a satisfactory resolution and improved service quality. Sathya Palaniyappan (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sathya Palaniyappan: this is not a pending draft, and therefore has nothing whatever to do with the AfC process (except that, given your paid-editing disclosure, you should not have published it directly, but that's a separate matter to be dealt with). Moreover, it has been patrolled, and whether Google decides to index it is their business and nothing to do with Wikipedia. You can insist all you want, but you are barking up the wrong proverbial tree entirely. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text has all the hallmarks of a ChatGPT created message, so I wouldn't put too much weight on the "insisting". Qcne (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I'm grateful for their insisting, as this article might have otherwise slipped by unnoticed... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: @Sathya Palaniyappan what exactly is your involvement in this matter? Your edit history shows precisely two edits, this one here, and the creation of your user talk page with nothing more than a link to this page. Are you, or have you previously been, editing under a different account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sathya Palaniyappan, I live in California and the article in question shows up #3 in my Google search. That being said, Google decides their search results, not Wikipedia. In general, the more comprehensive a given Wikipedia article is, the higher it will display in Google search results. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Poonam0927

[edit]

Why my draft rejected and how can i fix error please guide me Poonam0927 (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India is not a reliable source and your draft was rejected so will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927: this was rejected for lack of evident notability, after multiple earlier declines. There is nothing to "fix"; this is the end of the road for this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So how i resubmit the draft? Should i create new one? Poonam0927 (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927 you can't re-submit the draft, and please do not create a new one. If you can re-write the draft with no sources from the Times of India let me know and I will have another look. Qcne (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then please tell me what should i do i want to create wikipedia article for actor Gaurav Paswala...please help me what to do now please guide me Poonam0927 (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927 Edit your existing draft and remove all Times of India sources. Then find sources that prove notability under WP:NACTOR. Then WP:PING me here or my user talk page and I will have another look. Qcne (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay i will edit my draft again..thank you Poonam0927 (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrite re edited my draf please check it. Is this now okay? Poonam0927 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927: you've been asked repeatedly to declare your COI, but you haven't. Please do so as your very next edit. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How i declare COI? Please guide me its request to you Poonam0927 (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927: you can either place the {{Connected contributor}} template on the talk page of the article/draft where you have a COI, and/or place the {{User COI}} template on your own user page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay got it thanks ! but draft and references are okay? Please tell Poonam0927 (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done..but when i can resubmit my draft? Please tell and help Poonam0927 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Poonam0927: as @Qcne told you, you cannot resubmit this draft, since it has been rejected. If and when you have new sources available which weren't considered previously, you may approach Qcne directly and they will take another look at it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i re edit the draft please do check and please guide me what should i do? Poonam0927 (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poonam0927 What is your connection with this person? You took a picture of him and he posed for you. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to ask the same. I've posted a COI query on @Poonam0927's talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so should i edit the draft again and make it perfect Poonam0927 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm his fan and as a fan its my responsibility to create his wikitable article..and i tried...please tell me now what to do how can i create? Poonam0927 (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you met with him and took his picture? 331dot (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah me and my one photographer friend clicked his pictures Poonam0927 (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a severe conflict of interest that you must disclose, see WP:COI. Articles are typically written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. It seems that you are so much of a fan that you are disregarding our advice- there is nothing more you can do about this and you will need to move on from this topic- unless you can do as Qcne described and completely rewrite your draft to exclude information from The Times of India. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ! I will rewrite draft again thank you Poonam0927 (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After you disclose your COI. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COI? Poonam0927 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest. You have a conflict of interest that you need to disclose on your user page, User:Poonam0927. See WP:COI for instructions on how to do that. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:36, 11 December 2023 review of draft by 75.134.124.192

[edit]


75.134.124.192 (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was

What is your question? Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:38, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Beth Wimmer

[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Team

I have two questions, please. although first, a comment. simply that, i think i improve my article each time i work on, and resubmit it. i have been trying to make this article more solid for a couple of years now. perhaps it's not working as the references are mainly written in German, but the article is written in English. so, your advice please.

1. my article isn't passing. would you agree, suggest, or at least condone (smile) that i rewrite my article to be instead about the Recording Studio (Little Big Beat Studios in Liechtenstein) as a place/entity, rather than about a living person whose noteworthiness i've been trying to prove.

2. should the article be changed from the English Wikipedia pages to the German pages of Wikipedia, since the references tend to be in the German language?

also - this time i didn't receive an email from Wikipedia, at the end of September, when my article was most recently rejected. i just today logged on and found out.

i truly thank you for your attention, and your dedication to communication. my best wishes Beth Wimmer Beth Wimmer (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Beth Wimmer:
The sources you're referencing can be in any language, they don't need to be in English, and either way this has no bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted.
If you wish to drop this subject (seeing as it has been rejected no fewer than three times already...) and write about a different, related subject instead, you're of course welcome to do that. Do please consider first, though, whether that other subject is notable, given that this one has been consistently declined for lack of evident notability.
The different language versions of Wikipedia are entirely different projects, with their own rules and requirements. I cannot comment on whether an article on either subject would be acceptable at the German-language Wikipedia; you would need to ask them. Anecdotally, the English-language Wikipedia seems to have the most onerous requirements for article acceptance, so in that sense your chances may increase by switching to a different language version instead.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you much for your feedback! i just may change to the subject of the studio itself, instead. i'll consider it, yes. are you able to tell me, for how long will my current Draft be kept intact/active here in Wikipedia, for potential editing still? thanks again very much. -Beth Beth Wimmer (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beth Wimmer: drafts get deleted when six months have passed since the last human edit, and you get a warning a month before that happens. So if you make an edit every five or so months, the draft could in theory at least be retained indefinitely. Of course, someone may conclude that the draft qualifies for deletion, either by the speedy method or via community discussion, but you will again be notified of that (albeit that in the case of speedy, the notice may not be very long!). If you want to play it safe, you should copy the contents into a text file and save locally on your device. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
again, DoubleGrazing, thank you for your input and advice. you've been helpful. have a super week! Beth Wimmer (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Aimjfindia786

[edit]

Hello sir and respected writer i haved writen the articles of above mentioned page but recently i submitted and it was declined again, citing a reason of 'not a reliable source' and 'looks like advertisement' by 2 different editors please kindly look into my article and help me out as i am a begineer. Aimjfindia786 (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aimjfindia786 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. What specific help are you looking for? Have you read the pages linked to in the decline messages? Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi sir, i understand but this Biography was written by "times of india newspaper" senior editor and shorted and modified with Chat GDP with proper guideline and rules of Wikipedia terms Aimjfindia786 (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aimjfindia786: apart from the many problems with this draft, I must advise you against submitting content written by anyone but yourself, as well as against using ChatGPT (assuming that's what you meant?) for any editing on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for guiding i will surely re-write the entire biography and resubmit it Aimjfindia786 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 11 December 2023 review of submission by 2601:246:5F00:750F:0:0:0:7B

[edit]

Hello!

I updated the references in this draft article to point to news articles and not patents, but it was still rejected. The editor only said it was not an improvement, so I'm not sure what they are looking for. Can I get some more clarity? 2601:246:5F00:750F:0:0:0:7B (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the decline notice, we are looking for multiple secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 11 December 2023 review of submission by BloxFruitsLover69

[edit]

Pls why you reject i want to sublit blocksfruits draft so my dad cna seee it. BloxFruitsLover69 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BloxFruitsLover69 only topics that are notable may have a Wikipedia article. We have content guidelines, the relevant one of which is WP:NVIDEOGAME. Qcne (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:53, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Pushingrocks

[edit]

Hello! I am on my 4th draft of this page, and after the most recent rejection, I am really unsure what to improve. The most recent reviewer left no additional explanation beyond the official reason for rejection (Lack of sourcing), and I am lost as to what sections need more/better sources.

At this point I would be happy to just remove the offending sections and hopefully be able to get a shorter version of the page approved that just discusses his published works and the reaction to them which seems to me at least to have pretty ironclad sourcing. But in order to do that I would need to know what the offending sections are. Hopefully, you can offer some help in that regard. Thank you for your time 

Pushingrocks (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pushingrocks: given that the person has died only c. 15 months ago, this subject is possibly still governed by the WP:BLP rules, which require inline citations to support pretty much every material statement you make, especially anything that is potentially contentious, as well as all private personal and family details. This means that as the bare minimum, every paragraph must have at least one citation, and that is only sufficient for very short paragraphs where the cited source genuinely supports everything in that paragraph. The reader should never find themselves asking "wonder who said that", or "wonder if that's really true", or any question like that, because there should be at that point in the text an inline citation to a source which verifies that statement. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. As far as I can tell I do have multiple citations for every paragraph unless there is something i am completely missing. I guess I need more specific help determining what the offending sections are. Pushingrocks (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pushingrocks (ec) Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Pushingrocks (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Rahulbumperkumar

[edit]

hi guys Guys basically its a persons story and all the lines are said by him only so i couldnt change completely all the sentences but i made few changes. So please consider that the lines and paragraph cant be changes So please publish as soon as possible Thanking You Rahulbumperkumar (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulbumperkumar, since you have not bothered to learn how to reference properly I have rejected the draft and it will now not be published to Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 11 December 2023 review of submission by BurakATurk

[edit]

I think the information is enough to creation. Many other Kyokushin karate players like Ewerton Teixeira had their own page which used the almost same news sources. I dont know why drop down my page many times. BurakATurk (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BurakATurk please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are plenty of existing articles that do not meet today's criteria which is generally more strict than even a couple years ago, especially for athletes. In order for the draft to be acceptable, it needs to meet the general criteria. You have resubmitted the draft so another reviewer will take look but if it doesn't meet the outlined guidelines, it will be declined again. S0091 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Messianicdisciple

[edit]

This article has been expanded. Does the article now have sufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter? 

Messianicdisciple (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like original research which is not allowed. Theroadislong (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone thinks this article is original research, but it is not, it is actually a very old thing being revealed. This idea of original research should be support by reference to some statement. What exactly causes the thinking that this is original research? Moreover, original question was not answered. Messianicdisciple (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikipedia article requires research to provide citations. Every article is started by an individual, which is an origin. If original research is prohibited then Wikipedia itself is prohibited. Is *looks like original research* simply a way to boot off someone that you do not agree with? Messianicdisciple (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Messianicdisciple It has nothing to do with agreeing with you or not. Wikipedia articles do not merely post research- they summarize what independent reliable sources state about topics that meet the notability criteria. Articles do not draw conclusions, as your draft does. If you have sources that state the conclusions you make, we need those sources, not you making the conclusions yourself. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not open a new section with every post you make-please edit this existing section to reply. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way to know exactly what the issue is with the article submitted. I have reviewed the pillars of the purpose of Wikipedia, and have no idea what the issue is. Messianicdisciple (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section with every post. Click "edit" in the section header or at the top, not "add topic" or "ask a question". 331dot (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've told you what the issue is, what is the difficulty you are having with understanding it? 331dot (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Messianicdisciple if whatever it is you are revealing gets discussed in mainstream reputable journals, newspapers, and books- then an article may be created. In it's current form your draft is pure original research which is prohibited. Qcne (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to write this very important article in an encyclopedic style. I am taken aback that is was rejected. My first submission said I needed more context. But, when I added context, I was rejected. I totally do not get what is going on here. On of the rules is to not bite the new guys. Do you already have the topic already covered somewhere else? Messianicdisciple (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Messianicdisciple Once more, do not start a new section with every post. This is disruptive. Click "edit" in the section header to edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not biting the newcomers does not mean to allow them to do whatever they wish. We have explained the issue to you; original research is not permitted here. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Editohub

[edit]

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 people). 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 am not understanding this. What should I do now to be accepted properly? Editohub (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is it specifically you do not understand @Editohub. Have you read our WP:NBASIC criteria? Your draft is the kind of thing for a Facebook page, not an encyclopaedia. Qcne (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editohub read through all the linked material in the decline's gray box which provides information about Wikipedia's sourcing and inclusion criteria. See also WP:RSPYT for using YouTube which is generally an unreliable source as is social media because they are both largely user generated. @Qcne I am not sure how they would know about WP:NBASIC. S0091 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 11 December 2023 review of submission by Jmekis

[edit]

Question: I believe all "reliable sources" & "primary source" complaints were addressed by adding independent and several secondary sources, yet "decline to publish" continues. What else specifically is needed to clear complaints and get this article published??

Stated facts ARE backed-up by reliable sources, the #2 reference (which is primary) also has an independent secondary, and unlike the published German page of the same name, I used in-line referencing.

In a comment, editor Stuartyeates suggested "stealing the sources" from the German article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_Job_Definition_Format (which I hadn't known existed). The primary author of that published article contributed a couple of his references and complimented my article, but it was still declined by editors.

Which reference or references do you find objectionable, and why? Thank you, - Jim 

Jmekis (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the subject and am still new to this myself, but i think the "why XJDF" section in your article can easily be seen as opinionated, even if you have sources i think it needs to not have that as the reader needs to determine whether or not they should choose it. Hope this helps. MusicGene (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:01, 11 December 2023 review of submission by MusicGene

[edit]

how to add it to a singers discography? MusicGene (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should be less concerned with adding to the discography and much more concerned to adding reliable sources that have written in-depth about the collection. None of the sources meet the notability criteria because they are not reliable much less the other three criteria outlined in the decline a source needs to meet in order to contribute to notability. S0091 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_11&oldid=1190305513"