Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 7 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 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.


December 8

[edit]

01:14, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Faaksee

[edit]

Hi, I cited numerous sources including national and regional news outlets and the article was still declined. Faaksee (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not hace significant coverage of the league. As the last reviewer said, see WP:SIGCOV. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:09, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Gfs1234e

[edit]

we need more pages Gfs1234e (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gfs1234e: What's your question? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:30, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 64.38.183.36

[edit]

I don’t know how to make this notable enough to get my page accepted, I only need it for my website to show information and to send to people when they ask questions in my community server. 64.38.183.36 (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@64.38.183.36: If it's not notable (which this doesn't appear to be) there's nothing you can do unfortunately. Try another wiki or blogsite perhaps. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Thejus G Zachariah

[edit]

How can I post a Wiki article about a brand? Thejus G Zachariah (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thejus G Zachariah: Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. Also, if you have a conflict of interest you should declare it on your userpage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:38, 8 December 2023 review of submission by KizzWRLD

[edit]

I don’t know what exactly to use as draft title KizzWRLD (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KizzWRLD: Is Draft:KizzWRLD not the correct title of your draft? Regardless, from a quick Google search, it is highly unlikely this is notable. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:33, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 31204V

[edit]

How my article can be chanded to be accepted? 31204V (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@31204V: Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject. Your draft is written like an advertisement. Also, if you have a conflict of interest you should declare it on your userpage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:22, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Dediggefedde

[edit]

Hello! I tried to submit a draft, which is basically a translation of the German entry of Hans Geissel, which I also wrote together with Hans Geissel. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Geissel However, the english draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hans_Geissel) was declined because of missing references.

In a response to a different question on this page, I saw the statement "in articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources" (by DoubleGrazing). The lack of such citations at times is also the case for this article, so I understand the decision for declining.


First question: How can I provide citations for biographical events that were not mentioned in publications?

I am in personal contact with Hans Geissel, but I see myself challenged finding public, independent citation sources for his biography data. In general, it seems difficult to prove where someone worked, studied or which experiment they build if there is no newspaper about it.

For example, the "DPG research grant 1982" does not seem to appear in any publication. I also didn't find any publications confirming his date or location of birth, or that he supervises students since 1985. I could leave everything like that out, but since there aren't many publications in general, the article not contain much biographical information. However, since he is the world record holder for the discovery of more than 280 new isotopes and for his other achievements, he is notable in my opinion and a detailed wiki page would be justified.


Second question: Which information does actually need references in practice?

The reviewer didn't specify which information requires citation, so I tried to look at other articles for reference, but it looks a bit inconsistent:

Dediggefedde First, if you are in contact with Mr. Geissel, you should declare a conflict of interest. Articles are typically written without any communication with, or even the knowledge of, the subject.
Second, what is acceptable on the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. Each Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. The English version tends to be stricter than others.
Third, if you have no published reference for information, it cannot be on Wikipedia. Verification is an important principle of Wikipedia, and information without a reference cannot be verified. This is vital in articles about living people. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Hiwakariitsumo1901

[edit]

I don't know why my article being declined. I want Wikipedia to assist me to remove all the things others author stated so my article can go into public.


Thank You Sincerely,

Hiwakari ItsumoHiwakariitsumo1901 (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiwakariitsumo1901: this draft is completely unreferenced, which not only is wholly unacceptable in what comes to articles on living people (WP:BLP), it also means there is zero evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Rcjqffm

[edit]

I'm not sure what you mean by "The text of this has been mangled by a program." The text is, of course, taken from a Word file. So would you suggest deleting the whole entry and starting from scatch? Thanks for your help. 

Rcjqffm (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rcjqffm: assuming the text is yours, ie. it came from your Word file and not some third party's, then I don't think that's a reason to TNT this; it just needs a bit of clean-up. I would be more interested in seeing you cite your sources via the usual method of inline citations and footnotes (see WP:REFB for advice), which makes it much easier for the reviewers, as well as future readers, to see where each bit of information came from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:08, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Loftt 01

[edit]

How do I find reliable sources. there is little else than the sources i found for the article i wrote. does wikipedia even view the topic i wrote about as not worthy becuase its too new? like how would someone write a legitimate articles about this game for wikipedia? nothing i wrote is wrong, all info came from released information, this is just a summarised version from the gameplay demo and websites. Loftt 01 (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Loftt 01: if, as you say, this is an "upcoming" game, then it almost certainly is not notable at this time. We are not interested in any pre-launch publicity materials and similar, we only want to see what independent and reliable sources have said. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:10, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Hiwakariitsumo1901

[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."

May I request Wikipedia to help me solve the problem, because I don't know what I can do to fix it and it is a lot. This person is well known, but have not list on Wikipedia, so I want to list him on Wikipedia and then there will be news and sources about him. Hiwakariitsumo1901 (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiwakariitsumo1901: please don't start a new thread, I've already answered this a moment ago. We cannot accept unreferenced drafts, especially on living people. Where did all this information come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:57, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Anonymousartuser

[edit]

My draft got declined once. I do not understand what are the unreliable links. Please could you help me? Anonymousartuser (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymousartuser: that decline reason ("not adequately supported by reliable sources") can mean two different things. Either the sources cited are not reliable, or the citations do not adequately support the draft contents. Both apply here: the sources include LinkedIn and a WordPress blog, which are both user-generated; and there is too much unreferenced content – in articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What is your relationship to the subject of this draft? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Please see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Gerrumicum

[edit]

Hello there,

I am trying to publish the Draft for a known art curator in Frankfurt, Germany. After the first submission from mid November had been declined due to the "person not yet [showing] to meet notability guidelines", I sourced the article (especially the bio) in detail. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Franziska_Nori&oldid=1187477827)

Now my submission was declined, too, and the reasoning is "prof - Submission is about a professor not yet shown to meet notability guidelines". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Franziska_Nori&oldid=1187858590)

I can see how the subject does not meet most of the eight academic-specific criteria, but on the other hand the sourcing seems to be fine? The internationally known curator is an art-professor, too, but that's not the focus of the article (or her work).

How can I revise the article and make sure, that it doesn't get declined because of her not being notable enough in the academic context of being a professor?

If necessary, I believe this could be omitted and the article should be focused on her work as art-curator.

Best wishes Gerrumicum (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerrumicum: the latter decline reason also includes the same WP:GNG notability standard which was the reason for the earlier decline; in other words, it is saying that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF or GNG. But I can add a comment there to advise the next reviewer to consider only GNG, if you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your reply and your offer!
If applicable, I think GNG should be more fitting as the subject is a art-curator with some (but not alot) co-published literature. If you see the article, do you come across anything that might result in another declining? Do I have to resubmit in order to get the article checked by another reviewer? (with focus on GNG)
best wishes Gerrumicum (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerrumicum: yes, you have to resubmit, in order to get another review. (And I have added a note about GNG.) However, as I mentioned, the latest review also states that GNG is not met, so without somehow addressing that claim, it seems pointless to resubmit as this would probably be declined again. At the very least you should highlight (either here or on the draft talk page) the 3+ sources that you feel are strongest in terms of satisfying GNG. This would in any case help the next reviewer, as there are quite a few sources to go through otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Ruslan Sharipov

[edit]

I have got the message "Submission declined on 22 November 2023 by Stuartyeates (talk)". But the user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartyeates is said "This page does not exist". Is Stuartyeates a true legal reviewer? Ruslan Sharipov (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslan Sharipov: there is no obligation for users to have user pages; in this case, there used to be one, but it was deleted at the user's request. And yes, Stuartyeates is indeed a legitimate (and experienced) reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered @Ruslan Sharipov at User_talk:Stuartyeates#Request_on_10:32:55,_8_December_2023_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_Ruslan_Sharipov. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Preksha30

[edit]

I need to know the problem with the content of this page and why it is not getting accepted. Preksha30 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preksha30, it is a clear advert for Khatri. Thus, it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Preksha30

[edit]

I have made the required changes Preksha30 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Preksha30 No you didn't, it still reads like an advert so my rejection still stands. Qcne (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:10, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 36.85.4.18

[edit]

Please help me with my article so that it can be accepted. Because it is the campus's job to create personal biodata on Wikipedia. 36.85.4.18 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor.
It is a shame you have been asked to make this article by your boss. Please have a read of WP:BOSS.
The draft you created has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Inyiyruma

[edit]

My entry for VP Choice Awards was declined with the comment "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement." I'm uncertain about the issue. Could it be because our entry mentions brands and companies? As an award-giving entity, we recognize the people's choice in businesses, including brands and companies in the Philippines. I hope you can assist me in addressing this issue, as I might have overlooked something. Thank you. Inyiyruma (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Inyiyruma. Vast parts of the article is unsourced - you have a load of citations but they're hanging at the bottom of the article. They need to be in-line with the text.
However the wording of the article is problematic, it includes language that breaks our strict neutrality policy. Qcne (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good day! I've added reference links in the articles; I hope those are sufficient. Regarding the wording in the article, I've already rewritten it in the best neutral point of view possible. I would appreciate it if you could review it and let me know which parts need further attention or fixing. Inyiyruma (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few things stand out to me, emphasis mine:
- notable personalities and celebrities (who said they're notable?)
- significantly increasing its reach and engagement on Facebook (marketing speak)
- making it one of the highly followed award ceremonies in the country (source?)
- gathered over 500 personalities, celebrities, and influencers, achieving substantial engagement with over 110 million reach on Facebook (more marketing speak)
- Looking ahead (not an encyclopaedic term)
However I simply don't think this ceremony meets our WP:GNG. Most of your sources are primary or not independent. Qcne (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your reply, really appreciated it. I have edited my wikipedia based on your remarks.
- notable personalities and celebrities (who said they're notable?) - Removed this part.
- significantly increasing its reach and engagement on Facebook (marketing speak) - Removed this part.
- making it one of the highly followed award ceremonies in the country (source?) - Removed this part.
- gathered over 500 personalities, celebrities, and influencers, achieving substantial engagement with over 110 million reach on Facebook (more marketing speak)- Rephrased to simply "attended by business personalities, celebrities and influencers.
- Looking ahead (not an encyclopaedic term) - Reworded this simply to: "Currently, the fifth VPCA....."
However I simply don't think this ceremony meets our WP:GNG. Most of your sources are primary or not independent. --I've reviewed the WP:GNG guideline, hope you can check further because the articles/write-ups from GMA Network, and or ABS-CBN should be considered independent entity because they are in no way related to VPCA. I have also added few more links from independent blogs and news outlet who wrote about the event in their own will.
If I have missed anything please let me know. Thanks so much for the assistance. Inyiyruma (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qcne, my entry is reviewed and declined again by another reviewer. Is it necessary? because it gets a bit more confusing on what to improve in the article :-( Hope you can give it a review again please. thanks so much Inyiyruma (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Theroadislong who is a very experienced reviewer and will hopefully be able to help. Qcne (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube and blogs are not suitable sources and "Village Pipol" is not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Jussmenaas

[edit]

I keep getting declined- but I am trying to create a page on an American Author and Lawyer that has two published books. I am unsure what to do. Jussmenaas (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jussmenaas: for starters, you have to improve your referencing. As pointed out already, Goodreads, Amazon, Facebook and Instagram are not acceptable sources. And pretty much everything needs to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source – now eg. the 'Early Life and Education' section is completely unreferenced.
Can you also please confirm that you have read and understood WP:AUTOBIO? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I have read that and am not writing about myself nor someone close to me. As this person has not received national coverage beyond events in a few states, it is difficult to pull various sources. Jussmenaas (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jussmenaas Your draft promotesthe perosn, rather than reporting om what is said in multiple reliable sources independent of her. Seeking to have her inherit notability from booms she has edited is inappropriate.
To proceed at all, find references that meet our needs. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:53, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Ahfgsojlguaol

[edit]

erm.. why did my article get declined /_ \ Ahfgsojlguaol (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahfgsojlguaol: it wasn't declined, it was actually rejected, meaning this is the end of the road for it. There is no evidence that the subject is notable, and all the information is unreferenced, violating the core principles of notability and verifiability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 173.76.99.203

[edit]

Hi, thank you for reviewing my article. I've only edited articles in the past and this is my first new post. If possible, I'd love to know if there is a section of this page that requires a more reputable source or if I need more reputable sources or if I used a non-reputable source that is the issue with my last submission. There are lots of news article that I can use as sources for this article but want to make sure I'm not just putting more news articles as sources if news papers and journals aren't considered reputable. Again, thank you for the help! 173.76.99.203 (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I was logged out. the above question was from me. I'm logged in now. Sevenreading (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sevenreading: I don't think there is anything obviously wrong with regard to the reliability of your sources. My guess is rather that this was declined because there is unreferenced content, with several paragraphs without citations. Just to say that you can cite a source more than once, and indeed need to do so if the source supports several statements in the article (see WP:NAMEDREFS for advice). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
helpful. thank you! Sevenreading (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Inyiyruma

[edit]

Good day! Thank you for reviewing my entry. I would appreciate it if you could provide details on the specific errors found in my wiki entry for VP Choice Awards. I've taken heed of the previous reviewer's (Qcne) comment and made efforts to:

1. Rewriten sentences in a more neutral manner to avoid the comment "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement." Please review and advise if further adjustments are necessary. 2. Included references in the article. Most of the references are sourced from significant multimedia and news outlets in the Philippines, such as ABS-CBN News, BusinessWeek Mindanao, and similar reputable sources.

Please guide me on the areas that require additional attention, as I'm still learning about Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your assistance. Inyiyruma (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:03, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 129.108.37.62

[edit]

Can I have an update on the review of this submission? 129.108.37.62 (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft does not exist? Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 8 December 2023 review of submission by 129.108.37.62

[edit]

Can I have an update on the review of this submission? 129.108.37.62 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft does not exist? Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:21, 8 December 2023 review of submission by Emanon17

[edit]

I am requesting assistance to get clarification on why the article I created for UCINET was declined.

I know it's in relation to the citations and formatting. The citations issues I mostly understand, but it would be helpful to get a better idea of what additional citations might be needed in the context of SNA Software. The reviewer also left a note about needing to improve formatting, but I am unsure exactly what changes need to be made.

Kind regards, Emanon17 Emanon17 (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Emanon17: this draft was declined because it presents no evidence that the subject is notable. Instead of citing the company's own website, you need to cite independent and reliable secondary sources, per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for letting me know! I'll work on updating the references. I'm very new to this; thank you for the guidance. Emanon17 (talk) 17:14, 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_8&oldid=1189786503"