Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 7 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 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.


May 8[edit]

03:06, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Buchananfl[edit]

I am questioning the latest comment that "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"

George Buchanan is referenced in published literary books, noted British newspapers and periodicals, and mentioned in various Wikipedia subjects' biographies and writings. The secondary sources are reliable, credible and varied. We can provide pdfs of out-of-print material and old newspaper articles not accessible online. George Buchanan needs to be accessible for reference and academic study as a noted 20th Century literary figure in Northern Ireland and beyond. That is the opinion of various notable critics and literary experts, as indicated. Please advise. Thank you! Buchananfl (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Buchananfl:
The first thing to say is, you need to make a formal conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosure, given your relationship with the subject of this draft. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions.
Having looked at the draft and its sources, I actually think the subject is notable. However, the draft cannot be accepted as it stands, because too much of the information is unreferenced, with several paragraphs without a single citation. My guess is that you have written what you know about your father, rather than summarising what reliable published sources have said; while this is understandable, it isn't acceptable, as all information must be verifiable from published sources. Please ensure that every material statement is supported by a reference to a reliable source. (And a minor point: you cannot use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, as you have done on a couple of occasions.)
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've just run a copyright violation check on this draft, and it seems there are some matches with external sources. I will go through it in more detail and see if they actually amount to violations, but just wanted to clarify that when I said you need to "summarise" sources, that means summarise in your own words; not copypaste from, or even closely paraphrase, sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:30, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Tarin7767[edit]

Entrepreneurs can not publish Wikipedia articles.? Tarin7767 (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have given 5 correct references. But why is it not accepting? Tarin7767 (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Rejected, speedied, user indeffed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:10, 8 May 2023 review of submission by 173.75.214.74[edit]

This page was denied for listing improper source but cites the Church's Main website. 173.75.214.74 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say "improper source", it says "not adequately supported by reliable sources". The draft is entirely unreferenced; merely listing (but not citing) the organisation's own website is entirely insufficient for supporting the draft contents, let alone establishing notability per WP:GNG. Also, if you keep resubmitting this without addressing the decline reasons, the draft will eventually be rejected without the option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Kerstin Dämon[edit]

Dear Wikipedia team,

my article about the Smart Ticketing Alliance has been rejected - among other things - because of an alleged COI. I work for the VDV eTicket Service, the publisher of the German ticketing standard for public transport in German-speaking countries. That is also what it says in my author description. My company launched the Smart Ticketing Alliance together with three other three other companies as part of an EU project. However, I am not on the pay roll of the STA and do not participate in any of the projects or working groups of the STA. Nor do I work for the EU Commission, which financed the founding of the STA.

Does this still count as a conflict of interest?

Thank you for your help, Kerstin Kerstin Dämon (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kerstin Dämon:
Firstly, the draft hasn't been rejected (which would mean you cannot resubmit it), only declined (which means you can, once you have addressed the decline reasons).
Secondly, it wasn't declined because of your COI, that was just an additional comment the reviewer left. The decline reasons were not adequately supported by reliable sources and appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.
As for your COI, based on what you say, you certainly have a COI; whether you come under our paid-editing rules is less clear. And although you have explained your situation here and on your user page, you need to formally disclose your COI, as per the instructions posted earlier on your user talk page.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:56, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Aerielen[edit]

I'm asking for DoubleGrazing.I submitted an article for a school page.And it was declined for notability reasons.However there is not anything that would constitute any unreliability.If the only reason my page got declined was beacuse of the language of my sources.That's unreasonable on the grounds that english is not the only language even if its an english wikipedia , at the same time I've seen lots of resources on english wikipedia that is not in english.Is what youre doing basically racism or a reasonable claim that my sources are wrong? Aerielen (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Aerielen/sandbox/Istanbul Atatürk Anatolian Highschool
@Aerielen: wow, way to go – jumping straight from a decline to accusing me of racism! If you knew anything about me, you would realise what a ridiculous accusation that is, besides being offensive. Please let that be the last time, thank you.
As to why I declined your draft: it cites only primary sources, which do not show that the subject is notable. For that, we need to see significant coverage of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources; any language is fine. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the first time you have said that, the page is like an advertisement.So before my second submission i have changed the sentences that might constitute sth in form of advertisement Aerielen (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you mean first-hand sources my primary resources?If thats that,there was already one source that is not primary.And I'have added 3 more sources on the subject.Thank you for consideration and sorry for calling you a racist. Aerielen (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:33, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Elmo di piume[edit]

Hi! My Renexia article translated from italian was not accepted. What are the reasons? Thank you Elmo di piume (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmo di piume: did you not read the decline notice and the comment I added? The draft's sources do not demonstrate that the subject is notable.
Also, I posted a message on your user talk page asking you to disclose your relationship with this business. Please do so now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 8 May 2023 review of submission by The new magazine[edit]

What's missing from this article? The new magazine (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The new magazine: apart from reliable sources, some indication of notability, or a modicum of appropriateness for an encyclopaedia, you mean? A speedy deletion tag. ( Done) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Aerielen[edit]

Hey,im sorry either your judgement is wrong or just you haven't looked at the sources thoroughly.Can you show me anything that is unreferenced?At the same time you have said no primary sources.Ok, let me tell you sth would you be surprised to know that I have added sources of all content that ever existed academically talked about this schools history.There is not any other sources on the subject.Please, i want you to look at it again thorougly.All of the content in this article are referenced through various publications and thesises and governmental documents.There are both primary and non-primary sources in this article.If you want me to be really specific ; 1,3 and 6 references are primary and 2,4,5,7,8,9 references are non primary.And all of the content is referenced thorougly.I didnt put another reference after every sentence because the some references already cover multiple paragraphs. Aerielen (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aerielen: I don't know who you're addressing there, but I'm guessing me...
Every other paragraph is unreferenced. The entire Headmasters and Alumni sections were unreferenced. Does that answer your question about referencing?
As for the sources, let's take each of those in turn:
  1. Ministry of Education = primary
  2. Master's thesis, not relevant per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and in any case does not provide significant coverage of the subject
  3. Same as 1
  4. Unclear exactly what this is, likely primary, and in any case doesn't seem to even mention the subject.
  5. School student site = close primary
  6. Same as 1
  7. I think, although not sure, that this is a school listing/comparison site = primary
  8. Same as 5
  9. Same as 5
So with the possible, although unlikely, exception of #7, none of these contribute towards notability per WP:GNG, and even giving #7 the benefit of the doubt, it alone isn't enough. Does that answer your points about sources and, hence, notability?
Therefore, if, as you say, it is the case that "there are no other sources on the subject", then one can only conclude that this subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and I will have to go and reject this draft outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Double grazing, i want you to look at all the other schools wikipedia articles in Turkey, Greece and Armenia.Except for Robert college, you will not see anything more than that.So you plan to delete all the other wikipedia articles of these schools?If so , good luck with that.There is a school that exist literally.Obviously there is a school history.And the schools history will be written by the school itself obviously.You can't expect that much secondary sources in newly founded republics.Even so i already said,i basically assumed that government documents are primary.Actually they are not primary , only the school's website itself will be primary.However i knew you would want another source.I literally looked for 3 hours to try to find another secondary source.Finally I have found another one.So please accept my submission.Literally begging you right now.Thank you so much! Aerielen (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 8 May 2023 review of submission by 2406:B400:A9:5872:7C50:12AB:20D8:E3D8[edit]

please help 2406:B400:A9:5872:7C50:12AB:20D8:E3D8 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop socking. S0091 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 8 May 2023 review of submission by 114.75.148.198[edit]

I think the page is now good enough to be reviewed. 114.75.148.198 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the draft is riddled with socks which is not a good sign and is rejected meaning it will no longer be considered. Best to move on. S0091 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Marco Daniele Filigheddu[edit]

Why my article was declined when just submitted? Marco Daniele Filigheddu (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco Daniele Filigheddu The draft is now deleted because it was blatantly promotional. Please read through all the information on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:57, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Malakh ben Hasehm[edit]

what was the article rejected Malakh ben Hasehm (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Malakh ben Hasehm you don't really ask a question but read through the material linked in the decline message. S0091 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 8 May 2023 review of submission by Kulakov-alexandr[edit]

We have now added more sources.

Wonder how we resubmit our draft? Kulakov-alexandr (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kulakov-alexandr who is we? The draft is rejected meaning it will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying!
"We" is a way of saying "I" in a more formal manner... Kulakov-alexandr (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:55, 8 May 2023 review of submission by 49.180.81.224[edit]

How this article can be improved? 49.180.81.224 (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered on my talk page. S0091 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_May_8&oldid=1154681568"