Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 15 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 17 >
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 16

[edit]

00:46, 16 October 2023 review of submission by Pasarqa

[edit]

En español y me obligan hacer mención en inglés. No hay discusión que Mauro Yanez Pasarella fue el antiguo director de la policía Técnica Judicial de Venezuela pero los censores siguen privando a Mauro Yanez Pasarella como un personaje público de la historia contemporánea de Venezuela. Requiero una revisión con todo respeto de expertos de Wikipedia en español. Pasarqa (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is ENGISH wikipedia KingTheD (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:58, 16 October 2023 review of submission by WalrusThePriest

[edit]

Article rejected Yoo, my article on my band Tayleroid (on most music streaming services) was just rejected. Just wondering some of the reasons why could be? WalrusThePriest (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post to properly display a link to your draft. The reason for the rejection was given by the reviewer; "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." This means that you did not show that your band meets the definition of a notable band. You should declare a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You provided no independent reliable sources. An article must summarize such sources, it isn't for the subject to tell about itself. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:07, 16 October 2023 review of submission by Paulmat77700

[edit]

My draft declined due to references, please let me know what i need to do to get this published. Paulmat77700 (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmat77700: your so-called references aren't actually references, they're just words. Have a look at a few articles, so you see what references are, and check out WP:REFB for advice on how to create them. You then need to make sure that your sources meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, as this is the actual reason why your draft was declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 16 October 2023 review of submission by 74.118.237.170

[edit]

Hi there,

Would it be possible to get some advice or assistance in removing the rejection on this page please? 74.118.237.170 (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further. If you work for the company, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources reviewers did not consider, you should first appeal to the most recent reviewer directly. That seems unlikely, though. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 16 October 2023 review of submission by 익명의 4인

[edit]

Wanna know the reason of declination Below is the reason for declination of my draft. Could you kindly let me know what could be great actions to pass my draft in details? 익명의 4인 (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

익명의 4인 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. It's unnecessary to copy the decline message here. Can you better explain what you don't understand about the decline message?
You must read the paid editing policy and make a formal disclosure. I assume that you work for the company, since you uploaded its logo and claimed it as your own personal work. I also assume that you did that improperly- logos should not be uploaded to Commons, you must immediately request its deletion from there.
If you are Korean, you may feel more comfortable editing the Korean Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 16 October 2023 review of submission by Amitvb3112

[edit]

I am trying to submit a article on Bhimjiyani it is a surname (Last Name) a sub-group of the broader Lohana community but it is getting rejected.

please let me know exact what is the issue. Amitvb3112 (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amitvb112 The issue is that your draft is completely unsourced. Please read WP:BACKWARD. An article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the topic, showing how it is notable as defined by Wikipedia. With surnames or any name, there needs to be independent sources that discuss the meaning and/or usage of the name. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 16 October 2023 review of submission by Bdure

[edit]

I simply can't understand why this wasn't accepted. The reason given is a "lack of independent sources." It has official biographical information and announcements from the clubs and teams for which she played. There is no subjectivity here -- these are the basic facts Wikipedia should be emphasizing and what researchers like me look for when we come here. What would make this entry more acceptable? Bdure (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdure: this draft was declined for lack of notability. With one exception, it cites only close primary sources, which cannot be used to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I find this rather curious. Let's say someone is named to the USA's roster for the Women's World Cup. What sources would be needed to establish notability?
I don't mean to start a massive rethink of Wikipedia notability guidelines, but it seems strange to need an independent source to bolster the case for including someone who has met the objective criteria that her teammates have met.
So what sort of independent source would be required? Bdure (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An independent source that gives some sort of coverage beyond "she's on the team" or that which is not information from primary sources. Not everyone on a team is treated the same- it depends on the sources. Tom Brady merits an article while a backup practice squad player will not necessarily merit one. There needs to be coverage of them. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bdure: independent means not connected to the subject in any way, and writing or broadcasting of their own volition, not simply repeating or regurgitating what the subject tells them to write (as haapens with advertorials, 'sponsored content' and other such churnalism). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that answer doesn't address the question here. We're not talking about an "advertorial" here.
It might help you all to think about what a user wants. When users come to Wikipedia, they want layers of information. What teams play women's soccer in Australia? What notable players are on these teams?
Defining "notability" by whether a fan has written about them is simply less credible than defining it by the awards a player has won.
I'll get an independent source for you, but I would seriously advise you all to rethink these criteria. They're written for other categories of people -- I could see some "independent" sources being needed to determine whether, say, a history professor is notable. In sports, we have objective criteria. Why not use them? Bdure (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below(as you are reading this, most likely), the guidelines for athletes have recently been tightened up. Merely playing professional sports is not an instant ticket to an article- it's an indicator, but there still must be coverage of the person to satisfy the more general notability guideline. As this is a recent change, other articles created before that change still need to be addressed. If you want to work to change the guidelines back, you are free to do so (probably at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)) 331dot (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bdure: I didn't say this was advertorial. Nor did I say some piece of fan writing wuld be acceptable.
The point is that the sources on which you rely to establish notability must be (among other things) independent. If my son writes on his blog that he's the best footy player in the world, that means nothing. Ditto, if I write it. If his club writes that, it might mean slightly more, but only very slightly, because they also have a vested interest. It only means something if an independent reporter or analyst says that, and ideally not just one analyst, but several. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bdure, The notability guidelines of Wikipedia require that third party reliable parties have provided significant coverage on a subject in order to be considered reliable. While "official" sources can be used to support certain facts they do nothing towards the inclusion criteria as the are not considered independent. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't really understand the notability guidelines for soccer players. Many of Julia Grosso's teammates have Wikipedia entries even though they have fewer accomplishments. Bdure (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bdure Merely playing professional sports is usually notable. They don't need any more accomplishments than that- what matters is the sources. Please see other stuff exists, though- it could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet by a volunteer. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bdure: the notability requirements for many athletes incl. soccer players have changed; they must now satisfy WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- it's helpful to know that the requirements have changed.
There is one unusual factor to consider with this particular submission -- Julia Grosso shares her name with a more notable women's soccer player. My impetus for doing this entry was to provide some disambiguation from the other Julia Grosso. Whether that weighs into a notability decision, I don't know, but I'd hope the fact that there's a second Julia Grosso who plays professionally would be reflected somewhere. Bdure (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 16 October 2023 review of submission by Tamás Szüts

[edit]


Max Verstappen is a highly notable figure in the world of Formula One, and his achievements are significant. He holds various records and has achieved notable success, making his wins noteworthy. These wins are a part of his legacy and are of interest to Formula One fans and researchers. The creation and maintenance of lists documenting the wins of prominent Formula One drivers serve as valuable resources for racing enthusiasts and the general public alike. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform that aims to provide comprehensive and accurate information on a wide range of topics, including notable individuals and their achievements.

Maintaining consistency in how Formula One drivers' achievements are presented on Wikipedia is essential. Several other top drivers, who are considered legends in the sport, have dedicated pages that list their Grand Prix wins. Notable examples include Lewis Hamilton, Michael Schumacher, and Ayrton Senna. To maintain fairness and equity, Max Verstappen should be treated in a similar manner. The guideline WP:LISTN (List of Notable items) sets standards for what can be considered independently notable. However, it should be applied judiciously. Lists of notable achievements by prominent individuals are not uncommon on Wikipedia, especially in fields like sports and entertainment. These lists provide valuable information and context for readers.

Given Max Verstappen's significant achievements in Formula One and the precedent set by the inclusion of similar lists for other top drivers, there is a strong argument for maintaining a page titled "List of Formula One Grand Prix Wins by Max Verstappen." The information contained in such a list is of interest to Formula One fans, researchers, and the general public, aligning with Wikipedia's mission to provide comprehensive and reliable information on notable topics. Furthermore, it ensures consistency with how achievements of other legendary Formula One drivers are presented on the platform. It is advisable to discuss and reach a consensus within the Wikipedia community to determine the best approach for presenting this information. Tombitker talk 13:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max Verstappen's achievements are described in the article about him personally, which is where they should be. As noted by the reviewer, this list does not meet WP:LISTN. You will need to first obtain a consensus through a discussion at Talk:Max Verstappen that a split of that article is needed. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So should the dedicated pages for the wins by Lewis Hamilton and Michael Schumacher be erased? Bdure (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The preferred term is "article", not the broader "page". I can only speak to the article or draft in front of me. It's possible that the articles you reference also do not meet WP:NLIST. As it states, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I suspect that's the case with the articles that you mention, but if you truly feel that it is not, you are free to nominate them for deletion on those grounds. I would suggest that you review the article talk pages carefully first. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hamilton one is rated FL, might be an uphill struggle to get that deleted! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 16 October 2023 review of submission by TracieC

[edit]

I recently received feedback that my Wikipedia draft was declined with the reason cited as "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I appreciate the review and the feedback provided.

To address this concern, I have made efforts to enhance the draft by incorporating references from reputable sources such as the BBC and The Hindu, which are recognised as reliable sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines as listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.

In light of these improvements, I am reaching out to seek guidance on what additional steps or changes might be necessary to increase the chances of my draft being accepted. TracieC (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TracieC: what is your relationship with the article subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing Thank you for the prompt reply. I do not have any relationship with the article subject. TracieC (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TracieC: thank you. In that case, what is your relationship with users you have previously created drafts and articles on this subject? I'm asking as you've managed to use the exact same nine sources as in some of the recent attempts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing, Google News provides these references in its top results. Also, these sources appear to be reliable based on Wikipedia's Perennial sources guidelines. While there are other sources available, these seemed more appropriate for the subject matter. I'm open to adding or removing references that Google News provides, as long as they adhere to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. Your suggestions on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, I faced the issue mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Primefac#Inclusion_of_Anandmurti_Gurumaa_in_List_of_Hindu_Gurus_and_Sants, which led me to try creating this page. TracieC (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How did you come to edit about this person? You didn't pick them at random. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @331dot, I didn't choose to edit about this person randomly. I also edited the article about Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) and have plans to contribute more in the field of Western and Asian spirituality and religion, which aligns with my area of expertise. I welcome any feedback on the article content and am eager to learn from experienced mentors. TracieC (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong I recently received feedback that my Wikipedia draft was declined, with the reason cited as, "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." I appreciate the review and the feedback provided.
In light of this feedback, I am eager to take steps to address the issue. I would like to inquire whether adding more references, which are readily available but were omitted to keep the content concise, would help justify the subject as notable. Additionally, I am open to expanding the content with information about the subject's work, books published, and other relevant details, which may further establish notability.
At present, I have included what I believed to be the most common and reliable sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines, as listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.
Your guidance on what additional steps or changes might be necessary to enhance the chances of my draft being accepted would be greatly appreciated. Please help me with your assistance. TracieC (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to see significant in-depth coverage, this reference [1]] contains no content about her, this [2] is a listing and this source [3] is a passing mention. Theroadislong (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 16 October 2023 review of submission by Aapril3

[edit]

I have read the formatting guidelines but am still having trouble with my section headings, and am not sure if they are formatted correctly to auto-generate a table of contents at the top. I would appreciate any assistance. Aapril3 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aapril3: not that this is really an AfC matter, but just to say that in the new skin the TOC shows up in the side panel on the left, not at the top of the article like it used to (and your draft does have a TOC).
The headings don't take any formatting, so you should remove the bolding. The top level is ==X==, and to create subheadings below that you step down one = pair at a time. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 16 October 2023 review of submission by HyperTribal

[edit]

How can I improve my first draft? My first article is about Gil Vega, who was a famous musician and orchestra director in Costa Rica in from the 1950s - 1970s. However, given that it was so long ago, I'm having a hard time finding enough references in publications. Even though he was mentioned in at least one modern news website and a few university text books, the first draft of the article was rejected: Draft:Gil Vega HyperTribal (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HyperTribal The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that a draft may be resubmitted.
If you are unable to find more sources, there won't be able to be an article about this person. Sources do not need to be online. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_16&oldid=1181269825"