Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 23 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 25 >
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 24

[edit]

02:13, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Drcool 25

[edit]

How to edit that it doesn't appear as promotional/advertisement Drcool 25 (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drcool 25: you shouldn't be writing about a business you're associated with, as it is almost impossible for you to do it in a neutral, disinterested manner.
In any case, this draft has been rejected, so the question is somewhat redundant now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:30, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Hamzaxeros

[edit]

My page has been declined, I don't know the exact reason, And I am not familiar with Wikipedia, I read the auto biography policies, But I think I followed it, Kindly mention the exact things that are decline, Because I don't know what thing got wrong exactly. Thank you much for your service. Have a great day Hamzaxeros (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamzaxeros: you say you read the autobio 'policies', yet you went ahead a wrote one? Please have another look at WP:AUTOBIO.
This draft was declined because there is absolutely no indication of, and more to the point no evidence for, notability. The sources are primary, and mostly don't support anything in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Musitafa Kalyowa

[edit]

I would like to help me with the best way I can reference this article to be accepted Kalyowa Musita (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Musitafa Kalyowa: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:36, 24 October 2023 review of submission by VishalParmar1

[edit]

Re-submitted my article. VishalParmar1 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VishalParmar1: no, you haven't. And given that this draft was rejected already three months ago, you shouldn't, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Iamrohj

[edit]

Mukesh Chhabra wikipedia Page has been deleted can you please look into it and let me know. and if possible revert it back again to the older version. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukesh_Chhabra Iamrohj (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamrohj: it hasn't been deleted, but rather moved into the draft space, where it is awaiting review:  Courtesy link: Draft:Mukesh Chhabra. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 24 October 2023 review of submission by HAjfdi

[edit]

I want publish my own article because I am Student HAjfdi (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAjfdi: well, don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging site. We publish articles on topics that are deemed notable. In any case, you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Sathish punarjan

[edit]

wikipedia place to find small hospital to big hospitals information. is this wikipedia only for rich peoples and rich private sectors only. why you dont allow small hospital that serve with ayurveda Sathish punarjan (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sathish punarjan: this draft (such as it is) is purely promotional, with no encyclopaedic content; accordingly, it has been rejected and is pending deletion. Wikipedia is not the right place for you to promote your hospital, you need to use other platforms for your marketing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sathish punarjan Wikipedia is not a business directory. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. You should use social media to tell the world about this business. Note that Wikipedia summarizes the prevaling scientific consensus that Ayurveda is pseudoscientfic and has no evidence it is effective in treating cancer. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:10, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Guinnesslassie

[edit]


Hello, I have a query regarding the draft page Helen Leahey (musician/voice over artist). Although the article links to many independent, reliable news articles reporting on the artist it is being continuously declined. Are you able to say what is missing? The notability of the person in question is that she was the first Guinness World Record holder for Lowest Vocal Note by a female. Culturally this is significant as until her record, women were only awarded 'highest vocal note by a female'. The artist also has TV appearences (Voice Germany and Voice UK) and credit on IMDb for a voice over in a major film (Exorcist: Believer - 2023). Thank you in advance for any help with this matter. ~~~~ Guinnesslassie (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guinnesslassie Please disclose your connection with Ms. Leahey; see conflict of interest and paid editing. You must have a connection since you took an image of her and she posed for you. This would include working for her directly or for the publishers of Guiness World Records.
You have documented her activities, but not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her and what makes her a notable person. If it's the world record, you will need to offer sources that discuss that aspect of her more in depth than the sources you have currently. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness World Records confer zero notability, do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your posts suggest that you are Ms. Leahey, and others suggest you aren't. Only a single person should exclusively be operating your account. If you are her, writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I am Leahey's public manager and agree that it is of course more desirable for someone completely independent to write about the artist's activities. Leahey's significance has slipped under the radar until now. There are articles about persons with less credentials on Wikipedia. A quick google search will bring up countless articles about Leahey's activities and official press pictures from independent news outlets. Guinness World Records has officially published about Leahey and is sourced in the draft, a long with many independent news outlets which have also discussed Leahey and her public work to date in detail. To limit the risk of the article being permanently deleted, could you advise what would be the best way forward? Is this article being declined because of the question of notability or the sources used? Thank you very much in advance for any help. It is appreciated, especially as I am new to being a contributor here on Wikipedia. Guinnesslassie (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Guinnesslassie: given what you say, you must declare your paid-editing status; please do this as your very next edit. I will post information on this on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guinnesslassie First, you must declare your paid relationship- this is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. See WP:PAID.
Please see other stuff exists. Existing inappropriate articles does not mean that more inappropriate articles should be added. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inapproprpiate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us, please identify any inappropriate articles you see for possible action.
Persons in your position trying to force the issue of creating an article are not usually successful; articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, who take note of coverage of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Your client needs to be aware of the very good reasons to not want an article. We have no interest in publicity or marketing efforts to increase her exposure. Our only interest is in summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 24 October 2023 review of submission by KannappaSara9

[edit]

Have attached Reliable resources already. Can you guide me through what exactly the reliable sources need to be attached? KannappaSara9 (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KannappaSara9: rather than piling the references together at the end like that, it would be best if you could cite them inline against the information they support; that way it would be much easier for the reviewer (and future readers) to see where the contents are coming from, and to verify them when required. See WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice (or just do what you've already done with the two of them that are cited). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:28, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Hsin Yu Chou

[edit]

Hi! I have a problem understanding the problem of references i found for this article! Can someone please give me more specific guidance? Hsin Yu Chou (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hsin Yu Chou: the sources cited are a blog, a press release, three cites of the company's own website, and one journal or similar. These are primary sources. Instead, we need to see significant coverage of the company, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and wholly independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 24 October 2023 review of submission by 49.204.208.101

[edit]

there are literally no pages which are reliable that have in depth information on the topic 49.204.208.101 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up your draft a little if as you say there "are literally no pages which are reliable that have in depth information on the topic" then we cannot have an article, but I think there should be enough out there with a little searching. Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Janlopi

[edit]

Could someone help me find out what specifically in my article has an unencyclopedic tone? I don’t exactly understand how it is written like an essay and not an article. Janlopi (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Janlopi. Wikipedia articles usually paraphrase what reliable, independent, secondary sources state about a topic. Your draft however seems to make an assertation about Catholicism' influence on music which is only backed up by the fraryguitar.com source as far as I can see.
You may have written this draft WP:BACKWARDS, where you've wanted to write a topic and then tried to find sources to back it up. You need to find the sources first.
I think this topic may be viable as an article, but I wonder if it would be better served as part of the History sections (fully sourced) in the existing articles of Gregorian Chant, Solfege, and Classical Music? Qcne (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had like way more sources, mustve deleted them on accident. Thank you so much actually I did’nt know what I did. Also that is a good point, I might do that. Thank you so much <3 Janlopi (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Janlopi. Another mistake that inexperienced editors often make is to load up their drafts with large numbers of low-quality sources. Not only does this not help get a favourable review (a thousand low-quality sources do not add up to one high-quality one) but it may also make the draft less attractive to a reviewer, who will have to wade through the dross looking for a nugget.
I suggest that you look critically at every single source you are proposing to cite, and ask
  1. is it reliably published? - ie, by a reputable publisher not a user-generated website (such as a wiki or blog) or a vanity publisher or pay-to-publish journal;
  2. is it independent of the subject? - this may be less relevant for your topic, but if for example most of the work in this area has been done by one person or one team, we need sources wholly unconnected with that team;
  3. does it contain significant coverage of the subject? - not passing mentions, or routine information. In your case, that will be sources specifically about Catholicism's effect on music - sources about Catholicism, or music, or even catholic music, will generally not cut it, and attempting to argue from them is likely to be synthesis, which is a form of original research, and not permitted. Generally, information which is related to the subject but not about the subject, should not be cited at all, but should instead be wikilinked to whatever article we already have on that topic.
See WP:42 for a more information.
ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I will be working on making my sources more reliable and make sure the article is even needed. Thank you <3 Janlopi (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Loganschuchard

[edit]

I need help submitting my project for English. Loganschuchard (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot create a new article for the subject we already have one here Rachel Eliza Griffiths your draft is also unreferenced so of no use whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Loganschuchard: by "submitting my project for English" do you mean that you're working on some sort of school or college homework project? In which case, please tell your teacher that this isn't what Wikipedia is about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Caucasian127

[edit]

This page need to be moved on a article Caucasian127 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caucasian127 your draft is in the pool to be reviewed, there are over 3000 other drafts waiting for review. Please be patient. A review may take four or more months. Qcne (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 24 October 2023 review of submission by Hailey4818

[edit]

why was it declined Hailey4818 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hailey4818 Your draft was completely inappropriate for Wikipedia and will soon be deleted. It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please use Facebook or another social media website to promote quack theories. Qcne (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_24&oldid=1182721399"