Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 31 << Mar | April | May >> April 2 >
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.


April 1

[edit]

01:55, 1 April 2024 review of submission by 120.29.97.141

[edit]

Can you help review this draft? Thank you 120.29.97.141 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been submitted and is awaiting review, please be patient. We don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. (And please log into your account whenever editing.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Editobd

[edit]

What's the problem on this do you like to tell me? Editobd (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Editobd: the problem is, as the decline notice says, that the draft isn't supported by reliable sources, and there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are have a reference link of this knowledge panel .please check it Editobd (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia, as it is user-editable. Wikipedia has nothing to do with Google Knowledge Panels, which pull information from a variety of sources. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what sources are acceptable on wikipedia Editobd (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have rejected the draft "The melody resonated across borders, marking the dawn of his musical voyage" I know it's April Fools day but you are clearly not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Nazi Bases

[edit]
  • Draft:Secret Nazi Bases

Hello, I am writing an article about this documentary, and I found lots of sources, such as Guernsey Press, and also one from Fox News. I know that unreliable sources are only used in certain cases. I put 2 Instagram posts as sources because I think it meets the criteria. However I am doing the best in this article. I am also adding press releases. Ange2444 (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases, Instagram and Fox News are not reliable sources and will need to be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok I thought Fox News was reliable Ange2444 (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FOXNEWS there is no consensus on whether it is reliable for non-political matters, though many think it isn't. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Connor World

[edit]

Help me out 

Connor World (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been rejected, simply put, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms so do not warrant an article. Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Tt.aksoy

[edit]

Hello, I am trying to publish this article as the intern of a marketing team. Our copywriters wrote this article in the most neutral point possible, but some info like graduation year, etc isn't really referencable as this info has been given by doctor Tiryaki himself. How can I edit and reference this article in the most neutral way possible? Thank you. Tt.aksoy (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tt.aksoy: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a channel for promoting anything. Wikipedia articles summarise what independent and reliable sources have said about a subject. Your draft, as I've already pointed out, is just your client telling the world whatever they want to tell the world about themselves. That is pure, unadulterated promotion. Tell your boss to read WP:BOSS, and to use his own website or eg. LinkedIn for his marketing needs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's a doctor, he has publications and things like that and we are stating this? There is nothing more to be said really Tt.aksoy (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tt.aksoy: if there's nothing more to be said, then I guess we can close this case?
Being a doctor, laudable as that may be, does not entitle anyone to an automatic pass into a global encyclopaedia; or even having "publications and things like that". You (or your PR team, rather) have presented no evidence that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards, not to mention that the draft is effectively entirely unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 1 April 2024 review of submission by MakkoBakkoJakko

[edit]

Hi! My article was recently declined because my sources not being up to par. I understand why, as a lot of what I quote are interviews— so not secondary or independent of the subject. I understand that if no secondary or independent sources exist for a topic, it is not considered notable enough for inclusion with wikipedia.

K.S. Sze & Sons is an 101 year old jewellery store and a part of the already actively erased history of Hong Kong, and there isn’t much modern secondary press about it. They are mentioned in several shopping guides going back to the 80s, an independent shopping guide in the New York Times said they were her jeweller of choice in Hong Kong. They’re very well known in professional circles.

Within their niche, they’re largely known through word of mouth. They don’t get much press, and what they do get is largely interviews. With all of that, their history is being forgotten— even on their own website parts are getting lost.

I do believe I used the most proper sources I could. If still they are not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, it’s a shame but I do understand. MakkoBakkoJakko (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not every topic gets the coverage needed to merit an article, even if it seems like it should(for example, through being old). This store does not seem to merit an article at this time. That doesn't mean forever, just not now. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you could do, if you know a Chinese language, is to write about this on a Chinese language Wikipedia- it likely has different policies and those may permit these sources to be sufficient to sustain an article. Every language Wikipedia has different standards, and the English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply and suggestions! MakkoBakkoJakko (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Júlio Gralha

[edit]

Hi there, could you please clarify why this submission is considered "not reliable", and what can I do to fix it. Thank you! Johannes Maximilian Júlio Gralha (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you must cite reliable, secondary sources, independent of the subject that discuss the subject in such detail that it appears that it's warranted to have an article on that subject. You have cited multiple "sources" in a way that appears to me like "zero effort". For example, footnotes 10, 17, 30, 31, 41 or 59 are just bare links to external sites which makes the reader guess what's to be cited. Multiple important sources for the text are 100 per cent dependent. None of the sources cited in the Prémio BIAL winners section indicate why that section would be noteworthy for inclusion in the article. All of this would be no problem if the article cited sources that tick all of the common criteria (Secondary, Independent, Reliable, Significant coverage). Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Nowhereman5691

[edit]

hello

I'm Tomcsik Marcell, i'm verifying these informations myself. I just want to stay anonymous for the readers. Nowhereman5691 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and most of the infos cannot be cited as these are music theory analyses of the composition, and the description of the subject that is contained by the lyrics itself. Nowhereman5691 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i cited enough sources. It's that hungarian article of me. The rest are the description of the content of the lyric and the music theoretical analysis of the work itself. It doesn't need to have sources because it is analysis. Nowhereman5691 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Yehabwiki

[edit]

I need assistance with what to do as I have followed all the Wikipedia guidelines Yehabwiki (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, the draft was declined, rejected and now tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Left my usual deletion notice. Final warned for promo -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Jeanvaljeanjacket

[edit]

Hello – since this was rejected on March 20, I have made substantial edits to prove this subject's notability. Is it possible to have this re-reviewed for submission? Jeanvaljeanjacket (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft, and convince them that there are sources sufficient to establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 1 April 2024 review of submission by 64.118.223.196

[edit]

This person has worked under the Carter Administration, as well as was notable during the COVID-19 Pandemic and featured in top tier including many TV interviews. He is the husband of the Health Commissioner for Westchester County. What other information is necessary for this to include? 64.118.223.196 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, as Wikipedia uses the term, is not about what a person has done, been, created, or published, or whether they are popular, famous, important, influential, innovative, or any other adjective you might apply. It is about whether there is sufficient independent material reliably published about them to base an article on - remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Your draft has not one single reference that is independent of Amler, and therefore does nothing to establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria.
I imagine that the last of the four reviewers who looked at it concluded that if you had failed to find a single independent reference by now, then there weren't any to be found, and therefore rejected it. It will not be considered further. ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:30, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Freshbox

[edit]

Hi I just wanted to translate the page from the German version: curious what I did wrong and hope I can fix it as soon as possible as its my first translation :) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Vockenhuber (original page)

Thank you! hope I don t bother you, just want to be sure to do it right. Freshbox (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; please understand when doing translations that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on, say, the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on the English Wikipedia. It's up to the translator to figure that out first.
For an artist to merit an English Wikipedia article, you must summarize independent reliable sources that show how the artist meets the definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 1 April 2024 review of submission by Chaseghuggins

[edit]

I'm unsure how the article is unreliable? It's a newspaper clipping from 1918. Chaseghuggins (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself is not the issue. An article must summarize multiple independent reliable sources. One is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 1 April 2024 review of submission by 75.162.67.159

[edit]

I received this response after submission for the VC-7 Squadron page: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at RVAH-7 instead." The problem is this is a DIFFERENT SQUADRON and the responder obviously doesn't understand the Naval History. How do I get someone to understand there's a difference and RVAH-7 has nothing to do with VC-7?! 75.162.67.159 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this with the reviewer? 331dot (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_1&oldid=1217727766"