Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 30 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 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.


December 1

[edit]

02:08, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Deerfield-Hearst

[edit]

why is it being rejected? Deerfield-Hearst (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the reviewer but just by looking at it it is obviously not notable and seems to be extremely biased and opnion based. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS ColinFine (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:22, 1 December 2024 review of submission by 3DTAILEDMUSIC

[edit]

The draft was again rejected. What am I doing wrong and what can I add/change? 3DTAILEDMUSIC (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3DTAILEDMUSIC it has been declined not rejected, meaning there is still room for improvement. You need more source about the company specifically, not their games. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @3DTAILEDMUSIC. You need to make sure that (nearly) all your sources meet the triple criteria in WP:42, that is, they are:
  • published by a reputable publisher
  • in no way connected to the subject or their associates
  • containing significant coverage of the subject of the article.
ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:10, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Entersorce

[edit]

This needs to be published ASAP IT IS RELEVANT Entersorce (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entire article is biased, unsourced and not notable. The submission has been rejected and likely would not be considered. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:33, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Entersorce

[edit]

I re-edited the entire thing made it more comprehensive and less promotional. Please review it. Entersorce (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Entersorce it's still completely unsourced and not notable at all. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entersorce, unreferenced biographies of living people are forbidden by policy on Wikipedia. Try submitting some policy compliant content instead. Cullen328 (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:39, 1 December 2024 review of submission by 175.157.84.85

[edit]

Give Me an advice to edit this, This topic has wide coverage and this artist is verified person. This artist has google knowledge panel, Youtube official artist channel, verified spotify, boomplay, tiktok, musixmatch etc. And has lot of article about this artist on peliplat, issuewire, medium etc.

I'm not a sock puppet, I just need to inform that, this artist is eligible for wikiarticle. 175.157.84.85 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is: don't edit it. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources in the draft is reliable or independent. Having Google knowledge panels, Youtube channels, or accounts/channels/pages at spotify, musicmatch, boomplay, other streaming websites or social media websites is irrelevant, since those things don't show any notability, and can't be used as aources in Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you insane ? What do you mean those are not reliable sources ? What are reliable sources for a musician to be posted on Wikipedia ?? Daupdaup (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daupdaup: No, I'm not. By "none of the sources is reliable", I mean that the sources do not meet the criteria for acceptability that the Wikipedia community has agreed on. Reliable sources for musicians are the same type of sources that are reliable for other topics. WP:RS and WP:MUSICBIO has more information. --bonadea contributions talk 20:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:12, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

[edit]

My draft was recently declined due to referencing issues. I tried to contact the reviewer via talk page but I got no response and after some time it was archived. May I ask where i can improve my draft? Considering the little amount of info i could find, i would consider it pretty good already. P.S.: The article for the 7th marine brigade exists on chinese wikipedia(https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E8%A7%A3%E6%94%BE%E5%86%9B%E6%B5%B7%E5%86%9B%E9%99%86%E6%88%98%E9%98%9F%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%83%E6%97%85), I am purely translating it and adding more info Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: aside from the referencing issue, your draft has the related but separate problem of insufficient evidence of notability, given that the sources are almost all primary and/or associated with the Chinese government.
The fact that an article on this subject exists in zh.wiki is irrelevant. Each language version is a separate project with its own policies and requirements. AFAIK, the en.wiki requirements are the most onerous, therefore it often happens that when translating from other versions, the sources need to be supplemented to meet our standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is sort of inevitable that most sources are primary and/or associated with the chinese goverment in some way, however i don't really see a problem with that so far as i can still find more sources
As for evidence of notability, I think it is notable enough to have a wikipedia article about it. It is relatively famous within mainland china for such a special forces unit and additionally it has been involved in operations in the gulf of aden and is considerably notable compared to some existing articles(e.g. the Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade or the USS LCI(L)-326).(or maybe i have interpreted evidence of notability as something completely separate) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thehistorianisaac, when Wikipedia says "notable" we don't mean "famous" or "well known". Notable by our definition can be thought to mean "noted in multiple reliable secondary sources". More info at Wikipedia:Notability. qcne (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I kinda already had the feeling that evidence of notability is a completely separate thing from notability guidelines. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, the AfC process is voluntary (as long as you don't have a conflict of interest in this subject and aren't under any restrictions which would prevent you from creating articles), and therefore you're free to move this into the main article space yourself, if you disagree with the review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for some more info, what kind of sources would be considered reliable secondary sources?
Most of the stuff i could find online were either primary sources or secondary sources citing the primary source. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources are what is being looked for.....assuming that the source has performed fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources citing the primary source are perfectly fine, so long as they aren't just blindly copy-pasting it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Edouglasww

[edit]

I'm trying to add more references to this page so that it will be accepted to Wikipedia but Wiki has changed how to add citations/references and I don't quite understand how to add links/citations to new stuff that's been added. The old system involved putting the citiation/reference code in the piece, now it's just a five or six letter "code" with the info in the reflist at the bottom. Can't find anything explaining the changes. Edouglasww (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Daupdaup

[edit]

why did it got rejected ?

Laurent Fourbeur is a living person with references that are directly sent to his YouTube Channel.

I need answers.

Laurent Fourbeur's Manager. Daupdaup (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Daupdaup. You wrote a spam draft, @Daupdaup, and I have rejected it as it's pure promotion which is prohibited on Wikipedia. There is no indication that Laurent passes our notability criteria for musicians.
As Laurent's manager, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Service to declare this conflict of interest: please immediately follow the instructions at both WP:PAID and WP:COI.
Don't demand answers from volunteer reviewers. qcne (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Ajvloon

[edit]

Hi there! I recently submitted a new article for the Tus open protocol for resumable uploads. Tus is an open-source internet communications protocol that is seeing considerable industry use and is currently also in the process of being included in the official HTTP protocol, which serves as the foundation for the world wide web.

I was disappointed to see my submission declined and I am now looking for some assistance to help make sure it will be accepted in the next review.

The first reason the article was declined seems clear to me: I need to find even more independent and reputable sources to support the information in the article. I thought it was already sufficiently annotated, but apparently not.

The second reason the article was declined is not clear to me.

My question then:

Which part of the article submission is considered to be `neologism'? And how do I fix this? 

Ajvloon (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link, the whole url is not used. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Was trying to find out how to fix it myself :) Ajvloon (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajvloon: The subject itself seems to be considered a neologism by the reviewer, which doesn't seem to make sense here, I agree. You're writing about something tangible (a computer protocol), rather than a term definition. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right! Thanks. I feared that might be the case. So how do I deal with this potential reason for denial once I am ready to resubmit the article for review? Ajvloon (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Reading Beans who can hopefully explain their reasoning. qcne (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to uncheck the neologism tag. There are unsourced statements there hence the decline for having unverified information. Could I have been wrong. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, thanks for taking the time. So, once I hunt down and add more independent, reliable sources for the unverified claims, I'm good to go for a resubmit? Ajvloon (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 1 December 2024 review of submission by BusMapper

[edit]

Please explain why this draft is not valid for submission. BusMapper (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:23, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Sukdev Mahapatra

[edit]

But Why ? Sukdev Mahapatra (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukdev Mahapatra: We are not a host for personal webpages. We also do not cite social media, and sources connected to the subject themselves do not help for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Sukdev Mahapatra

[edit]

please aproved this article because this person is Need to article pannel Sukdev Mahapatra (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukdev Mahapatra Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not social media like LinkedIn. Has your school told you to create this article? qcne (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:49, 1 December 2024 review of submission by CallMe BurntToast

[edit]

I have never made a wiki before and i need someone to help me make it look nice and add info i didn't even think to add. CallMe BurntToast (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CallMe BurntToast We're not here to be co-editors, just to offer advice. One does not make a "wiki"(an entire website, composed of articles, of which Wikipedia is but one example), one makes a Wikipedia article. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that new users first gain experience and knowledge by first spending much time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, as well as to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
The vast majority of "YouTubers" do not merit Wikipedia articles, as they are not often written about in independent reliable sources. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that are notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:57, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Azcult

[edit]

Why was my article about my artist that I manage deleted? Azcult (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Azcult. You wrote a purely promotional draft which is prohibited on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Spam. It was deleted for that reason.
As the artists' manager, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Service to declare this conflict of interest: please immediately follow the instructions at both WP:PAID and WP:COI. qcne (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_1&oldid=1261635085"