Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 20 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 22 >
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.


February 21[edit]

05:46, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Ngaihthang[edit]

As long as, I can I was fix my doing work and please check it for me. Ngaihthang (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, stop moving it! It's considered disruptive and if you keep doing it, you could be liable for a block. Secondly, the draft has been rejected, so I can't really help you. Flux55 (my talk page) 06:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:19, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Drrabizadeh[edit]

How can I improve the article to be published on the article page? Considering that many references cannot be defined. Drrabizadeh (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drrabizadeh your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. You say "Considering that many references cannot be defined" which suggests the journal does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Only topics that meet our WP:NOTABILITY criteria may have an article. Qcne (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing in the draft to suggest that the journal is notable, so it has been rejected, it won't be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 21 February 2024 review of submission by 2003:E7:6724:B00:60BC:35A4:824:A9EF[edit]

I am using reliable sources for the wiki article, but it is still declined. Can anybody help? 2003:E7:6724:B00:60BC:35A4:824:A9EF (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sources seem to have been added after the decline, and the draft hasn't been resubmitted, so yes, it would indeed remain declined. If you believe that you have sufficiently addressed the decline reason(s), you need to resubmit the draft for a new review.
PS: If you have an account, please log into it whenever editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Nwachinazo1[edit]

I seek assistance for my article's references which two Wikipedia editors have reviewed and declined on the basis that they do not meet notability test. While I appreciate their efforts and time, their reason is saddening and discouraging as their reviews do not consider the contents of most references in terms of substantive coverage of the subject which establishes its notability. I wonder why third-party, reliable and independent sources referenced as 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 12 are considered as merely mentioning the subject in the passing. The same goes to the news source cited in number 3. Wikipedia policy notes that an article's subject must not necessarily be the main discussion in a source cited but it is notable if the source gives the subject sufficient coverage. Hence, the cited sources for my submission achieve this aim. Does a news content need to be over-detailed before Wikipedia reviewers agree with its in-depth treatment? Seriously, they have left me more confused and discouraged. Please I seek clarifications because Wikipedia policies do not append fixed rules in terms of notability through the subject's references. Nwachinazo1 (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Christopher Ononukwe. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References 4 and 5 are based on interviews with Ononukwe. I didn't look any further.
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) 14:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Drrabizadeh[edit]

How can the rejected draft be submitted after upgrading? Drrabizadeh (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can't there is zero evidence of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 21 February 2024 review of submission by 2601:189:4100:4760:55FE:523F:AC4:3F97[edit]

I still don't understand what the problem is, and earlier I was trying to say I was trying to make an encyclopedia article, but I didn't want to to say "I intended to make an encyclopedia article", as that sounded too broad and very unprofessional. 2601:189:4100:4760:55FE:523F:AC4:3F97 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'problem' is that this is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for publicising things WP:MADEUPONEDAY.
This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:33, 21 February 2024 review of submission by WikiDan61[edit]

I'm intrerested in knowing the community's feeling about an editor who repeatedly removes prior AFC decline notices and comments from a draft. The decline templates produce comments stating not to delete the templates, but I am unsure whether there is an official policy or guideline about this. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I count it as disruptive editing, and would be minded to Reject. Qcne (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: drives me bonkers, just had one of those yesterday and earlier today (fortunately now blocked). In my experience they invariably turn out to be problem accounts - socks, LTAs, etc. (This one refers on their talk page to their 'old account'.) This draft is pure OR in any case, so I agree with Qcne, just reject it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, seems to be a sock. Reported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 21 February 2024 review of submission by RasheedVolkman[edit]

Hey there! I've requested the review of the first draft with little references. I've expanded the list of the references now, which are external mentions and Wikipedia mentions itself. Could you please tell me If I should do something else for this article to be submitted? RasheedVolkman (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RasheedVolkman: you have only two sources, neither of which counts towards notability.
BTW, were you involved in editing the recent Draft:DeepWeb (website) draft, by any chance? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, sir. I'm not related to the draft you referred to and wasn't aware it was previously made. Thanks for your answer! RasheedVolkman (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean If there are no reliable sources in open internet, the article will be declined and deleted in the end? RasheedVolkman (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RasheedVolkman: sources don't have to be online, but they do have to meet the standard laid out in WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 21 February 2024 review of submission by ScratcherSonic[edit]

Why is my page being deleted? ScratcherSonic (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScratcherSonic, because you failed to establish that the topic is notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen328 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that now. But, when it becomes a thing, get rickrolled. ScratcherSonic (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Bdschi[edit]

I have created a new page for the new University of Technology in Nuremberg, Germany. There is already a German Wikipedia page and I think it is also important to have an English language page. Especially as the university is seeking internal students and offers many degrees in English. How can I improve this page to get it approved? Bdschi (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that the German Wikipedia has different policies than the English Wikipedia, so what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. To be frank with you, Wikipedia has no interest in helping this relatively new university find prospective students.
Your draft just summarizes the routine activities of the University (groundbreaking, opening, hiring of staff); an article about this university must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this university, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. I think it is probably too soon for an article about this university here. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I didn't want to create this page to help the university to find foreign students, but to give potential students a neutral source of information.
I will follow your advice and wait and see whether this university will become a success or a failure. With only few students and even fewer departments, there is always the risk that the university gets closed again, despite all the money that was invested. Bdschi (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Deathinparadisefan11[edit]

Hi there! I would please like to know exactly why my article was declined. I know there could have possibly been improvements and I was eventually planning to add a picture so I was hoping someone else could help me with that when it gets resubmitted because I find it very confusing. I would like to know what else I needed to include or what I maybe did wrong in order for it to be approved as this article is very important to me and important for others. Deathinparadisefan11 (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathinparadisefan11: it was declined exactly for the reason given in the decline notice, namely that there is not sufficient evidence of the subject's notability, which is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your reply. Apologies, I think there has been a misunderstanding mainly from me. I do think Florence is important in the series (more important than some other characters) but there are characters such as DI Jack Mooney who have their own Wikipedia page already with lesser information than what I have put in Florence's article. She isn't famous not super important. But important enough to have it's own fictional character page if Jack Mooney. In addition, Mooney was only in for 3 series whereas Florence was in for well, double that. I think I have just made her seem more important than she is because she is one of my favourite characters. Please do publish this and I can add more references if you need more. Deathinparadisefan11 (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Armansalmani[edit]

Most of the journals on wikipedia have an index and I tried to create an article page for this journal. At first, it was rejected due to lack of resources, but now we have upgraded it. Please check the draft one more time and let us know if there is any error so that we can fix it and create a new article on Wikipedia. Armansalmani (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Armansalmani: I rejected this draft because a draft on the same subject has already been rejected at Draft:The Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, and you're basically just trying to game the system. Don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Armansalmani Who is "we"? Are you associated with this journal? The draft hadn't been touched since October and you seem to have created your account for the purpose of editing it. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to do with the journal, but I intend to introduce this journal and other journals that do not have a page on Wikipedia.  I hope you will review this article and if there is a problem, please let me know so that it can be fixed. Armansalmani (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question, who is "we"? It's not easy to find a draft unless you already know about it. How did you come across it? 331dot (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We made a verbal mistake.  not we.  I. 
This journal is related to my university.  But I have nothing to do with the journal. Armansalmani (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:13, 21 February 2024 review of submission by MathewArmstrong[edit]

This is all set for review, but I can't seem to submit it. It is saying 'An error occurred (ratelimited: You've exceeded your rate limit. Please wait some time and try again.). Please try again or refer to the help desk.' Can someone please submit this for me for review? I have tried many times. Thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Works now. Disregard. --MathewArmstrong (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have successfully submitted it. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Xmm-newton[edit]

Formatting problem. Added blue links and removed date of birth. Infobox will no rest inline and stands above text with a scrollbar below it. Cannot find fix. Xmm-newton (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xmm-newton: the infobox looks fine to me. It's probably just a case of the text flow or article layout changing slightly depending on your screen spec, when you add or remove content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_February_21&oldid=1210516312"