Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< February 6 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 8 >
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 7[edit]

00:20, 7 February 2024 review of submission by Sorwenes[edit]

Some of the festivals that the film received awards at have websites that do not have archives of those years, but the festivals' social media pages have the image references of the film's awards. Although Facebook/Instagram are qualified as "not reliable", would using those links be accepted in this instance? Sorwenes (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorwenes: if social media are the only sources available, then I guess it's better to cite them than not to cite anything, but you can expect pushback every step of the way. Especially if you're relying on social media citations to establish notability, you will struggle. As a bare minimum, you need to ensure that you only cite 'official' social media channels of the awards or awarding organisations. You may also make a note on the article talk page explaining why you've cited such sources. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @DoubleGrazing :) Would it help to have both the organization's official website (which does not have older award pages) along with the social media page (which do) as references? I will also leave a note on the talk page to explain the rational, thank you again for the advice! Sorwenes (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sorwenes: in short, no. References should support content in the draft/article, otherwise they're not really references. And just pointing to a website's home page will cause more confusion than clarification, and sooner or later someone will probably just remove such citations anyway. That's my take on this, at any rate; someone else may come along to offer more educated advice! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 7 February 2024 review of submission by 4Corry11[edit]

I am requesting you to proof look at the article again. I looked at every credible source you accept and those 3 are what i could find fitting. If you find the subject not fitting for inclusion then why are Roller Coasters like Adrenaline peak fit for inclusion? 4Corry11 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4Corry11: this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and even the additional source doesn't change that. We would need to see significant coverage of the ride in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for your point about other rides: among Wikipedia's nearly seven million articles, there are thousands and thousands of seriously substandard ones, many of which were written in the early days before we were as careful about standards. Ideally they would be improved or deleted, but this being a volunteer project, people work on what they choose. But we evaluate new article submissions against our current standards, not against existing substandard articles. If you would like to improve the articles you refer to, or nominate them for deletion if suitable sources exist, you would be very welcome. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:05, 7 February 2024 review of submission by Aurrabhatnagarbadoni99[edit]

Why my page declined Aurrabhatnagarbadoni99 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aurrabhatnagarbadoni99: this draft was declined for the reason given in the decline notice (the grey box inside the large pink one) and the accompanying comment. Namely, there is no evidence that the subject is notable
Also, please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why you should not be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 7 February 2024 review of submission by Jawliner[edit]

I will create the major points now you will complete the tone because we want to create a Wikipedia that is more knowledgeable and I am now just adding more sources on the page, and I am also adding sources from the govt or other news articles Jawliner (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jawliner: okay... I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jawliner. Vast swathes of your draft are entirely unreferenced, which violates the core content policy Verifiability. You are writing your draft backwards. See WP:BACKWARDS. Providing references to significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent sources should always come first on Wikipedia. The role of the Wikipedia editor is simply to summarize what reliable sources say - no more and no less. If you write anything that is not verified by your references to reliable sources, then you are making a mistake and should remove all of that content. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 7 February 2024 review of submission by HelloSPK[edit]

As Prashanth is a notable person I have added citations to support his notability - I would like to understand what else can I do to make this article better and get it approved. HelloSPK (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HelloSPK: there have been no improvements to this draft since it was declined a week ago. You need to address the decline reason by providing sources that prove notability, then resubmit for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 7 February 2024 review of submission by 110.224.214.135[edit]

The article has been rejected inspite of citing sources. 110.224.214.135 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected- rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
None of the sources you have offered are appropriate for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:50, 7 February 2024 review of submission by Smadur1997[edit]

How to cite my sources clearly?. Smadur1997 (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smadur1997 Sources are not the issue. Your draft was rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not social media to tell people where to obtain clean water or to demand clean water. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot admin.--Smadur1997 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please use actual social media to tell people about where to get clean water, or to contact government officials or companies to demand access to it. I wish you luck- but you shouldn't be doing this here. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when your earlier user account gets blocked, you don't just register a new one and continue where you left off. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:44, 7 February 2024 review of submission by RîzgarîKurdîstan[edit]

Hello dear Pbirtti, I’ve asked some administrators and they said if I add news channels or book or tvs as references the draft would be accepted, and you rejected it can I know why? RîzgarîKurdîstan (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to address a particular user, you should do so on their user talk page, in this case User talk:Pbritti. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 7 February 2024 review of submission by IonaFyne[edit]

I have been working on my draft article and have the resubmission date in mind. Please can you tell me what happens if it is declined again and I am given further advice on improving my article. How long will I have to improve and resubmit? I am taking advice given previously and excluding illustrations until a later date. This is so that I can work separately on understanding how to do that properly. I also am checking choice of illustrations and copyright details. Thank you. IonaFyne (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IonaFyne: if by "How long will I have to improve and resubmit?" you mean how many times can you resubmit, then there is no fixed number – as long as you keep making meaningful progress and don't offend against any of the cardinal rules (copyright violations, attack pages, etc.) then you will have several reviews before anyone will even think of rejecting the draft outright.
And if you mean how long can you keep the draft as a draft, then again there is no time limit as such. If you (or any other human) don't edit the draft for six months, it will be deleted, but you will get a warning a month before that happens. In theory at least, if you keep making an edit every five or so months, the draft will remain more or less indefinitely. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is a prompt reply and most helpful. IonaFyne (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 7 February 2024 review of submission by TampaChad[edit]

My first entry was declined for this Wiki page and I'm a little unsure how to make improvements to resubmit. Can you explain the reasons why it was declined in more detail? TampaChad (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every substantive fact about a living person needs a source; you have several unsourced parts. If the information is sourced to sources already existing elsewhere in the article, you need to apply those references directly to the sourced information; see Referencing for Beginners to learn about this. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 7 February 2024 review of submission by FCZOE[edit]

My request for submission was declined and I am trying to figure out what about my references is not right. The note about references said that they should be in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. So how are my references not one of these? Or could someone provide examples of types of articles that fit that criteria so that I know what to look for? The articles I chose are all of what I could find on the internet about them but I think it's important enough to make a wiki article if multiple news stations covered them. FCZOE (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FCZOE: the first two sources are essentially interviews, which are not independent as they are the subjects talking about themselves. The last source is a primary one, which doesn't contribute towards notability. The one remaining source is alone not enough. (That's my reading of it, at any rate, based on a quick scan.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how being the longest-married couple in some particular region at some particular time is in any way "important": I would say it falls under WP:BLP1E. ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think if I just make a page about Arkansas' Longest married couple then that will be better? Because that is an event that happens every year and the couple is recognized every year. The Whitesides just happen to hold the title right now. FCZOE (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FCZOE: if that event has been covered by multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and (this bit is important) if the coverage has been at a general level, ie. the event as a concept, rather than simply annual updates on whoever was recognised that year, then it may be possible to have an article on it. (I do think it is quite a curious subject, so I offer no comment on whether we should have an article on it, just saying that under those circumstances we conceivably could.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 7 February 2024 review of submission by Oppopopop[edit]

i like creating storys Oppopopop (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to do that somewhere else. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 7 February 2024 review of submission by Mmehdiza[edit]

Hello there,

Although all the required locations were cited, I am uncertain why I am still receiving this message.

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

Any information would be sincerely appreciated. Mmehdiza (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmehdiza: the problem, as I see it at least (I'm pinging Scope creep who draftified the article, in case they have a different take on this), is that some of the references don't actually support the draft contents. For example:
  • Ref #3 is cited against the statement "He is also a distinguished professor emeritus at the Astro-Particle & Cosmology (APC) Lab of the Université de Paris Cité, France." However, the source is merely a phone book, which says nothing about his position.
  • Ref #7 appears to support the statement "Professor Peerhossaini was director of Laboratoire de Thermique et Énergie of the University of Nantes", but the source is just a profile page for the laboratory, and doesn't even mention Peerhossaini.
  • Similarly, ref #9 comes after the statement that "[he was] Délégué Scientifique at the High Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (Hcerés)", but the citation only points to the home page of the Hcéres website, with again no mention of Peerhossaini.
Note, I'm not saying that the entire websites in question make no mention of Peerhossaini, only that the URLs your referencing points to don't. You need to point to the specific content that actually supports what you're saying.
Finally on a separate point, you must disclose your conflict of interest regarding this subject before editing further. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:05, 7 February 2024 review of submission by Laith.11999[edit]

Hello my friends, can you help me improve this draft and make it perfect and complete because I'm facing a problem and I can't solve it. Thank you all. Laith.11999 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This forum isn't for soliciting co-editors. Perfection is not expected, but you are the best person to improve the draft you want to see placed in the encyclopedia. You say "Dhiyaa has also become an important voice in the literary community" but don't say how. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_February_7&oldid=1206774446"