Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 24 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 26 >
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.


March 25[edit]

01:21, 25 March 2024 review of submission by Lily200101[edit]

I require assistance with this draft in terms of referencing. I have used the template given however after submitting the draft I was told it was wrong. Would it be possible to ask for an editor to fix the referencing issue? Lily200101 (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lily200101: the only thing that is obviously missing, in terms of referencing, is that the date of birth must be supported by a reliable published source, or else removed, per WP:DOB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:45, 25 March 2024 review of submission by 企業チェック[edit]

A Japanese version of Wikipedia does exist. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFE%E5%95%86%E4%BA%8B%E3%82%A8%E3%83%AC%E3%82%AF%E3%83%88% E3%83%AD%E3%83%8B%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9 I would like to post a translation of that content. What should I do? Or could you please post a translation instead? 企業チェック (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@企業チェック: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies, and what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:26, 25 March 2024 review of submission by Watsii[edit]

in this case, what to do? Watsii (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@watsii: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ltbdl (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the only actual usable source is this one. However, it cannot establish notability because it is almost entirely an interview (WP:INTERVIEW) can be helpful. TLAtlak 14:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:40, 25 March 2024 review of submission by SYNTHWAVER MAN[edit]

How do I make the topic notable? Thanks. SYNTHWAVER MAN (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "make it notable". If independent reliable sources on their own decide to give this topic significant coverage, summarizing what makes it important/significant/influential, then those sources can be summarized in an article. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 25 March 2024 review of submission by Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar)[edit]

Hello I am Uttam Kumar. I create this post for public. Parbatia Thakurbari is new temple of hidu gods of Bishnu. This thakurbari is present in Jorhat, Assam, India. I write in this post history of Parbatia Thakurbari. Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar) (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar): okay, the draft has been submitted and is awaiting review; do you have a question you would like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Sir @DoubleGrazing Uttam Kr. Mahato (Uttam Kumar) (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 25 March 2024 review of submission by Acorn syrup[edit]

I need to understand why these references do not meet the criteria (in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent of the subject )

1. https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/film/movies-cursing-profane-language-8922aab7 went in-depth with the study the article was referencing to, it's from a major news organization which is reliable, it is secondary and strictly independent from the subject.

2. https://pointerclicker.com/vidangel-alternatives/ went in-depth with what the topic of the the article can do, it was written by a tech writer, and it is secondary and strictly independent from the subject.

3. https://try.clearplay.com/history-of-being-legal-full-timeline/ went in-depth on how ClearPlay established the legitimacy of custom video streamer filters, and in terms of self-published sources, it stated events directly related to them. Acorn syrup (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Acorn syrup (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Acorn syrup: I can't (easily) see the full WSJ piece as it's behind a paywall, but the beginning suggests it might not be entirely independent, as it's the CEO of Enjoy Movies Your Way talking.
Not sure how reliable Pointerclicker is, I'd need to look into that. But product reviews don't typically contribute much or anything towards the notability of the companies behind those products, which is what this draft is about.
Clearplay is a primary source. It also seems not to even mention Enjoy Movies Your Way.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 25 March 2024 review of submission by 192.181.167.81[edit]

Good evening, I saw that my Wikipedia article "Five Crowns (Card Game)" was recently declined. Will you please let me know where I could change it? Below are my mistakes on the article: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

When it states "in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)," I don't know how I can change it. Because I'm showing people how to play this game(Kind of like an instruction manual, so it's hard to go into detail per say. If you have any tips or examples for by situation, I would love to hear it.

Thanks for your time! 192.181.167.81 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no sources other than those that describe how the game is played, or ratings given by merchants selling the game. None of these are appropriate for establishing that the game meets the definition of a notable product or even more broadly WP:GNG. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 25 March 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) 11:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:16, 25 March 2024 review of submission by GFR89[edit]


GFR89/sandbox[edit]

Hi, created first wiki draft page ever, GFR89/sandbox, @Jimfbleak seem to have deleted it. It is a page for our school. Not really sure what the issue is, other than a link you cited to a charities commission page. Happy to edit, but I cannot see the draft to be able to do that. Can you please restore the draft, and advise precisely what we need to do to make this page viable? GFR89 (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GFR89 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GFR89: "the issue" is, as per the notice posted on your talk page, that the draft was a blatant copyright violation of three different sources; we obviously cannot even host that, let alone accept it for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_March_25&oldid=1216452574"