Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 7 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 9 >
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.


May 8

[edit]

00:16, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Agron776

[edit]

Hello. My article submission was declined due to lacking reliable sources. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'd appreciate some advice on which source(s) were problematic and/or which parts were inadequately sourced so I can fix them. Thank you! Agron776 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Agron776, welcome to the Teahouse!
  1. This source seems to be a brief mention of Kaleshi and does not provide WP:SIGCOV.
  2. An offline source I cannot access - which is fine to use! - but it would be useful to know if this source provides sigcov of Kaleshi?
  3. The same source as the first one.
  4. I've searched this book for "Kaleshi" and there are five very brief mentions, so unfortunately does not provide that sigcov again.
Hope that helps. Qcne (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:22, 8 May 2024 review of submission by DualSkream

[edit]

Hey, I learned of the whole feud with this article and I wanna know why it's getting denied repeatedly. We have articles with Lewis Hamilton and Michael Schumacher's wins, so it doesn't make sense to me why an article for Max Verstappen's wins would get denied. DualSkream (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages by reviewers, as well as other stuff exists. If the article about Mr. Verstappen needs to have his wins split off, a consensus needs to be established first. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:40, 8 May 2024 review of submission by MARLOWE

[edit]

Hi there. I need help. Been up with this all day and exhausted. Maybe you can help to correct some issues. Sincerely, Jon LaValle Jackson 5-7-2024 MARLOWE (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MARLOWE: We don't cite Wikipedia, we can't use either YouTube reference (unknown provenance), and each and every one of your newspaper cites is missing required information (page numbers). None of your sources are usable (in their current state). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 04:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-signing due to botched ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 04:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks indeed. I'll locate those items in my files and place the page number they appeared on as soon as I can, etc. Thanks Sincerely, Jon LaValle Jackson 5-8-2024 MARLOWE (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is hopelessly promotional, as usually happens when an editor ignores Wikipedia's strong discouragement of autobiography.
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.
If you want to write an article about Jackson (whether that is you or not), you need to find several places where people who have no connection with Jackson, and have not been commissioned or fed information on behalf of Jackson, have chosen to write in some depth about him, and been published in reliable sources.
Then, if you can find these, you need to forget every single thing you know about Jackson, and write a summary of what those sources say - even if you disagree with them. ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Yeswhynot1234567890

[edit]

i need to post this Yeswhynot1234567890 (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeswhynot1234567890: no, you don't. It was rejected already, and I've now requested speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed)

07:26, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Clare Nassanga

[edit]

Hello, I would like to improve this wikipedia article to the standards of wikipedia. Could you help me highlight the necessary areas i have to edit and work upon, Clare Nassanga (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: the draft has been resubmitted so you will received feedback when a reviewer gets around to assessing it.
Please remove those external links, however; they are not compliant with WP:EL. Social media links are expressly prohibited by WP:ELNO. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Student7y335

[edit]

Hello, I misunderstood the reviewer's request and would like to add additional references for publication. I have spent a lot of time responding to these requests and would appreciate a chance to respond and improve the entry. Thanks! Student7y335 (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Student7y335, rejection usually means the end of the road for a draft; but if you think you have made substantial changes you can reach out to @CNMall41 directly who was the rejecting reviewer and see if he would take another look. Qcne (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Student7y335: whatever you do next, if anything, please first read and respond to the paid-editing query posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot

[edit]

Can anybody help me. The sources are not reliable sources - but Die Tageszeitung, Tageszeitung and the Berlinale are realiable sources. It is useful to use only these sources and delete the other sources? Tromaggot (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "Berliner Zeitung" and not a second "Tageszeitung" Tromaggot (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tromaggot: please don't start a new thread with every comment, just add to the previous one. This was already pointed out to you at least once before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to cite whatever sources provided the information in the draft. If the source is not reliable, then you shouldn't be using its information in the first place. In that case the answer does not lie in removing the citation and hiding where the information has come from, but in using a reliable source instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the first place source is the article from the BERLINER ZEITUNG yet. BERLINER ZEITUNG is a realiable source. Is it that what you mean? Tromaggot (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Student7y335

[edit]

Hello, I've added 10 references, can my submission be considered once again? Thank you. Student7y335 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Student7y335: this was already answered not half an hour ago. Please do not start a new thread with every comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry for my confusion. Student7y335 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing that you need to do is slow down. You are rushing to get this approved instead of taking the time to understand the reasoning for the many declines from editors. It is not about the quantity of sources but the quality but from your edit summary ("Added 10+ references, now totaling 30 references") this doesn't seem to be understood. I will point you to WP:ORGCRIT which is the relevant guideline for sources you need to show notability. I will be happy to answer questions regarding that guideline if you wish. In the meantime, I would also address the concern raised on your talk page. It is fine if you are WP:PAID, but not disclosing so is not. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-checking the current draft with the last time I looked at it, I will again point you to my /Decode subpage.
None of the new sources you've added are any good, and if anything demonstrates an inability to actually read and assess sources, given what I said last time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Student7y335: Signing for ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing what CNMall41 says, for each source that you consider citing, see if it meets all three parts of the criteria in golden rule. If it doesn't then it is useless for establishing notability. If it is not reliable, it should not be cited at all. If it is non-independent or does not have significant coverage, it is possible that it can be used to support some particular piece of information in the draft. ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 8 May 2024 review of submission by 14.201.9.231

[edit]

Hi, I attempted to follow the guidelines and to make an equivalent entry to another author/ activist similar to myself but have obviously failed. This is the person I tried to emulate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Birch

The feedback I received is that my entry is like an essay. Are you able to highlight those parts that are like an essay so I can rework or remove them? The feedback was also that there was not "significant coverage" rather than "passing mentions" but the supporting links I shared included Ruth Clare as the primary focus so I am not sure what this means. Is someone able to clarify this for me or to give me an example of what they mean by these terms and what makes something "good" or "bad" as I am confused. Many thanks. 14.201.9.231 (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually bigger problems with this draft than it being essay-like. Firstly, as noted as the primary decline reason, there is no evidence that the subject is notable, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.
Secondly, you should not be writing about yourself in the first place; please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please remember to log in whenever you're editing (anything, on any page, including talk pages). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Itzdeep2

[edit]

I am writing in response to the deletion notice regarding the draft article on Dhritideep Pathak. I respectfully disagree with the suggestion for deletion and would like to address the concerns raised.

The draft article provides comprehensive information about Dhritideep Pathak, covering various aspects of his personal and professional life. It highlights his achievements, educational background, career trajectory, and contributions to different fields such as cybersecurity, gaming, and programming.

Moreover, the content adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding notability and verifiability. Dhritideep Pathak's accomplishments, including his certification as an Ethical Hacker Professional, tenure as CEO of Garina Free Fire, and service as a special Secret Agent of Para Commando, are well-documented and supported by reliable sources.

Furthermore, the draft article has been meticulously crafted to ensure accuracy and neutrality, presenting information in a balanced and factual manner. It does not contain any promotional or biased content that would warrant deletion.

In light of the above, I kindly request that the deletion notice be re-evaluated, and the draft article on Dhritideep Pathak be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Should there be any specific concerns or areas for improvement, I am more than willing to address them promptly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Itzdeep2 (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Itzdeep2. Your draft is absolutely promotional in tone and it is completely correct it has been rejected and marked for deletion. It does not comply with our notability and verification policies.
By any chance did you write this appeal using ChatGPT? It is wrong, if so.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing there to suggest that they are notable? Correctly rejected and tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:27, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Itzdeep2

[edit]

i have edited some of it so it do not violate any terms of wikipedia Itzdeep2 (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Itzdeep2: no, you haven't. And in any case, this has been rejected already, and is awaiting deletion.
I'm guessing you're the subject of this draft? If so, please see WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why you shouldn't be writing about yourself.
And please don't start a new thread with every comment, just add to the earlier one. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Itzdeep2 I love that all your "sources" were generated with ChatGPT. That really is great. Qcne (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Arp678138

[edit]

Dear Authority, Hope this message finds you well.

We humbly request you to accept this page because "Arindam Kumar Paul" was a young multitalented researcher. He died by a road accident (aged 28) and but he had made significant contributions in research sector during his short lifetime. He was above all a mathematician, a hard coder, a problem solver and last but not least, a great researcher. We believe that people of all ages read Wikipedia, and therefore if this current page get approved, young students would get motivation to do research works in their early life by going through the page:"Arindam_Kumar_Paul". This is the main reason why we made this draft and submitted to the Wikipedia authority to review. We are not prioritizing a person, we are prioritizing the research works made by the person. Therefore, we once again gently request you to verify this submitted page, look into all the details given in memory of "Arindam Kumar Paul", and help us in this process. We accept and abide by all the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Finally, thank you so very much for understanding the fact why we made this draft.

Waiting for a favourable reply from you. Arp678138 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arp678138: I'm not the Authority, but I'll reply while waiting for Authority to get here... It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to memorialise anyone, or to "motivate young students"; you will need to find other outlets for that.
This draft has been rejected, and is pending speedy deletion (and if you wish to contest the latter, you need to do so on the draft talk page, not here).
Who is "we" in your message? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for one person's use only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Arp678138. Currently your draft makes no indication that this person is notable by our standards, see WP:NACADEMIC for the academic related criteria; or WP:NPEOPLE for the more generic people critiera.
Every single source is WP:PRIMARY, i.e. connected to Arindam in some way.
It would be worth reading WP:NOTMEMORIAL too.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your reply. However, we again request you to verify the deleted page. We can provide you some notable things of “Arindam Kumar Paul” below:
1. The person “Arindam Kumar Paul” is known for developing a significant graphical interface for solving “higher dimensional Optimal Control Problem.” The code that he developed is very unique. Mathematicians of the globe who work in Optimal Control Field would have less amount of time to solve their optimal problem in less amount of time by applying his codes.
2. Most of his research works or collective body of works played/are still playing major roles in public health sectors or other fields.
For example, one of his research works with the title “Modeling and Optimal Control Applied to Reduce the Effects of Greenhouse Gases Emitted from the Coal-based Power Plant in Bangladesh” was considered “unique and only research work” for solving problems in the respective subject area according to the reviewers and editors of well reputed HELIYON journal.
3. His another work “Modeling the Spread of COVID-19 Among Doctors from the Asymptomatic Individuals” was the best “unique research” where “the causes of healthcare system collapse due to COVID-19 situation” were examined Mathematically, and this research has been placed in the WHO COVID-19 Database and has been translated into German, Arabic and Russian languages.
Therefore, there is a humble request to the Wikipedia authority again, “Please look at the deleted draft page, and verify the significance of the works of the person”.
If you have any queries, please let us know. Also please let us know how we can improve the draft.
Thank you so very much for your support. Arp678138 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arp678138 Does Arindam meet the notability criteria at WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NPEOPLE? If not that I am afraid an article is not possible. Qcne (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your quick reply and sharing the link. Yes, Arindam meets criteria 1, 4, 7 from WP:NACADEMIC and criterion 1 from WP:NPEOPLE
--
Criteria 1, 4, 7 from WP:NACADEMIC:
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
Criterion 1 from WP:NPEOPLE
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
--
It would be so humble if review the deleted draft page again, and let us know with any update. We are looking forward to your favorable reply. Arp678138 (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne
Dear authority,
Firstly, so sorry for writing another message to you.
--
Could you please see my previous reply (above this message) on your query? We mentioned the Criteria that Arindam meets. It would be nice if you see that and give us an update. Waiting for a favourable reply from you.
Thank you for your valuable time and consideration. Arp678138 (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Arp678138, sorry I missed your previous message.
So if you really believe that he met those criteria, we need to see evidence of that. We cannot just go on your word alone.
The evidence must be in the form of independent reliable secondary sources- not sources that were connected with him, so not his Institution or his personal website.
Do those sources exist? Qcne (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne
Dear authority,
I am so sorry for my delay in reply.
With due respect, don't you think that his (Arindam's) all intellectual research works are those sources?
I would gently request you once again to please read all his mathematical research papers. Those are not obviously from his personal website, rather those are from different mathematical journal sources.
Please think about it.
I will wait for your reply.
Thank you so much for your every communication. Arp678138 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to see evidence, you must prove that. Qcne (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear authority,
Thank you so very much for your quick reply.
I am so happy communicating you.
Here I am showing the evidence. Please see the attached google doc link and look into the scholarly research works done and contributed by Arindam in his very short life.
Doc Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J4hJtjfHowsg8op2xJiRRzETKIJNAyAv1P_JaYdk-U8/edit?pli=1
--
Thank you in advance for reading the research papers of him from the journals.
Let me know if I could help you. Arp678138 (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arp678138 The evidence must be in the form of independent reliable secondary sources- his scholarly research work is not independent since they were authored by him. Qcne (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne
May I get to know: what is the definition of independent reliable secondary sources? Arp678138 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arp678138 Check out WP:42. Qcne (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 8 May 2024 review of submission by PsychologyAdvocate

[edit]

Looking for input on what specifically was rejected. The Object Relations Institute has been a chartered organization with the New York Board of Regents for over 30 years, which I cited on the page.

It is also listed on the Wikipedia page "Psychoanalytic institutes and societies in the United States", and I linked to multiple other certification agencies that are independent of the Object Relations Institute.

This is my first time every attempting to write a Wiki article, so any feedback would be appreciated! PsychologyAdvocate (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PsychologyAdvocate: as it says in the decline notice, we need to see significant coverage of this organisation in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio programmes, etc.). Your draft cites no such source. Simply being a well-known or long-established etc. organisation isn't enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are available. Where should I link them in the article?
Should I create a new section header for “references” and list books, newspaper, or scientific journals where ORI is mentioned there? 76.189.211.123 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PsychologyAdvocate (please remember to log in),
If you follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE you can add in in-line citations and a References section will automatically be created for you. Qcne (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Ramsharaj2468

[edit]

please im baging you dont block or delete this name or parsonality abdullah raj qureshi is filmmaker or youtuber influanser... please Ramsharaj2468 (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramsharaj2468: nobody is (not yet, at least) saying anything about deleting or blocking. I've meely declined your draft, because it's blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramsharaj2468: And in its present state it would be summarily declined. We don't cite IMDb, and we do not accept unsourced content about living or recently-departed people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Clementinaalcoba

[edit]

Hi, I recently got a submission declined and I would like to have more detail about how can I improve the references of the article. The references included sources such as newspapers, blogs and other media, some in english and some in Spanish. The musician meets the criteria to be notable since she has released more than two albums on an important indie label National Records (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacional_Records). Thank you! Clementinaalcoba (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clementinaalcoba, I do think she is notable so have accepted the article. I think the decline by @Xoak was borderline, likely because of the use of lots of interviews. But even with those, I think it passes our criteria. Qcne (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you! I am going to continue writing about Latino women musicians! 24.232.168.3 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:48, 8 May 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener

[edit]

I am asking about the recent decline of my works about this school (my work), I believe a big assistant can help me to improve the notability of this (work) school but for clarification this work is under the notability including the Awards and achievement of the school, the Visit of U.S Marine and Sailors, the school is even featured on Philippine National Television which other school not have. RexScrivener (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, if this school is your work, you are a paid editor, and you must make a formal declaration of that, as explained in the link.
Secondly, your article must be based on what people wholly unconnected with the school, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of the school, have chosen to publish about the school in reliable sources. Your own knowledge is not acceptable unless backed up by reliable published sources. It doesn't look to me on a quick look as if even one of the sources meets the triple requirements in golden rule
In any case, the draft has been rejected, and will not be further considered. If you have found some sources that do meet the requirements, and believe they are enough to establish notability, you will need to ask the rejecting reviewer on their user talk page. But nobody is going to help you find sources: that is your responsibility. ColinFine (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:13, 8 May 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid

[edit]

I would like to know if this article ready to be accepted. I've been editing for the last few weeks Rincemermaid (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. As noted on the draft, there is a backlog of drafts awaiting review, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_May_8&oldid=1247204338"