Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 1 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 3 >
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 2

[edit]

06:53:40, 2 December 2019 review of submission by TimBray

[edit]


First of all, thanks to User:AngusWOOF for suggesting I raise this issue here. I have been editing on and off irregularly for many years, and am the initial creator of two very small lightweight articles, Rose_Harbour,_British_Columbia and East_Van_Cross. But nobody would call me a serious Wikipedian. Recently my book club read Heartland_(nonfiction_book) by Sarah Smarsh - it was a finalist for the National Book Award, reviewed in loads of prestigious publications, and quite controversial. We asked ourselves "who is this woman?" and then the whole book club was shocked that Ms Smarsh didn't have an article. A bit of poking around revealed she had a solid track record as a journalist (NY Times, New Yorker, Guardian) and had been a subject of discussion as a Democratic candidate in the 2020 US Senate election in Kansas. I (perhaps naively) thought this, along with the publication of a widely-reviewed and widely-read book, sounded pretty notable so I pulled together a draft entry which was however rejected. Along with the rejection were some helpful notes about citation errors on the journalist side, I had simply used her publications as citations of that role.

Anyhow, I was pretty shocked that this did not pass the notability bar, particularly in the context where her book did. I'm not sure what my goal in posting this is; maybe just a sanity-check. Tim Bray (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Tim Bray (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TimBray, Too many of the sources are just articles that the subject wrote. Ya need to find some more coverage of her, that is independent of her. She may be notable, but the existing sources are not quite enough. As a side note, if she were to actually run for senate, that would likely catapult her to notability. But on her writing alone, you need to show that she passes WP:NWRITER, or the general notability guidelines. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:17:14, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Prachurapp

[edit]


Prachurapp (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no content apart from your name? Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:00, 2 December 2019 review of draft by Nikhil1123

[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Please help me to create a Wikipedia page, which is showing as subject not qualified. Please let me know the reasons why it is showing like that.Can you please show some examples of subjects.

Nikhil1123 (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil1123, I caution you to not write an article about a subject to which you are related. That represents a conflict of interest, which you would need to disclose. Also, note that if you have been compensated in any way for these edits, such as being an employee of the company, you must disclose that per WP:PAID.
In terms of notability, you need significant news coverage. You need more sources, and you also need to include them inline. See referencing for beginners for a handy guide. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:57:13, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Janne Jacks

[edit]


This is an informative article corresponding to the category and does not pursue advertising purposes

Janne Jacks (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the subject in three of the references, it fails WP:GNG and is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:49, 2 December 2019 review of draft by Bending genres since birth

[edit]


How do I delete the draft?

Bending genres since birth (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bending genres since birth, I have put it up for deletion at your request. If you would like it to be not deleted, you may edit the talk page of the draft and say as such. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No no, that's fine. Thank you for your help. Bending genres since birth (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:27, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Matralala

[edit]

Just need help getting this published. Have had some helpful hints from users, but need help getting over the finish line. Thanks! Matralala (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have reviewed and accepted. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:34, 2 December 2019 review of submission by RobLewis8

[edit]

There are teams with significantly less coverage who have articles that have been approved. The Niagara Regional Raiders of the CJFL had their article approved and their article has little to no information. I actually put work into this article, and to be quite honest I find the fact that this article hasn't been approved yet so many others have is ridiculous. This hockey team plays in the PWHL, which is the female equivalent to the OHL. My sources are reliable as PointStreak provides accurate statistics for this team, BayToday.com is one of the most reliable news sources in North Bay and they're talking about this team from a city 3 hours north of Barrie, BarrieToday.com is one of the best places to go in Barrie for sports and news coverage and do I really have to explain CTV News? I genuinely hope you reconsider your decisions on this article as I feel that it is sustainable enough to be on Wikipedia. RobLewis8 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the article as well as the comments from Curb Safe Charmer. The issue is entirely Notability, so basioally boils down to (more or less) secondary coverage of the team, for example by the local newspaper or television stations. Unlike individual players, the Notability of Teams is more or less the same as it would be for other organizations in the town. I'm sure it is covered more than the local Civitan though. The fact that three other teams in the same league have pages about them fall into WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST which more or less says that each one stands or falls on its own, and the fact they exist may just boil down to the fact that no one has proposed deleting them. I'm not sure why WP:EVENT was mentioned, but that may have to do with the state of the draft at that point. So my advice is the following. Check in with the people at the Hockey Wikiproject Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, they know the situation better than most and may have even better advice. Have specific facts about the team specifically referenced in the three external media sources that you have covering it. And it may simply fail Notability, I don't know.Naraht (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht: Thanks for your comments - we're on the same page, as it were. The reason for the mention of WP:EVENT was that Rob had added a reference to this news article about a young lady that died in a car crash. That the girl was the captain of the Sharks is incidental and does not help establish notability about the club.
Addressing RobLewis8 now - your conviction that the team is notable and should have an encyclopedia article about it speaks to the reason that we discourage WP:COI editors from writing articles about themselves, their family, their friends, their clients, their employers, their teams or their clubs. It makes it that more difficult to be objective. As someone living the other side of the Atlantic I can look at the draft impartially and weigh it up against the criteria that the Wikipedia community has agreed upon by which all articles about organisations must meet (WP:ORG). We encourage new editors to practice editing Wikipedia and learning the numerous guidelines that we work to through making small edits. I think part of the difficulty here is that rather than do that you've dived straight in creating an article about a subject that is close to your heart. You fall into a category of editor that we call Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts - you're conflicted. I welcome you to stick around and contribute to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia), but I recommend you find another way to promote your team.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:21, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Preecesmith

[edit]


Preecesmith (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preecesmith, We strongly discourage folks from writing autobiographies on Wikipedia. Be cautioned that only folks who have been covered in the media are usually eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. With luck, you'll be famous for something someday, and someone will write a Wikipedia page about you! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:50:52, 2 December 2019 review of draft by Vvong519

[edit]


I was informed that the page I created reads too much like an advertisement. I would like suggestions on how to improve this to meet Wikipedia's requirements. I have provided a range of independent, reliable, published sources for as much as I can.

Vvong519 (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vvong519, For starters, remove all external links in the body. External links should only go in an external links section, and are usually tightly controllled. Please also see referencing for beginners for how to properly format and use references. The speaking events section should be removed. In general, the article ought be written like an encyclopedia, not a resume. You need more prose, and likely some better sources. Please read the notability guidelines for people about exactly what is needed to show that a subject can have an article. I'm not yet sure if the subject meets those guidelines. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:53, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Rtist4Rtist

[edit]

We were declined; how then can we submit a page for Ragga Lox, Reggae artiste?

Rtist4Rtist (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rtist4Rtist, Well it was declined because you had no sources. If you can find enough sources that are reliable and independent, you could get them an article. But the article also is written like an ad, and it seems that your account is that of a promoter. You will likely need to change your username. You also must read and follow the guidelines at WP:PAID, which stipulate that any editors which are compensated in any way for thier edits must disclose that fact. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:32:50, 2 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nabatoff

[edit]


I am trying to publish an article the first time under title "Perspective Geological Correlation"I got a quick answer from Captan Eek. He rejected the article as too technical and lack of cross-references. I reworked the article, published it, and send my comment to the reviewer Captan Eek. After two months I am not sure that my response reached Captan Eek. Please, advice how to check that my message reached the reviewer, and where is the right place to put my message to the reviewer? Thanks


Nabatoff (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabatoff: Your draft is in the queue again. First time, it likely was a quick review because of obvious issues. This time, the reviewer likely needs to spend much more time. It's understandable that Captain Eek may not be familiar with the topic or simply not want to review something in-depth. However, anyone who is a reviewer can review a draft and someone will get to it eventually. There is always a massive draft queue, which is reviewed in no particular order, so I'm afraid sometimes you have to wait a long time. I took a quick look and it looks like you don't have a WP:LEAD for the article. A lot of content doesn't have a citation attached. It's all written more like an academic paper than encyclopedic article. It's likely the draft would be declined again. I think you should check out some other articles (like Category:Featured articles) on Wikipedia to see what to aim for. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nabatoff, Howdy hello! Sorry if I didn't get back to you, the review queue is quite large and I get an awful lot of questions about things I've reviewed, and things sometimes fall through the cracks. Looking at your article again, I have to agree with Hellknowz. It reads more like a scientific paper than an encyclopedia article. See Radiocarbon dating as an example of a featured article (the best we have!) on a very technical subject that is easy to read, still sufficiently detailed, and presented in an encyclopedic fashion. Oddly enough, your article actually suffers from too many images, an unusual issue here. I would say cut them in half and just keep the best. I also think that many more citations are needed. Only 12 papers for an article of this size is unusual. Find more please. Also, do not use bolding to show emphasis. Hellz is also right in that you need a lead. All in all, some work to do, but it should be notable. Please drop a new question on this page if you have any issues as you work on it! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:00:24, 2 December 2019 review of submission by Sponge333

[edit]


Sponge333 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sponge333, Howdy hello! Wikipedia does not allow autobiographical articles. Only folks who have been covered in the media can have pages. But with luck, you will someday become famous, and someone else will make an article about you! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:37:38, 2 December 2019 review of submission by ShimmyCharlotte

[edit]


Hi,

Page: Rose Feller - Artist

I had this page rejected for two reason. One was there aren't any references. I'm not sure how to get around this, as the artist herself asked me to set the page up and everything I have written was from a private interview with her.

I have linked everything online about this artist - she is trying to raise her profile which is why she wanted a wikipedia page but you say it was rejected because there's not enough secondary stuff online.

How do I resolve this?

Charlotte

ShimmyCharlotte (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShimmyCharlotte, Ah, well theres the issue. We don't allow original research, such as you have proposed. Only folks who have been covered with secondary sources may have articles. If a subject hasn't been written about in media, books, papers, etc, then there is nothing about their life that is verifiable and that we could write about. We strongly discourage and tightly control the sort of thing that you are seeking to do. Wikipedia is not used to raise people's profile, as we are not an ad platform. If you want this person to still have an article, you must find sources. If sources do not exist, we cannot write about them.
If you have been compensated in any way to make these edits, you must disclose that by following the guideline at WP:PAID. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page Rose Feller - Artist

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_December_2&oldid=985268763"