Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 11 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 13 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


January 12

[edit]

Request on 01:26:20, 12 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Footy21

[edit]


Hello! I have re edited my draft:Max Aken-Tyers and would love for you to look over it.


Footy21 (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Footy21: - the current waiting period is about 4 weeks from submission. Your draft is in the queue so can be reviewed anytime between now and then.
as a side note, when you make edits it's worth adding something in the summary so it can be seen what you've done. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:01:47, 12 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Footy21

[edit]


I’m trying to work out how to send this draft:maxaken-Tyers for creation!

Thanks so much guys

Footy21 (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not duplicate posts. Thanks. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:34:46, 12 January 2019 review of submission by DanGBE

[edit]


Hello, i have now updated and added other secondary sources such as from the official Thailand Ministry of Education website and 'Which School Advisor' online news portal for parents.

I hope this is enough for my page to publish as compare to other pages iv seen on wiki that have none.


DanGBE (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any news on my changes to the article? Secondary sources have been added now. looking forward to feed back.

06:18:07, 12 January 2019 review of submission by Damiancvp

[edit]
how do you add reference

hrcreolenation 06:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CS and your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:47, 12 January 2019 review of submission by Eltham girly

[edit]


I am requeting a review because this individual has been an significant activist holding senior official roles in UK environmental campaigns since the 1970s and standing as a candidate for a political party in UK general elections. He is a commentator on travel which the BBC have used.

The rejection suggested that this was self promotion.

This is wrong. I have no association with the subject of the article.

If fact, I would say that there are aspects of inconsistency in his widely reported public comments and his private actions and that is one of the reasons an entry is in fact needed. To collect balanced information about a person with significant profile, but with unscientific attitudes and inconsistency in his actions

Eltham girly (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eltham girly: - the rejection didn't say it was PROMO that stopped the draft. It gave two main reasons - failure to satisfy notability and a specific issue that because most of the sources, especially those from reliable sources, were interviews and thus not independent (which is the case, regardless of who writes the article)
I agree on the notability grounds - being a candidate is specifically not enough under our strict political notability rules. Just starting Avon's wing of friends of the earth would also not appear to be sufficient. There does not appear to be sufficient reliable & independent coverage of his business work to meet notability that way either. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebanger:He has been the Vice Chairman of the national UK Organic Movement's main organization, set up a significant publishing business, been active in movements for Employee Ownership, is a commentator. The candidacy for the Green Party is an aspect of his notability, but it is not the justification for his inclusion. IF your issue is with the sources then we can work on that and I dare say that we can get there because he is a significant figure about whom much is written in respected papers etc. When he dies he will have obituaries in the major UK papers. I think you must acssept he is noteworthy enough. I am happy to redraft a draft article (when I have time)... for review again... but I an unhappy about you switching this off without further debate. I would go so far as to say that his contributions on environment policy which are inconsistent and widely reported are themselves a very good reason to have an balanced article on him
@Eltham girly: - Nosebanger is such a good name I'm not regretting not selecting it! But as an FYI the system won't ping me without my actual nickname.
There might well be coverage of the organic movement's organisation, but the position doesn't mean there are reliable, in-depth, secondary sources that actually write about him. He might well get quoted, or even interviewed, but neither will provide notability. A fairly fundamental rule is WP:INHERITED - which means that just because an organisation is notable, that its officers must be (bands and musicians, parents and children etc).
Him being written about as a controversial figure may well be the best source of actual writing about him. If you can find better sources then I wish you luck. However as a body we not equipped to judge each topic's importance (or at least, to agree on it). That is why notability is required, however important or unimportant. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:00, 12 January 2019 review of draft by Collystrings

[edit]


Hi, I'm getting in touch because I have had an article submission declined for reasons I would like to dispute.

Editors have claimed the article on TV presenter Jonny Nelson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jonny_Nelson) does not meet sufficient coverage or sources, but from my reckoning, the sources provided for the article are far more detailed and have shown more coverage than most presenter articles I have read on Wikipedia.

Contemporary presenters from the same field, Ben Shires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shires) and Lindsay Russell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Russell) to name two, appear to have far fewer sources and yet existing, non-disputed Wikipedia pages.

Recently editor 'Buidhe' claimed to have "checked some" of the sources provided and found the subject appeared merely in passing mentions, but if they were to have read through all of them, they would have found a vast array of different sources relative to the small size of the article submitted, and several to be detailed on the subject's background alone (that is to say, not a "passing mention" by any estimation).

After several draft edits, I am beginning to feel aggrieved that editors are not carrying out due diligence in their deliberations of new Wikipedia articles.


Collystrings (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Collystrings. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they are welcome. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
Examining a random sample of the cited sources: Lancashire Evening Post, Radio Times, The Times, Newsaroud, and Manchester Evening News are trivial mentions. Bounce is a primary source interview without analysis by the interviewer. None of these six count towards demonstrating notability. Putting them in the draft looks like an attempt at bombardment or citation overkill - trying to hide that the subject is not notable. A better approach would be to follow the advice in essay WP:THREE. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:30:57, 12 January 2019 review of draft by 2602:306:8388:9BD0:8C32:6094:AF2A:8BE3

[edit]

I am trying to create a Userpage basically to bring to the attention to users with the Check User right that this IP address is used by multiple people. Many of these people live in the same household, some have accounts and some do not and to keep this in mind when blocking or reviewing sockpuppeting cases. Thank you for your help. --2602:306:8388:9BD0:8C32:6094:AF2A:8BE3 (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use your talk page. IP address users cannot create their own user page. Please do not submit the draft as well. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:44, 12 January 2019 review of submission by 151.20.54.131

[edit]


As the subject is taking more and more importance, I have extended the article and added more information. 151.20.54.131 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject fails WP:NBAND. It's not up to you to judge whether it is notable or not. Please read the links that appear in either the decline notice or the instructions I've left on your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:44:30, 12 January 2019 review of submission by Mccheers

[edit]


Mccheers (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccheers: - the reviewer is correct that there does not appear to be any indication of Wikipedia notability. Have a read of Band notability - if you think the band does meet any of these criteria, then look for sources to demonstrate it. If not, then the band does not currently warrant an article. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:49:10, 12 January 2019 review of submission by Corue

[edit]


CORUE 22:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The draft fails WP:NACTOR. More info left on your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:39:01, 12 January 2019 review of submission by Rfairwea

[edit]


I added sources as required. Rfairwea (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfairwea: - you need to resubmit your draft to AfC for it to be re-reviewed. Once you've done that, it should be reviewed within 4 weeks.
Please make sure to pay attention to other editors who leave comments on your draft. I've not checked over your whole sources, but it is worth noting that ImdB doesn't provide notability (though you can source things like casts from it). Nosebagbear (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:53:56, 12 January 2019 review of submission by 119.92.10.57

[edit]


119.92.10.57 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)How would I improve my draft of an account of YouTube: Draft:The Petlings - Official. What are the needs of improving it?[reply]

Firstly, YouTube is not a reliable source. Secondly, your draft fails WP:GNG. Thirdly, it seems to be promoting the subject. There's no need to improve it since it will not be accepted anyway. More info on your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_January_12&oldid=879115727"