Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 19 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 21 >
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 20

[edit]

00:54:38, 20 January 2019 review of submission by Horncritic

[edit]


Submitted article on Harmonie Ensemble/New York last month. It was accepted. But it doesn't show up on Google as a Wikipedia article. A totally different article submitted by someone else in 2015 in Swedish comes up, but not the new, expanded English version submitted last month.

Horncritic (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Horncritic. When Harmonie Ensemble New York is patrolled (the timing of which you have no control over) it will be released for indexing by search engines. Whether and when search engines actually index it is beyond the control of Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:15:11, 20 January 2019 review of draft by Thefriendlyneighbour

[edit]


I am a first time wikipedia contributor and am writing about the biography of a sport person. I submitted the content and the content was rejected as I do not have any citations. Unfortunately this is the first time someone is writing about it and I am at loss how to find the citations for the details that I have collected. All of the data are collected based directly from the person along with all medals and photographs the person has.

Could you please help me to understand how to make it as a valid wikipedia artile?

Thefriendlyneighbour (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefriendlyneighbour: If nothing has been written about the person in any other publications then Wikipedia won't include an article about them. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:11:08, 20 January 2019 review of submission by Yungstatic14

[edit]


Why was my article rejected? Yungstatic14 (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yungstatic14. It was rejected because the subject is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Twitter is not reliable if someone other than Yung Static is tweeting about him, and is not independent or secondary if Yung Static is tweeting about himself, so either way it does nothing to demonstrate notability. Also, autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:10:55, 20 January 2019 review of draft by Aarshisingh

[edit]


To whom it may concern,

I just wanted to check if there is any way for this article to go live quickly?

Thank you! Aarshisingh (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aarshisingh: I am confused. You blanked the article and have added a tag asking for the draft to be deleted. Do you want it to be reviewed or deleted? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:25:19, 20 January 2019 review of draft by Amanda.useta

[edit]


Amanda.useta (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done everything I was asked to do why am I getting denied when I have proper permission to use some information and why am I still denied when its corrected thanks God Bless--Amanda.useta (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanda.useta: This draft is a mess. I am not sure if you are trying to write an article about the man, or the college, or the church. Which is it? If there's no existing Wikipedia article about the church (I couldn't find one), maybe start there? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:07, 20 January 2019 review of submission by R38R32R10MTAOTT

[edit]


I want an ReReview because I am adding more info that i know about the subject(s). R38R32R10MTAOTT (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R38R32R10MTAOTT. A fundamental pillar of Wikipedia is verifiability. The encyclopedia's content summarizes previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, you must be able to cite a reliable source before you may add it. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@R38R32R10MTAOTT: There are several problems with your draft. Firstly, the context of the subject isn't clear, so people not familiar with the subject won't be able to understand it. Secondly, it has grammatical errors and formatting problems such as the random use of capital letters and punctuation. Thirdly, it has no links to other articles so readers cannot easily establish what the terms you've used mean. The fourth and main problem is that there are no references, so people cannot verify that what the article says is accurate. It also means that reviewers cannot tell if what you've written about is a notable subject that should have a place in an encyclopedia. Please do not resubmit the draft unless you can fix all these issues. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:49, 20 January 2019 review of draft by Wednesday1331

[edit]


Hi! I have a friend who wantsto take over working on this article. Can I delete it somehow or turn it over to her?

Wednesday1331 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wednesday1331: Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so your friend can just go ahead and improve the draft, and then submit it for review when they think it is ready. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:43, 20 January 2019 review of submission by Elitedivasindia

[edit]


Elitedivasindia (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told, the topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, it is just blatant advertising too. Theroadislong (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:05:10, 20 January 2019 review of submission by King Momo42

[edit]


I would like a re-review on my Banks because I disagree that it wasn't notable enough. This is due to the fact that I, myself was looking for a page about Banks IV in the curiosity of re-creating the cellular automaton in Java. Unfortunately, I was unable to find such a page so after I finished looking through other websites and articles, and re-creating the automaton; I decided to use the information that I had found to create the Banks IV page myself. I also cited many sources, if anyone could tell me what I could do to improve the page; that would be great! King Momo42 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@King Momo42: - Hi there. I agree with the reviewer that there are insufficient reliable, independent, secondary sources. The secondary aspect rules out any direct draws on the thesis (for notability purposes). That leaves the journal article and the commentary. While the independence of the article could be disputed I think it is a reasonable source. However, I do not believe there is sufficient reliability on the Ross Rhodes commentary - if nothing else, there isn't any editorial control: he writes the commentary and is the sole decider on inclusion. In effect, it is like a high quality blog. A sole suitable source is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:23:36, 20 January 2019 review of submission by Fraction7

[edit]


Why has my article for VIYCE been refused? It was unbiased and accurate. VIYCE is a real movie. I will prove to you that it is a real movie. here is the website and the movie itself for reference. Fraction7 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Fraction7 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fraction7: - because by your own admission, it doesn't have any proper reviews. Wikipedia doesn't include any film in existence. Instead it has to satisfy film notability - which usually requires multiple in-depth, reliable, independent reviews. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody will review my film because nobody knows it exists- and nobody will know it exists until it has been put on several reliable spots-such as here on Wikipedia. I'm getting rather tired of this redundant and self-defeating expectation. Fraction7 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fraction7: - it is not a self-defeating explanation. It isn't Wikipedia's job to provide an initial publicity bump for your content. Every other film we've included got coverage and reviews without Wikipedia then they got articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not ask for a "publicity bump". All I ask is that my film be given an article on here. I do not demand that my movie be given a "publicity bump". YOU ask that. I cannot give my own movie a publicity bump. I only made the movie. It is your job to interpret it as you will. It is a 100% real movie. I do not ask that my film be given any reviews. I only wrote an article on it, believing that it deserves an article as much as Adam McKay's similar 2018 film, Vice. My movie is called Viyce. Only Adam McKay can get reviews. he is famous. He knows Will Ferrell. I don't know Will Ferrell. I made a movie. Fraction7 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2019_January_20&oldid=880228474"