Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 16 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 18 >
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.


January 17

[edit]

00:19:15, 17 January 2020 review of submission by True hero 14

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to make this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:True_hero_14/Milan_Friedrich according tothe wikipedia rules, so it can be published.

Any help or suggestions will be highlt appreciated.

Thank you so much.


True hero 14 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently being discussed at the Teahosue. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:28:23, 17 January 2020 review of submission by Pupuce2020

[edit]


According to your music notability rules, I'm able to submit it if an album was featured on a national chart

Miles Before I Sleep was #194 on the Swiss iTunes chart

Reconsider Pupuce2020 (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pupuce2020, The guideline you refer to here is WP:CHART. A specific type of chart (not just iTunes) is needed. And the song usually needs to have been in the top 100. Being 194th is not a notable achievement I'm afraid. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek Ok, but the rules don't mention top 100 at all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)

Pupuce2020 Neither do they mention using the iTunes chart. It needs to be a national chart, of which is listed on the page. The iTunes charts are explicitly deprecated. If you can find them on the [Swiss charts.com] page (the one we use), let me know and I will help you amend the page. But if not, then the band is likely not notable. In that case, it is time to move on from the draft and work on another subject. I know that feels bad, especially after putting in the work, but to create an article from scratch is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. I can try to point you in the right direction of where to edit next, or help answer your questions. Feel free to leave a note on my talkpage. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:07:25, 17 January 2020 review of draft by Fortyfifthroad

[edit]


Hi-my attempt at publishing the artist page for Ethan Greenbaum has been declined with the reason listed as:

"not having significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

I'm a little confused as to what would qualify here as there are links to articles about the artist in Forbes Magazine, Bomb Magazine, Interview Magazine and a review of a group show that mentions the artist in The New York Times. Having reviewed other artist wikipedia pages, it's unclear to me why this page is being rejected. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Also-do you advise listing print publications for which there are no web links? (i.e. Modern Painters Magazine etc).

Fortyfifthroad (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortyfifthroad. Forbes.com is not the same as Forbes magazine. It is a group blog. Articles there by "contributors" are not reliable for facts. Interviews are primary sources. Some contain independent analysis by the interviewer, but others are just the interviewee talking about themselves, so not independent. The New York Times contains two sentences about a Greenbaum artwork, which doesn't constitute significant coverage. That's why the examples you've given don't demonstrate notability. If you're finding the policies and guidelines difficult to digest, the essay WP:42 attempts to highlight the properties that sources need.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality ones. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's requirements or has been "accepted". It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. 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.
There is no need for sources to be online. Modern Painters is not an academic source, but at least until about 2012 had an acceptable reputation. If Louise Blouin Media is anything to go by, exercise more caution with more recent issues. A lot will depend on the author's reputation. Peter Fuller is a solid source, a contractor with no credentials writing under fictional bylines would be highly questionable.
Pay particular attention to the reviewer's comment below the boilerplate pink box on the draft. Does Greenbaum meet one of the criteria of WP:ARTIST? The lead should make clear which one, and the body should cite sources that prove it. There are many other lesser problems with the draft, such as its misuse of external links. You can learn how to fix those problems in Help:Your first article and the materials to which it links.
I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page. Perhaps the best advice is not to start by trying to write an encyclopedia article on a new topic. Edit existing articles for a while to gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:41:35, 17 January 2020 review of submission by 211.23.49.229

[edit]

Hi, any updates for my wiki article: GitMind. I created it because I think it's useful and wiki have similar articles for XMind, MindMup, lucidchart and other software. 211.23.49.229 (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the draft was rejected as the topic does not meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick guide that will help you understand notability can be found here. The topic will need to have significant coverage in reliable sources and that does not appear to be the case at this time. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:05, 17 January 2020 review of submission by Johandgiki

[edit]

Following feedback, I would like to redraft the page, but I cannot access the original. Should I start a new page, or is it possible to access the original and amend it? Thank you very much, Jo Johandgiki (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johandgiki: You can recreate the page or make a different one, but you should make sure that you follow notability and reliable sourcing and avoid any and all promotional material. The last page was deleted because it was deemed to be nothing but advertising as written. You shouldn't recreate it unless you can provide multiple 1) reliable 2) independent 3) in-depth sources. Most companies are not notable to be included on Wikipedia. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johandgiki: Furthermore, if you have a close connection to the organization, you have a conflict of interest, which makes it extremely unwise to write about the organization here. Depending on the nature of that connection, writing about the organization without disclosing the connection is a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. I've left more detailed information on your talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:48, 17 January 2020 review of draft by Lily Wan Jo

[edit]


Lily Wan Jo (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lily Wan Jo is there something you need help with? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:29:39, 17 January 2020 review of submission by Juliecmi

[edit]


Hi! I would like to add a photo to this page. The photo I would like to use is in Flickr, but it is copyrighted by the org. I am in contact with people at the org that owns the copyright, and they think it would be fine to use the photo.

What is the easiest way for me to use that photo? Is it for them to change the copyright in Flickr or is it for me to send them the link to the Interactive Release Generator?

Thank you!

Juliecmi (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliecmi: I don't have experience with the interactive release generator. It introduces a third party, OTRS, so there's one more thing that can go wrong. They're a very professional group, but are often backlogged. It seems easier and more straightforward to have the copyright owner change the copyright in Flickr to a compatible Creative Commons license, as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Donating your photographs. You can always give them both options and let them choose whatever is easiest for them.
For future refernce, this page is dedicated to questions about the Articles for creation process. Once a draft is published as an article, it is no longer in our scope. If you have further questions about the article, consider asking them at the Wikipedia:Help desk. There editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps! --Worldbruce (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:FLICKR. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_January_17&oldid=985274878"