Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 9 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 11 >
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.


July 10

[edit]

04:18:03, 10 July 2020 review of submission by 2409:4052:91B:5D9B:4DA5:AEF1:FAE5:FD3A

[edit]


2409:4052:91B:5D9B:4DA5:AEF1:FAE5:FD3A (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to invite @Robert McClenon: to this discussion. Please note that imdb.com is not considered a reliable source because its user-generated. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Victor Schmidt mobil, User:Goutamrazpurohit - Please log in. It is difficult to engage in discussion with an IP address. Do you have a specific question? When I declined the draft the first time, I said that it did not satisfy television notability, and that it used IMDB as a source, and IMDB is not considered a reliable source. It was then resubmitted less than 24 hours later, with little change, and still using an unreliable source. If a draft is declined, and you do not understand why, it is better to ask questions or engage in discussion than to just hit the resubmit button. You still have not asked a question, and are still just hitting the button to submit a blank request for help. Maybe if you ask a question, we might try to answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:27:37, 10 July 2020 review of submission by Thespiansapien

[edit]


Hi. I made changes after being declined for lack of reliable sources on June 14. Am I missing a 'subst:submit' line somewhere on the draft? Is this draft even visible for review? I'm so confused as this is my first article. Thank you for any help!

Thespiansapien (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thespiansapien: Its currently in the rewiew pool. I'm sure that a reviewer will look at it earlier or later. Please be patient. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:45:52, 10 July 2020 review of submission by Getmymettle

[edit]

I published my first article regarding my company and my article was rejected on the ground of a promotional basis. It was said that I was promoting something in the article. I would like to know how can I improve my article and what steps do I need to take in order to get my article published. Kindly revert ASAP. Getmymettle (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Getmymettle: first of all, if its "your" company, you need to read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the required disclosures. Then please understand that we dont operate on deadlines. Wikipedia is mainly written by volunteers doing that in their (sometimes rare) free time. Unfortunally, I am not an admin, so I cannot see the deleted page's contents. I am therefore going to ping Explicit as the deleting admin. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was horrible, stinking of self-praise and peacock words and marketing bullsh*t that would have shamed Prof. Harold Hill! Even if there had not been blatant COI involved, it would have been eligible for speedy deletion as blatant promotion and completely unsalvageable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:14:04, 10 July 2020 review of draft by 87.116.178.176

[edit]


I need help because my article keeps being deleted and i don't understand why. The person is notable, i have put in citations.

87.116.178.176 (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... but none of them appear to met the criteria at WP:NPERSON, i.e. they are reliable independent and have significant coverage. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:17:14, 10 July 2020 review of draft by Fenojoy

[edit]


Dear Sir, I try to publish a page about my hospital. I am not a technical person, but still my passion towards listing in wikipedia made me to find and solve problems relating to the submission. At present my page is declined as the references sourses are not verifiable. Can you please help me to complete my page?

Fenojoy (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fenojoy Please review the paid editing policy and conflict of interest for information on required disclosures(you kinda sorta do so already on your use page, but it could be clearer). Your draft is nothing but an advertisement for your hospital, detailing its offerings. Wikipedia articles do not just merely tell about the subject. They should primarily summarize only what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about your hospital, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what any organization wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it. That does not include press releases, the hospital website, staff interviews, routine announcements, or other primary sources. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Assuming you work on the draft and it eventually passes review, you won't be able to directly edit the article further, you will need to make edit requests. I'm sure that a Wikipedia article sounds like a great way to get the word out about your hospital, but that is a promotional purpose and not permitted. Also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. Any information, good or bad, about your hospital can be in an article about it so long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:46:49, 10 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 199nah

[edit]



199nah (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@199nah: please copy stuff from elsewhere onto Wikipedia. Even if that external site belongs to you, 99% of the texts found on the internet are not siutable for Wikipedia. Please write in your own words, based on what reliable sources say. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:38:24, 10 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Tycheana

[edit]


Which Indian tabloids are regarded as noteworthy? Hi, I wanted to seek your opinion on the Indian tabloids that are regarded as noteworthy enough to be used as sources on Wikipedia. When it comes to news reports on the current events of the day, can India Today, Business Standard, Economic Times and Financial Express be regarded as reliable and reputed sources? This is not about interviews or editorials, just news reports. Also Press Trust of India - can it be treated as a reliable source? Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tycheana (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tycheana. "Noteworthy" is not a term Wikipedians use with regard to the acceptability of sources. A noteworthy newspaper is not necessarily an acceptable source, and one that isn't noteworthy is not necessarily unacceptable. The tabloid press is widely regarded as a very poor quality source, in some cases a prohibited one. However, none of India Today, the Business Standard, The Economic Times, or The Financial Express are tabloid newspapers. They are generally reliable for the sorts of things newspapers are reliable for. The same goes for press agencies like Press Trust of India.
A newspaper may be a reliable source for a statement without being significant coverage of a topic. Just because someone is mentioned in or quoted in newspapers, doesn't mean they are a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Worldbruce - so it also means that if I use the 4 Indian newspapers that you have mentioned along with Times of India, they should be treated as reliable sources by reviewers...? The subject here is a lawyer, so he is mentioned in the source page along with whatever statements he might have made pertaining to the case. Some of these cases themselves have been discussed in other related Wikipedia pages. For any lawyer to find repeated mention with regard to specific cases, can this be used to prove notability?
I also wanted to ask about interview intros - while interview content is out of bounds and not accepted here, is it okay to use facts like education and location which are specified only in the intro and are not a part of the Q&A that follows? This is the link - https://superlawyer.in/kapil-sankhla-founder-sankhla-associates-litigation-managing-firm/ - wherein the first paragraph mentions his education and location. So can I use it only for these 2 points? The interview content I have not used anywhere in the draft and definitely not as a reference since it presents the individual's view and hence does not qualify as a reliable source. Thanks again, regards, Tycheana (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tycheana: Reliable is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one; it is only one of the necessary conditions. I looked at the 14 citations of news organizations in the draft. They're all reliable, but none is significant coverage. They do nothing to demonstrate notability. They're a form of WP:CITEBOMBING - useless junk that obscure any good sources in the draft. Notability is not inherited, so it's irrelevant whether the cases are notable or not. It's also irrelevant whether the cases or the lawyer are mentioned in other Wikipedia articles.
I don't see any of the characteristics of a reliable source in superlawyer.in, so I wouldn't cite it for anything. Interviews in otherwise reliable publications (e.g. The Hindu) are reliable sources, and may be cited for many things. If an interviewee says "My father was a civil servant" or "I live in New Delhi", we would take them at their word unless there were a known controversy about the matter. If they say "I graduated top of my class", we wouldn't state that in WP:WIKIVOICE, although we might say it with inline attribution, like "He said in an interview with foo newspaper that he graduated top of his class." The problem with interviews is that they are primary sources, and if there is little or no analysis by the interviewer then they lack independence. In practice, most interviews people try to use do nothing to help establish notability for those reasons. The introductory paragraph(s) of an interview are rarely of value. Often one can tell that they've been copied from the subject's CV or a similar non-independent source, and are not the product of independent investigation and analysis by the interviewer. If the underlying source is non-independent, then just cite the underlying source. In such a case, citing the interview as if it were independent and notability-demonstrating would be misleading. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce, sincere apologies for responding late. 2 families in the neighborhood tested COVI positive and that put all of us in a major spin, basically sanitizing, rigorous testing and then shopping as there is talk of the residential complex being declared a containment zone.
So what do you suggest for my draft going ahead? Today I am going to look for sources that have more detailed mention. For that matter, would a copy of the judgment as declared by the Supreme Court and mentioning the lawyer in question help? Thanks, best regards, Tycheana (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tycheana: If I were you, I would write off the draft as an idea for an article that didn't pan out, and move on to a different topic. You may, of course, keep looking for significant coverage, but the more effort you sink into it, the less dispassionately you'll be able to view it. You'll see what you want to see, not what everyone else sees. For perspective, study the deepest sources in articles about lawyers like Robert Garran, Ángela Acuña Braun, and Laura de Force Gordon. Entire books, chapters, journal articles, or encyclopedia entries have been written about them. Some editors will accept several meaty paragraphs, or a page, as significant coverage, but you'll need a lot more than mere mentions. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce, sincere apologies for the delayed response. I accept your suggestion, but that being said, I would like to seek clarification on the following Wikipedia pages which either do not have a reference or have entire sections without any reference validating the facts mentioned -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangler_(profession) - a short article albeit no sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikishi - the intro does not have any reference points
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_railroad_history - not only does this page lack specific sources but also does not conform to the style of writing accepted on this platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretia_Mott - again an entire section - intro - without one single reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debesh_Roy - a one-line intro but again no reference
If you can allow pages such as these to continue to remain, mine is still way better in terms of citing atleast a few appropriate sources if not all and using factual style of writing. A clarification on each of them would at least help me understand how exactly this platform works and that its not as if there are different rules for different people. Believe me, when I say that I can flag several such pages on Wikipedia which are way worse than my draft and yet are still up and live. Many thanks, best regards, Tycheana (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tycheana: Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in its current state. It is not a good excuse to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why.
Because the lead is only supposed to summarize information in the body of the article, in many cases no citations are required in the lead.
All content must be verifiable. Sources must exist, but it many not be necessary for the current version to cite them in order to avoid deletion. Wrangler (profession), for example, used to cite sources, but they were removed, probably accidentally.
Different rules apply to different topics. It is permissable, although inadvisable (hence the maintenance tag), for Cleveland railroad history to cite only general references, with no inline citations. Biographies of living people, however, are held to a higher standard regarding inline citations.
The community rates the quality of 98% of Wikipedia articles at less than "good". Wikipedia does not aim to contain information about everything, but so long as the topics are notable (satisfy the encyclopedia's inclusion critera), flawed articles will be kept, not deleted. They should be improved, or tagged for clean up. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce, I am sorry for saying this but all that your explanation has done is make apparent the inconsistent rules that seem to be the norm here. All I seem to gather is that acceptance/rejection of a draft depends more on the whim/fancy of the reviewer than anything else. Thanks all the same, best regards - Tycheana (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this editor for disruptive editing, included multiple undeclared paid editing, based partially upon off wiki evidence. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:08:56, 10 July 2020 review of draft by Ayajood2020

[edit]


Ayajood2020 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user was blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user, and draft deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:11:55, 10 July 2020 review of draft by Alexmenocal

[edit]


Hi, I was notified that this page that I drafted is tagged for speedy deletion due to noncompliance w/ G11 (promotion): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Diana_Guerrero-Maci%C3%A1

Is there any way to know what specific elements of the content are objectionable? This page is very similar to many other biographies of living woman artists. Thanks for your help!

Alexmenocal (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Alexmenocal (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete was declined. What puffery left is "award-winning". Instead of using an adjective like this, simply state what award was won with a link to Wikipedia page on the award. But since this is about the mother, there may be no reason to mention it at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:23, 10 July 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA

[edit]


The last time i submitted this article they said it must meet the criteria of WP:NMUSIC, i read it and it says at least it must have a single that has certified gold, there is a single that has certified gold on that article, so i want to know if it the article is good enough to be established, if not can you please tell me what's left that i didn't do. SONGEZO SA (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, SONGEZO SA there is no source cited in he Discoggraphy section to confirm that "No Ties" was certified Gold, or that Tshego was the lead singer on that single. But if those can be sources, thisu may be over the liner. It could use some cleanup, but gold is gold. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_July_10&oldid=985275129"