Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 1 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 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.


July 2

[edit]

01:17:35, 2 July 2020 review of submission by EmpyreanOrb

[edit]


Hello everyone here,

I am a bit piqued at the reason given for the decline of the article. I'm actually not contesting the decision, but I would like to point out a possible innocent omission. There are 40 references in the article, apart from the notes. Of this 40, 13 are from what should be reliable sources: 7 is from the BBC, 1 from a NASA publication, 1 from the New York Times, 1 from The Independent, and the other 3 from nhbs, hachette and the Witney Gazette. The other citations are from book publications, the international whaling commission, and co and in all these, the subject was well-referenced.

In all these journals, newspapers, books, and websites, the subject is mentioned but the reason for rejection states the following: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

So, I am a bit discombobulated by the "they do not show significant coverage about the subject." I'm not making a case for this article, but while researching Dr. Dobbs, even though I was paid to do this which I declared, I was convinced that it was a great disservice that there was no chronicle of his contributions in the field of dolphin research in this online encyclopedia resources that has helped and continues to help researchers and seekers of knowledge with ready materials of research.

Maybe there was something fundamental that I missed while drafting this article and I would like suggestions that would be helpful in improving it before re-submission.

Thank you for taking out the time to read this blab from an insignificant earthling like me.

May it be well with the earth and all who inhabit this revolving empyrean orb. HTML Serial Killer (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HTML Serial Killer (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies it looks like I missed the references at the bottom, only seeing the notes, fee l free to re-submit. I admit my first thought was that it was a hoax, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong, I'm so sorry. I didn't ignore your response; I'm just seeing it. Somehow, I missed the notification. I only got the notifications from the Teahouse, and using the suggestions from the Teahouse, I rewrote and shortened the article and left only 17 references from the most reliable sources. The new edition has already been submitted and now I saw this. What do I do now? Based on the Teahouse suggestions, the new edition is practically a stub. Maybe someday, if it scales AfC, other editors will add more information about Dr. Dobbs to the article. Thanks, I never knew you replied me. Thanks a bunch and no hard feelings. One love. HTML Serial Killer (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:41:45, 2 July 2020 review of submission by Guddu176

[edit]


Guddu176 (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guddu176: Neither Wikipedia, Facebook, LinkedIn nor Instagram are considered reliable sources because they are user-generated (and as far as I can see, the Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram sources also fail WP:INDEPENDENT) Therefore, the Draft currently fails WP:NPERSON. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:03:42, 2 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by MAPPLab

[edit]


A Wikipedia page I created was rejected because the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Does this mean that the content of the page could have been delivered in a way that would have made the topic appear notable? Or does this mean that the topic of the page was not notable enough, regardless of the contents of the page? To provide some context, the reviewer said the following: "Subject does not meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. I think it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. She seems to be on an upward trajectory." Thanks.

MAPPLab (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AFC template containing the rejection was subsequently removed from the draft by Rich Smith. Presumably they plan to guide the author on how to resubmit, or intend to review the draft for them, after improvements. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: MAPPLab came on IRC asking about this, after a discussion, I advised they continued to improve the draft as they had copied a version to a user sandbox, they agreed they would hence I removed the AFC rejection template to allow re-submission at a later date - RichT|C|E-Mail 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

15:08:25, 2 July 2020 review of submission by Samdomx

[edit]

The page has been marked for speedy deletion, I have contested this and would like to further exercise that fact that the page is mainly to provide a user info about what the platform is about. Samdomx (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samdomx Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a subject. A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, demonstrating how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:49, 2 July 2020 review of submission by 110.143.254.79

[edit]


110.143.254.79 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, could you please help explain why my edits on the Australian Railway Signalling Wikipedia page are being changed or reverted by someone else?

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Edits at an existing page are outside our scope. If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, discuss it on the talk page of the article, in this case Talk:Australian railway signalling. For more information see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:07, 2 July 2020 review of submission by 216.174.75.9

[edit]


I feel that this monastery is worthy of mention because it is one of the most popular and welcoming Christian monasteries in Indiana visited by people from surrounding states from all walks of life and of different nationalities. There is no charge whatsoever when entering the pristine grounds and no one there would even think of asking for donations. Also, it is unique in church architecture and beginning to be a landmark in Indiana. They do not advertise and they do not promote themselves they only exist for prayer.


216.174.75.9 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:07, 2 July 2020 review of draft by 2409:4073:2E97:C19E:77F7:FE00:942:978F

[edit]


How to upload a photo in a draft

2409:4073:2E97:C19E:77F7:FE00:942:978F (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

get a user account and then upload it here. come back when you're done. If you have additional questions, you can respond in this section (click the "Edit" link next to the section title) or ask at the teahouse. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:59:09, 2 July 2020 review of submission by Thebrotherhoood

[edit]

I am trying to publish this page for review and acceptance because it got declined the first time. Thebrotherhoood (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thebrotherhoood. The draft was not just declined (which allows resubmission after improvement), it was rejected (which does not offer a way to have it reviewed again). Discogs, Everipedia, and everybodywiki, being user-generated, are not reliable sources, and should not be used as references. The musician's website and interviews in which he talks about himself, such as on stopthebreaks.com, are not independent secondary sources and do not demonstrate notability. Nor has he accomplished anything that suggests he would be a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. No amount of editing can overcome the problem. Perhaps as his career progresses, more will be written about him in independent, reliable, secondary sources, but for now it is too soon. Reconsider the topic in 3-5 years. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:15, 2 July 2020 review of submission by 216.174.75.9

[edit]


He is an important figure in Serbia and Bulgaria. Worth a review after line citations that I made to give it more credence.

216.174.75.9 (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:11:44, 2 July 2020 review of submission by Nkosiyaphamollllly

[edit]

i need my article to me published now

Nkosiyaphamollllly (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nkosiyaphamollllly: I presume you're referring to Draft:Nkosiyapha Dube? That draft is completely lacking in independent reliable sources. We need something, like a newspaper or magazine article, to back up the claim for the Golden awards (and to determine what those awards are). Without independent sources, the article will not be published. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_July_2&oldid=985275205"