Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 6 << May | June | Jul >> June 8 >
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.


June 7

[edit]

01:09:56, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Namanibarra

[edit]


I have taken out the in-article links and removed anything that sounds like bias and advertising. This article should be notable now as well, if not, please continue to advise! Namanibarra (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namanibarra (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Namanibarra. Rejection is meant to convey that you should stop, because the topic is hopeless. It is not an invitation to re-arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. No amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. So volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to consider alternative outlets for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:36:21, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Davykamanzi

[edit]

My draft submission was rejeced for failing to meet WP:GNG and WP:ARTSPAM. The tone of the draft could be altered, but Luton Today (source for 3 of the draft's 5 references) is an established news source in the Bedfordshire area; I feel other similar institutions, even in the same area, have articles in the mainspace despite receiving a smaller amount of significant coverage (e.g. the Stella Mann College of Performing Arts, which I assume is able to remain on the mainspace thanks to some brief coverage on one BBC News article, though admittedly that is a more reputed source than Luton Today). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 02:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davykamanzi, part of the issues is that Luton Today is a local paper, which usually isn't sufficient for notability. Local paper mentions can help push a subject towards notability, but you really need some regional or national mentions to supplant. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: As far as I'm aware, nothing in WP:GNG mentions any requirement for regional or national coverage to establish notability. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 13:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Davykamanzi: What constitutes trivial coverage varies by subject domain. Schools fall under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It's section WP:AUD says: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media ... is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary."
As you probably know, school articles have long been required to be notable in order to be included, but for many years there was a parallel contradictory practice that as long as they were high schools or above and could be proven to exist, they would not be deleted. The inconsistency was more or less resolved a few years ago, and substandard school articles are gradually being improved or deleted. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines does not mean they are "allowed" to remain. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to dealing with them yet. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why they are not a good excuse to create more such articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:21:41, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Hexa Pyro

[edit]


Hexa Pyro (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hexa Pyro, Because the subject is not notable and thus not suitable for inclusion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why my article isn't publish?

Request on 05:30:22, 7 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Tabbyindian

[edit]


I need help in getting this Film Wikipedia page up. I have added the 3 different independent sources, Yahoo, iTunes, and few news coverage. The film has also been screened at few film festivals. What other details and sources should I include?

Thank you.

Tabbyindian (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabbyindian: no Declined for the reasons stated on the draft. After the film is released, more may be written about it in independent, reliable sources, thereby making it possible to write an encyclopedia article. At present, however, it is WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:37, 7 June 2020 review of draft by EliaMssawir

[edit]


I tried to submit a page for my artist, but the reviewer didn't give me much info on why is it rejected? and what am I suppose to do so it get approved. Thank you, Elia

EliaMssawir (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EliaMssawir, well he did indeed - your article does not show sufficient notability for your artist to be listed within Wikipedia. Have a look at the link he provided in his Denial and try to add several, reliable references/sources to your article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:EliaMssawir - As User:Theroadislong said, it is disruptive to resubmit a draft repeatedly without significant changes and without addressing the concerns of the reviewers. Read the musical notability criteria and explain, on the draft talk page, which of the criteria the subject meets. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:CommanderWaterford,User:EliaMssawir- Simply adding sources is not always sufficient. Read No amount of editing will compensate for a lack of notability. There is a myth in Wikipedia that, because we require sources, adding more sources is what is needed to get a draft approved. Sometimes it is, but usually the problem is that the subject isn't notable. If the subject doesn't meet the criteria, the subject isn't notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:59, 7 June 2020 review of draft by EndlessSound301

[edit]


I am working to write a new article. The article is on a scientist whose work was covered by the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, US News, and many other sources. But the article was rejected for not having significant coverage in independent sources. Could anyone help explain why these sources are insufficient, and how the article could be improved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jason_Sheltzer

EndlessSound301 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EndlessSound301 If it is the person's work that is written about, and not themselves, they would not merit an article even if their work does. The person themselves must get significant coverage in independent reliable sources to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), the #1 criteria for academic notability is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Isn't that what the NYT article, Time Magazine coverage, etc., demonstrate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EndlessSound301 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EndlessSound301 It would mean that he is notable, but there still needs to be sources that discuss him personally, otherwise any article about him would be discussing his work, and not him. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:03, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Cjzulaa

[edit]

Hello there. Could you check my last changes, please? Jargalsaikhan is one of the great representatives of Mongolian culture and art. In the case of Mongolia, I would like to draw attention to the fact that reliable sources are not always available in society. However, all possible information is included. Help me improve my Wikipedia. Thank you. Zul.L (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cjzulaa. If reliable secondary sources containing significant coverage do not exist, Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. Rejection is meant to convey that a topic is hopeless. No amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. So volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to consider alternative outlets for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:14:46, 7 June 2020 review of draft by 31.202.23.82

[edit]


31.202.23.82 (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero reliable sources.

18:37:25, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Ellisongardner

[edit]

As you must know I am new to this! I wrote the article on Carol Jenkins that should go with the photo of her in the Sandbox - but you only got the photograph. I need to move the article so it is in the sandbox but do not understand how to do this. If it's not too much bother can you please explain simply how I can do it. I would appreciate that. Thank you

CJ730 18:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, well now that you have added the necessary content you will need to have a view on the format and layout, especially on citing your references, please have a look on the hints and tips I left you on your talk page, especially here Help:Your_first_article. Hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:49:25, 7 June 2020 review of draft by Boltaso

[edit]


Boltaso (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:30:21, 7 June 2020 review of submission by Iayaz

[edit]

NIP is under Ministry of Production [1], Government of Pakistan & is reliable resource of information Iayaz (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Iayaz, as far as I see the reviewers gave you lots of information why the Draft had been rejected, the NIP Website is a self-published website, have a look over here Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#The_problem_with_self-published_sources. br, CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:30:38, 7 June 2020 review of draft by StOuen

[edit]


I have inserted the inline references now as requested, but I cannot remove the weird list of the same references below in the reference section. I should add that I have never done any coding.

StOuen (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StOuen. I've removed what I think you meant by "weird". --Worldbruce (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_June_7&oldid=985275622"