Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 18 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 20 >
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.


November 19

[edit]

Request on 00:26:49, 19 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 197.135.22.97

[edit]


I need to make wikipedia page because I have music on Spotify and anghami and Deezer and apple and more and I have official Artist channel YouTube


197.135.22.97 (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:10:05, 19 November 2020 review of submission by Zbady

  • Username missing!
    • No draft specified!
We have no interest in helping you promote yourself or your career, sorry. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:31:24, 19 November 2020 review of submission by MHSBRofficial

[edit]


MHSBRofficial (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MHSBRofficial Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:16:59, 19 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 2400:2200:482:A38:4CA:BF4A:1560:1BB5

[edit]



2400:2200:482:A38:4CA:BF4A:1560:1BB5 (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:46:29, 19 November 2020 review of submission by Venus luu

[edit]


Venus luu (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


It belongs to normal science and has value.

@Venus luu: Still no evidence of WP:NCORP, much less of verifyability. 07:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:11:18, 19 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Anthony0309

[edit]


I have made the necessary changes. kindly help me with the article get approved. Anthony0309 (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony0309 The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for you to post your resume or tell the world about yourself. Please review the autobiography policy. This is an encyclopedia where articles summarizes what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what a person wants to say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft has been speedy deleted per criterion G11 that, as a resume, served only to promote/publicise the creator/subject. JavaHurricane 14:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:25:34, 19 November 2020 review of submission by Nintendoswitchfan

[edit]


When I tried to add an article, I could not figure out how to make a talk page for it. When I click talk, it just leads me to the article again. How do I add a talk page?

Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Reeves (streamer) article has a talk page at Talk:Michael Reeves (streamer). You created it by adding the WikiProject tags to it, according to the edit history. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:15, 19 November 2020 review of submission by Smehra2801

[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Team, I have created an article for Goldy Hunjan and Published it but received no response from your side. May I know the exact reason for it and if required, any changes; so we can make it accordingly. He is an artist with years of experience and expertise in our city and I really want him to be here so it can add to the artist's experience. He is well known among major cities that is why I have added some reference links also. Maybe it can help. Looking forward to from you. Smehra2801 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you talk about Draft:Goldy Hunjan Makeup Studio. You have recived messages about why it hasn't been accepted on your user talk page, last on 26th August 2019. According to that, the draft has been rejected, meaning we dont intend on reviewing it again. What would be required now would be a credible claim of WP:NCORP. Maybe an admin can also look if the (deleted) revisions contain something usefull. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:45, 19 November 2020 review of submission by Francisjk2020

[edit]

Hi, Please could you take a look at the draft. No one seems to be reviewing it. I have incorporated all compliance changes as suggested by Wiki administrators. Thank you for your consideration. (Francisjk2020 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)) Francisjk2020 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francisjk2020 As noted on your submission, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,598 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by a limited number of volunteers who do what they can when they can, you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:06, 19 November 2020 review of submission by YacinePedia

[edit]


Please let me have a page about this in Wikipedia. YacinePedia (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YacinePedia Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, and you have offered no such sources. Sources must indicate how your web content meets Wikipedia's special definition of notable web content. Please see Your First Article for more information, but you will only be wasting your time and that of others by pursuing this further. If you just want to tell the world about this, you might use social media or alternative forums where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, it's okay. There's something called Fandom, and it's a huge place with thousands of Wikis. I could just build my own Wiki there and make a page about this there. That's all I can say, I got disappointed when my draft got rejected, it should've been accepted. Next time I make a page about something on Wikipedia, the draft should get accepted, and not rejected. Even if a page I make here is not gonna be notable, the draft should be accepted, no matter what. YacinePedia (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YacinePedia That's not how this works. Reviewers evaluate drafts based on the likelihood of them surviving an Articles for Deletion discussion, which is largely based on notability. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, okay, I understand it. Anyway, that's the end of the conversation. Bye. YacinePedia (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:21, 19 November 2020 review of submission by PXAO

[edit]

Hello! So a page I tried to put up was denied and the reviewer gave me the following note:

"This is one of Green's projects and is best described there in that section for the podcast. If there are reasons to split it off from his article, please bring it up on the talk page there as a split request."

Although Danny Green is a part owner, so it's fair to say some information about it could be put on his wikipedia page, this is an active company operated by a variety of individuals who host events and conduct themselves independent of Danny Green. Perhaps there just isn't enough information? Please let me know if there is a way for this to be resolved! Thank you!

PXAO (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:21, 19 November 2020 review of draft by Prachi.chopade

[edit]


Publishing for first time.And also important information should not get lost dues to technical errors.

Prachi.chopade (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prachi.chopade, hello! I believe you are referring to User:Prachi.chopade/sandbox. In that case, the page currently does not follow neutral point of view, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Indeed, in its current state, it would seem that it only serves to promote or advertise the subject of the article, and could even be speedily deleted without discussion. However, you should not fret over this. You can review our neutrality policy as well as how to write better articles, as well as the "your first article" guideline. Writing articles is, after all, one of the hardest things a new user can attempt, and new users make many errors writing first articles. There are a few other issues in the draft article, but those can be sorted out in a stepwise fashion once the immediate problem is dealt with, i.e. speedy deletion has been avoided. If you feel you have any doubts, questions or problems, you can always ask me at my talk page. JavaHurricane 16:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:22, 19 November 2020 review of draft by Anothando Tswele

[edit]


Anothando Tswele (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anothando Tswele: No sources? Also, please add a lead section. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:30, 19 November 2020 review of submission by Faits1789

[edit]


Faits1789 (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Unless you have a way to counter the public information, please stop trolling.

20:56:15, 19 November 2020 review of draft by DJPoobs

[edit]


Sorry I am new to this, Joanna is a family friend and has asked if i can create a page on her behalf. I am not sure where I can site more sources from, I am wrong that I am linking to other Wikipedia articles, and they need to go to third party sources as well.

E.g. if i say she is in Love Actually in this case do i need to refer to a website that lists her in the cast

cheers Andy DJPoobs (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DJPoobs: Hey there, I appreciate your candor, but you should be aware that since you have a conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from editing about a subject with which you are conflicted. People with conflicts of interest sometimes find it difficult to write objectively about the subject. In order for an article to survive the Articles for Creation process, you need to be sure that the subject has received significant coverage (i.e. not passing mentions, but in-depth coverage about her and her work) in reliable sources (mainstream news outlets, mainstream magazines, books from mainstream publishers, not blogs, not random websites, not user-generated sites like IMDB) that are independent of the subject (meaning, it can't be her website, it can't be an interview, it can't be a press release. Whatever source has written about her in depth can't be reliant on Bacon for the content, information, etc.) See WP:GNG for our General Notability Guideline, and see also WP:NACTOR for our specific notability guideline for actors. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:12:42, 19 November 2020 review of submission by Mstrrj1

[edit]


Mstrrj1 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mstrrj1: You didn't ask a question, and you posted the same thing twice. I've deleted one of them. If you're asking about Draft:Officialum1, you've done very little to establish why the subject is notable, and to the reviewer, the article looks promotional. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:20:24, 19 November 2020 review of submission by Paul.jonah.paul

[edit]


At the direction of User: Eternal Shadow, in a discussion on the Help page for AfC, I started an RfC on the Talk page discussion about whether to approve the Draft: Shift4 Payments for the main space. The discussion has now concluded and everyone agreed the article was now notable because the company is public and has more press. The discussion is the second section (a long way down) on the Talk page Draft_talk:Shift4_Payments and is called “Request for Comments re: Draft: Shift4 Payments.” Could someone confirm the consensus? Eternal Shadow has not responded to requests. This has been pending since July 22. Thank you very much. Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:41:41, 19 November 2020 review of draft by 2604:2000:E010:1100:B0BD:8A75:6DFB:22C8

[edit]


Can someone take a look at this and see if I am off? And if the article should not be promoted because - in the view of the editor - three refs at the end of a sentence is too much? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B0BD:8A75:6DFB:22C8 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC) 2604:2000:E010:1100:B0BD:8A75:6DFB:22C8 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused about a summary that was written in August 2020. In that version of the article, there were eight references after that statement, not the three you're talking about now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But now that there are three, a second editor has said on November 3 it is still ref bombing and declined to make it an article as a result. The fellow seems notable in two spheres btw. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B0BD:8A75:6DFB:22C8 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of 3 November, did we need four references that prove that he's a handball player? You might also consider moving the references directly after the content they support. So if one reference supports the claim that he won the 1967 Open Singles World Championship, move the reference directly after that statement instead of leaving them all clustered at the end of the sentence. This isn't meant as a way to trick the reviewer, but it will make it a bit clearer as to which references support which material, so it doesn't look like a bunch of references all supporting the same claims. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I thought it was down to three at most. But I see there is one instance in which it is four. I will address that. Will it then be ok? 2604:2000:E010:1100:B0BD:8A75:6DFB:22C8 (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - now I see that the most any sentence has is in fact three refs. That is a good reason to not promote an article? Three refs in a sentence is cause for rejection? 2604:2000:E010:1100:B0BD:8A75:6DFB:22C8 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the rejections took place in the past. If you have since updated the article to fix the issues raised, you could resubmit the article for review. You might also consider asking one of the reviewers what else they would suggest you do. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's only one sentence that has even three refs. I've resubmitted it.--2604:2000:E010:1100:B0BD:8A75:6DFB:22C8 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:47:15, 19 November 2020 review of submission by Hacker Notice

[edit]


i dont understand why this is rejected, this guy is famous and needs to be put on wiki bc theres no other thing i can put him on, pls, one time thing, only one im posting.


Hacker Notice (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hacker Notice: You didn't link to an article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In re Draft:Chxmpionx We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the article makes must be sourced to a newspaper/news magazine/trade publication article or scholarly book that corroborates the claims and discusses him specifically in some depth. This is an absolute requirement for ANY biographical information about a living or recently-departed person. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 00:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_November_19&oldid=990551246"