Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 25 << Mar | April | May >> April 27 >
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.


April 26

[edit]

00:06:42, 26 April 2021 review of submission by 103.141.158.210

[edit]


103.141.158.210 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Because this town is one heck of a climb, and secondly people are wanting and waiting to be recognised prior.

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Repeated resubmission of a draft without so much as a token effort to address its problems is grounds for rejection and may lead to a MfD debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:57:05, 26 April 2021 review of submission by Uniquepapi

[edit]


Uniquepapi (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uniquepapi You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:29:23, 26 April 2021 review of submission by 219.92.68.150

[edit]


219.92.68.150 (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


13:07:52, 26 April 2021 review of submission by Evgeniy Akimbaev

[edit]

Hello! My draft was rejected cause references do not appear to pass notability criteria (by the way several popular sites mention the draft's topic, so I don't know what's wrong), and I have a question - can I use YouTube videos as references? It's important cause the game I writing about mostly known by visuals, so everyone tries to show it instead of writing about it. Evgeniy Akimbaev (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeniy Akimbaev It is possible to cite a video, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film,_television, or video recordings. However, that would only apply to a video from a reliable source such as a news organization which has editorial control and fact checking. It wouldn't apply to regular people posting on YouTube their thoughts or streams of themselves playing a video game. For this fan game to merit an article, it must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have taken note of the game, and chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. If few or no sources write or tell about this fan game, it would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:07:22, 26 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Coolvoltblaze

[edit]


14:07:22, 26 April 2021 review of draft by Coolvoltblaze

[edit]

Coolvoltblaze (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC) -->Coolvoltblaze (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coolvoltblaze (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)== 14:33:44, 26 April 2021 review of draft by Coolvoltblaze ==[reply]

14:38:54, 26 April 2021 review of submission by ManushriYoga

[edit]


ManushriYoga (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I am Nutan a Yoga Therapist, Fitness Expert, Nutritionist & Naturopath. I give home tuitions for Yoga & Pranayama, Meditation, Stress free lifestyle, Medical Yoga etc. I am a certified person for Yoga from Pune and a Diploma holder in Naturophathy from Bengaluru.

14:43:30, 26 April 2021 review of submission by ManushriYoga

[edit]


ManushriYoga (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

14:47:46, 26 April 2021 review of submission by Onlyyou1

[edit]

I have added a link to Kinopoisk. This is a reliable source. Onlyyou1 (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onlyyou1 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:25, 26 April 2021 review of submission by 74.51.196.146

[edit]


74.51.196.146 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC) I was just wondering why the article on Carlitosism was rejected. Although this religion is still very new it has been gaining a lot of traction in southeast Texas. This rejection could be perceived as offensive to some readers of Wikipedia. I eagerly await a more detailed explanation of why this article was rejected. Thank you, Please reconsider this decision.[reply]

Wikipedia is not for something created one day. When independent reliable sources take note of your religion and choose to write about it, it will then merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:35, 26 April 2021 review of draft by Mklarmann

[edit]


Mklarmann (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Dear Wikipedia community, I was guided here to ask for help with publishing a new article on the organization Eaternity. It was declined with the following reason:[reply]

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 organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I have added additional sources reporting on the societal significance of Eaternity's contribution, to help with the argument, that there should be an article (removed references for brevity) Specifically to the point, as it concerns a climate label that is being displayed in over 10'000 retail markets across Europe. Yet I do not think with all the references this makes for a qualitative article. Can you you help me proceed? I would be able to collect more sources if necessary...


Mklarmann (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mklarmann You've offered a lot of sources, (which oddly enough is actually kind of a negative here) but they all seem to be press release type stories or announcements of routine activities. Those do not establish that this organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Instead of 34 sources with brief information, try summarizing just three sources (to start) with significant, in depth coverage of the subject. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mklarmann (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC) thank you for the swift help and guidance 331dot. I might come back if there is further progress, if this is ok?[reply]

Mklarmann You are welcome to ask further questions. If this section is not automatically archived, please ask follow ups here. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:50, 26 April 2021 review of submission by Chevylaw2021

[edit]

Im not sure why this page is being rejected? Chevylaw2021 (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chevylaw2021 First, please note that while not forbidden, autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. The reason for the rejection was given at the top of the draft- you have not offered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:46, 26 April 2021 review of submission by Zeik77

[edit]


Zeik77 (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft speedy deleted per criterion WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. --Kinu t/c 17:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion.”
The article was re reviewed and the second reviewer did not state that it should be deleted. I’m not sure why it was rejected in the first place and have not been provided with an answer.
thank you. Zeik77 (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have been provided with an answer: it is a blatant hoax. Unless you can provide any reliable sources that discuss this subject, please stop wasting our time and yours. --Kinu t/c 06:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:49, 26 April 2021 review of submission by TheSokks

[edit]

Hello, I need a second opinion on the above listed draft article which was previously reviewed by User:Celestina007 who raised notability concerns which I addressed and replied to them on their talk page that these sources 1 2 3 4 5 show that the subject meets the GNG and that the number 2 source shows that WP:ENT#2 is met. I also asked that they leave the review to another editor but they went ahead and declined the post saying that I shouldn’t resubmit within 30 minutes of decline. Meanwhile the decline notice on my talk page only said You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved (which I did). They however kept insisting that I don’t understand WP:SIGCOV but my understanding of sigcov is that the sources cited are independent, reliable and address the subject in detail. This can be part of a list because the subject does not have have to be the main topic of the article. They however said number 4 (Pulse Nigeria) was not a RS because they don’t disclose sponsored posts. I however pointed out instances where Pulse NG tagged posts as sponsored and Celestina007 doubled down and said they don’t do so all the time (not sure how they were able to determine that). They went on to declare that having a large fan base hopelessly useless in establishing notability especially for Nigerians, (A country I have lived in for 20+ years and have become a citizen of btw ). Mind you, I've also been a Nigerian in Nigeria for the past 20+ years and making assertions such as these should not be based on my personal opinion as a Nigerian but community consensus. Nonetheless, I found it quite surprising that they stated in this AfD that the subject met ENT 2 and are here asserting that it can’t be used in the case of Nigerians.

Moving on to Draft: Uzor Arukwe 2 which they also declined for notability reasons but the subject is covered here, here and here and meets the GNG. The subject also meets WP:ENT#1 as he has had significant roles in multiple productions and was also nominated for two of his roles as best actor in a comedy.

Is there any avenue to tell a reviewer to avoid reviewing articles from a particular user because I don’t want this reviewer reviewing my articles to be very honest.

The Sokks💕 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheSokks You can request that a user not review your drafts, or you can heed the advice of the more experienced reviewer instead of shopping around to find someone to tell you what you want to hear. Getting different eyes on it will not guarantee you get the result you want. If you want to take the very real risk that your draft would be nominated for deletion, you can move it into the encyclopedia yourself, without a review. I strongly advise against that, as I think the reviewer has some good points. Better to heed them and get the draft accepted rather than move it yourself and become frustrated and angry when it is deleted. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Raising the issue on the reviewer's talk page and on this help forum is hardly 'repetitive' but seeing as they've thanked me for my post here, I hope they'll leave my further submissions at AfC to other reviewers. I prefer an unaccepted draft to getting a created article dissected at AfD. Thank you. The Sokks💕 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:34, 26 April 2021 review of submission by John Munuve

[edit]


John Munuve (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Munuve You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your company. See WP:PROMO and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:08:55, 26 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Filmbuff1234

[edit]


Hello, I am in need of assistance in editing this article. I am not sure what additional resources or changes need to be made in order to publish this. There are 4 separate news articles detailing the person referenced. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much!


Filmbuff1234 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Filmbuff1234. The draft cites one independent, reliable, secondary source, which contains significant coverage of Dargatis: the Abington Journal article. The other references are non-independent primary sources in which he talks about himself with no meaningful independent analysis, or are brief mentions (Scranton Times-Tribune) instead of detailed in-depth coverage. The Abington Journal piece is of the hometown-boy-makes-good variety, except that it makes clear that Dargatis hasn't "made it", he's scraping by in small roles and commercials. Clearly he is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). That may change as his career progresses, but for now it is too soon for an article about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:51, 26 April 2021 review of draft by Tinydwarfcat

[edit]


I've been attempting to create a page for the Star Trek: Enterprise character Malcolm Reed. It has been declined twice for apparently not being suitable for a wikipedia page. I admit I'm a bit confused, because the wikipedia page for Trip Tucker (also a character from Enterprise) has only three references listed, and they're only what he was rated as in different polls. Compared to this, I don't see how creating a page for Malcolm Reed is considered not suitable. Reed is the only main character without his own page. I apologize if I'm missing something, or if I've done something wrong, and I'm wasting valuable time. Tinydwarfcat (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking through the articles on the Enterprise main characters, the sourcing on all of them is pretty poor, with links to Memory Alpha, lists of "the best X Star Trek characters", and so on. The book source provided in the Travis Mayweather article seems to be the lone exception (which is ironic, considering the short stick he got in terms of character development on the show), but even that article is in poor shape, given the focus on in-universe content. The issues noted at the previous AfD would need to be addressed, so if there isn't anything substantive about, for example, the development of the character or sourced commentary that goes beyond just some subjective rankings, then it might not be worth attempting to resubmit this (and, quite frankly, the other articles in the set probably need some scrutiny as well). --Kinu t/c 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tinydwarfcat (edit conflict) Please see other stuff exists. Each draft or article is judged on its own merits. It could be that the Tucker page is also inappropriate(I haven't examined it), and I say that as a Trek fan. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, inappropriate content can get by us; we can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_April_26&oldid=1036064647"