Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 6 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 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.


December 7

[edit]

04:07:30, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Jepwashere

[edit]


Hi,

First-time contributing to Wikipedia so please bear with me.

I read your comment saying that new mainstream sources don't mention the subject or only provide a trivial mention. Do you consider all the references in the article as trivial mentions? If not, what can I remove? I already replaced the references which I though was passing mentions from the last edit I made.


Your help is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance :)


Jepwashere (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jepwashere: There's two things what need discussed here:
  1. When it comes to sourcing for businesses, we have a certain subset of sources that do not help for notability due to them being routine coverage; i.e. they'd be reported on as a matter of course. You can see a (near-exhaustive) list at WP:CORPDEPTH.
  2. This draft falls under WP:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. For details on how general or discretionary sanctions function, see WP:General sanctions. I do not work in areas under sanctions, and so will not be doing a source assessment here; part of the issue that led to the sanctions regime is the rampant promotionalism and the constant pushing of dodgy sources.
Hope this helps. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:30:24, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Abodiiyi

[edit]

i have added the necessary sources to get this article approved, all of the sources now are reliable enough. Thanks Abodiiyi (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft nuked as an advert, was recreated and then deleted again. JavaHurricane 15:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:58, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Pryi1499

[edit]

I want to understand why the draft page was rejected. Please elaborate on the issues with the draft page. Ihe institute is a notable institute in India and its fellow institutes are also published on wikipedia. Please guide if there was an issue with the draft, notability or otherwise.Pryi1499 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Pryi1499 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something; a Wikipedia artice must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:56:41, 7 December 2021 review of submission by AnanthuRg

[edit]


AnanthuRg (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC) 07:56:41, 7 December 2021 review of submission by AnanthuRg[reply]



Can You please tell me why my article Climate Angels has been rejected

@AnanthuRg:, as it notes at the top of the draft in the red box is that the draft didn't show notability by sufficient, suitable, sources. In practical terms, you need at least 3 sources that meet these criteria. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:49, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Sush150

[edit]


Sush150 (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try again when movie is released. Unlikely to be notable as an upcoming project. Slywriter (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:25:06, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Mastetchi

[edit]

I am writing an article on David Eric Gokhshtein, an admin pointed out that another user had written an article on him before but it was rejected due to copyright issues. Mine is a brand new article, citations are in order. I need a reviewer to look through what I have so far. ThanksMastetchi (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Mastetchi (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected as a topic not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:10, 7 December 2021 review of submission by RichardWillows

[edit]


Good morning, I have a question based on two articles based for boxers Dennis Hogan and Campbell Hatton, where their Wikipedias are not available when I search them via Google and usually when you search their names a little knowledge panel appears about them too. It can be seen for my first article based on Kazakhstani boxer, Firuza Sharipova, but not the others. How can this be fixed?

First, this page is not for asking about non-draft pages. Second, the Knowledge panel is out of our control and does not pull exclusively from Wikipedia; yell at Google. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:54:18, 7 December 2021 review of submission by User-ana5

[edit]


Hello, 

I submitted a draft article named Lingaro but it was deleted. The note I received from the editor was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

My question: is the problem only in the style, manner of writing that it looks like an advertisement? Or this means the topic is not notable - not enough trustful sources linked to this article?

Thank you very much


User-ana5 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It appears to be an advertizement" is an indictment of the article as it is written, and not its sources. What is your connexion with Lingaro? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:01:41, 7 December 2021 review of submission by 103.155.194.182

[edit]


103.155.194.182 (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:28, 7 December 2021 review of draft by Vandanatalwar

[edit]


Vandanatalwar (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please help me to get this draft publish

@Vandanatalwar: All your sources are worthless. We do not cite Instagram or any other social media (no editorial oversight) and the TOI articles are either Shit She Says(TM) or are too short to be usable as a source in any case. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:07, 7 December 2021 review of submission by Mastetchi

[edit]

Good day, my article was declined by an admin but I hope this will change your mind. David is a notable person. He has a verified twitter handle with over 500k followers. He is on the board of Forbes and a writer for Forbes online, I can provide a link. He runs a YouTube channel with large following and a huge voice on cryptocurrency. I may not have covered all of who he is and what he represents in my article but it's a start, I plan on constantly updating the Artice after it goes to the main space. Consider approving the article or if there's any recommendation that can make the article better, I will appreciate. Regards Mastetchi (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Mastetchi (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter - Irrelevant, Forbes Contributor - irrelevant, coverage in non-reliable sources - irrelevant. You need to find in depth, independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources. At this time, that bar has not been met. Slywriter (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:12, 7 December 2021 review of submission by 2409:4071:E9B:A980:0:0:2B09:9F02

[edit]


2409:4071:E9B:A980:0:0:2B09:9F02 (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given sufficient guidance in the draft. Further submissions will not be considered as there is no indication of notability. Slywriter (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:48:07, 7 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Mesubutabkk

[edit]


Greetings, I've spent a great amount of hours working on this article, so I'd like to do know what additional information I should add so I can publish it.

The article is very complete, and since it is a sexual fetish with many relations, there are not statements but mostly descriptions, and each of these sexual actions can be found plentiful on any porn site, or social ones such as Twitter, Discord or Reddit.

So I'm assuming the lacking sources issue comes from the "Figure Bukkake" itself. About this, I've found a book, which is a hentai manga featuring figure bukkake, plus many articles by personal blogs. I've posted one where a female interviews different individuals who engage in this fetish.

I've looked for reference on pages featuring other moderately uncommon fetishes such as scatology and footjob, and have noticed coprophilia has 3 sources on the main definition, and footjob has the same. So I'm wondering if I need to find more quantity, or more quality sources. The fetish is there, and every minute people on Twitter and other places are uploading it, besides the ones who don't film it. But it is a very taboo fetish and media don't write about it, and it is not like foot fetish that mentioning it on a book can make you even look sophisticated. Most of the people who mention engaging in figure bukkake get frowned upon even by friends.

So it will be hard to find professional articles. It is my first attempt at creating an article, before starting and during the writing I went through so much information, about copyright and sources especially. The latter -and reason the article was reject- I'm still confused about, so I'd love if anyone could help me saying what type of sources should I look for. It is a shame because one of the reasons of doing this article was helping normalize this fetish so people can see it as any other sexual activity like any other fetish, but that is the same reason it's really hard to find anything about it, no one wants to talk about it, so it is a real stalemate. I wish with some guidance I can overcome it and fix the issue with the sources.

Thanks!

Mesubutabkk (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mesubutabkk - Reddit, Twitter, social media are not reliable sources and not useable. Your article is largely unsourced. You are saying alot but not properly attributing, so its impossible to say if the information is accurate or is original research. Cut out any information you can not link to a source. Slywriter (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slywriter - Thanks for your answer. I'm only mentioning these communities have a large user base and specifically mentioning the name of the subreddit, and the Twitter hashtags. Not using them to verify any information I say. Everything I described is based on being inside the fetish for around 10 years. I would appreciate if I knew specifically what should I source.

For instance, for all the relations and types of figure bukkake, I could post an image of each, I have a 100GB collection and contact the users for things I'm not involved with such as feces to ask for their permission, but other than that the only way to support these definitions is either linking examples or posting images.

I state artists often share and like seeing users doing this with their products, and use a reference for that linking to Twitter, where the original artist comments and shares the post with his main account. He is a professional artist, his twitter is https://twitter.com/nukonukopaizuri and my statement is that artists often follow this content, and in this case he proved it on Twitter, so the only valid reference is linking one of the tweets where that happens.

Then I also make statements about companies either adapting concrete products (point 6 and 5.3) or advertising them to use as sexual stimulation (5.2.1). For 6.1 I've linked an example of these from the original manufacturer, with their official name in japanese (Bukkake Bath Poster) http://rootnuko.jp/products/tenioha2_lo/special/reserve/

For 6.2 (Dakimakuras adapted for sexual play) I can reference either the shop or post a picture, same with 5.3, dollfies sold with fleshlights inside their torso for sexual play. Would referencing all of this be enough? I didn't think I had to reference every toy as I already did with bukkake posters that might be the hardest to imagine than just a sexual doll and the others, but I have no problem in adding these links too.

In origin where I talk about how it originated all I can do is source the oldest posts on the japanese imageboards or blogs, but these are often deleted, that is why instead of simply sourcing I give the main reasons why it started in japan, basically they're the ones who started doing sexualized figures, the ones who coined the term figure bukkake and their imageboards is where it started years before it was common in the west.

Then the creators and viewers, I am a creator and viewer myself, and what I state there are from conversations with males and females interested in the hobby that I've had during these years. Still it follows a logic and I'm not giving any opinions, as I explain the reasons, for instance saying one of the reasons some people get attracted is because of the inanimate nature of the figures, having a sense of domination tied to the hobby for some. Some of this information comes from agalmatophilia. I never say anything in an absolute truth, I talk about the different reasons for different individuals, and use words such as "most likely" in the case a source doesn't exist, but saying some individuals feel attracted to a figure because it's overly sexualized or sexy is like saying the pole is cold. It's not like I'm filling the article with a pile of make up stuff, I have been very serious and have reviewed it many times before publishing it.

Seeing now the agalmatophilia page, I see it is also heavily unsourced, especially the "Fantasy, transformation, role-play" and "Fantasy, transformation, role-play", the latter is very similar to the issues we have on my articles, when I talk about origin or reasons, we know these are true but we're talking about why people feel attracted to very specific things, or origin of figure bukkake who no one has ever written professionally about it. Yet I see the article has "This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" boxes, would be fine if I add these on the respective sections of my article where an official source doesn't exist yet? Mesubutabkk (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you seem to be engaging in original research (WP:OR), which is prohibited on Wikipedia. If you can not find reliable sources then the information does not belong on wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see other crap articles exist, that is not an excuse to create another poorly sourced article. Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:50:41, 7 December 2021 review of draft by Zarabernal

[edit]


Zarabernal (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarabernal: Your sources are unacceptable. We don't cite his personal webpage (connexion to subject) or his agency (connexion to subject). In addition, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a in-depth third-party source with competent editorial control that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_December_7&oldid=1060014601"