Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 11 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 13 >
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.


January 12

[edit]

01:00:26, 12 January 2021 review of draft by Martha mwansa

[edit]


I need my article for submission Martha mwansa (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:03:20, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Domnipal

[edit]

I have submitted the draft for review only one time and my ability to resubmit was revoked. I laid out an explanation on its talk page as to why I think the subject is notable and gave my rationale there, waited a couple of days for someone to jump in the discussion and discuss it there but no one showed up. There you will find a detailed review of the references I included in the article. If someone can join the discussion and give constructive feedback, that would be great. Thank you. Domnipal (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Domnipal: The article was rejected for a combination of two reasons: (1) because it did not address the reasons for the first decline, and (2) because you addressed your reviewer condescendingly and disrespectfully. I will say that I agree with the assessments of your behaviour by the three experienced editors you have so far interacted with: GSS, Robert McClenon and Rosguill. Your attitude and language towards GSS was an unjustifiable overreaction. On the matter of your draft, it has been rejected by Robert McClenon. This is different from a decline. It means that it will not be considered further. This can be changed by a decision of the reviewers or of the community. I won't speak for other editors, but I do not support a review of the rejection. You have neither tendered an apology nor shown any understanding of what went wrong. You have not even shown an inclination to try and understand what went wrong. By all indications, you are only at this help desk because as a paid editor, your deliverable is a published article. I support Robert McClenon's suggestion that if this draft is to be resubmitted, it should be blown up and started over, ideally by another editor. Other editors are welcome to add their views and opine otherwise. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC) CE'd comment to change "here" to "at this help desk" at 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

03:25:12, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Hums4r

[edit]

i am a new wikipedia user, i am trying to contribute to wikipedia. i am basically from kashmir and i want to contribute to wikipedia with kashmiri notable articles. i have started drafting my first article on a kashmiri entrepreneur and i have checked it multiple times and it looks fine to me now, but since i am new i might be wrong, can you kindly assist and guide me on this article. please see if more information is required or it is enough. i'll be very thankful if you help me with my first article and also help me to publish it to main space. Link:- Draft:Zeyan Shafiq

Hums4r (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hums4r I've fixed your link to a proper internal link, the whole web address is not necessary. You have submitted your draft and it is pending review. As noted in the yellow submission box, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,914 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:33:07, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Greg c1988

[edit]

Hi,

Is it possible to ask for a review on the decision of declining this article?

Since this article was rejected, there have been 3 more press articles published: 1. https://www.9news.com.au/national/lotto-news-sydney-woman-nearly-wins-millions-in-lottery-misses-out-one-number/66be85b7-adb3-455c-9b59-6f6f70f53464 2. https://au.news.yahoo.com/the-14-billion-in-lotto-winnings-up-for-grabs-this-week-023500130.html 3. https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/get-your-tickets-massive-522-million-lottery-open-to-aussies-c-1867024


Greg c1988 (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg c1988 Announcements of routine business like the commencement of operations, winners, or what prizes are do not establish that this organization meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is looking for multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to write about the organization, not press releases, routine announcements, or brief mentions. The rejection was correct. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:19, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Nan-Chook

[edit]

Please help me update/edit the sources for the page on Prof. Nizan Geslevich Packin. The professor also writes and publishes regularly financial commentary on Forbes magazine, and her Wikipedia page already includes her profile page there, as well as popular media coverage and some scholarly reviews of her many articles and book chapters and research, in addition to a Youtube video with a spotlight interview and newspaper article about them and profiles by a respected academic organization they are involved with.

Nan-Chook (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nan-Chook: your issue is not improper sourcing, but notability. You need to show that WP:GNG is met. Interviews and articles written by the subject are not independent, and so do not count for the purposes of notability. One example of a good source is an article that profiles the subject. Alternatively, since she is an academic, you could show that she meets WP:NACADEMIC. I should also mention that this help desk is not meant for requests to edit your draft for you. Finally, my own opinion is that the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article: there is not enough coverage of her, and she is too junior an academic. I would suggest that you think very carefully about whether you can demonstrate notability before submitting the draft again. WP:THREE is a good guideline on the subject: identify three of your best sources and see whether they cross the threshold. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:53, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Greenbangalore

[edit]


Greenbangalore (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:01, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Balasaheb Salunke

[edit]

because this information is unique ,which is applicable to our institute only,now their is no copy pasted any matter,this information is useful to students who searches institue for diploma engineering thank you Balasaheb Salunke (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balasaheb Salunke Wikipedia has no interest in helping prospective students see your school marketing materials. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not what article subjects want to say about themselves. Please see your user talk page for important information I will place there in a moment. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:21, 12 January 2021 review of submission by McFrase

[edit]

Good day,

Please in response to my article being rejected, I wish to submit it again for a review. I am writing this article on behalf of a mentor who has taught me and some others a lot, only felt it will be a little way to honor his generous gestures and also let the world know of his existence through this wonderful platform.

Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon. McFrase (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


12:31:25, 12 January 2021 review of submission by PriyaKE

[edit]


PriyaKE (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the sections the reviewer had issues with. Kindly take a look and let me know if this works for you.

15:07:49, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Simba4mseema

[edit]

the draft was rejected saying submission was not supported by reliable sources. I have included a news items from The Hindu which is reputed news paper in India. I have also included wikipedia links to all the projects that confirm the users work. Please refer IMDB page as well. I am not sure what details are required. Simba4mseema (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:45, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Treuberg1

[edit]


A new article on a small business was declined citing only passing information and showing no or not enough independent, secondary sources. There are very few secondary sources available for a small start up and I'm already seeing small business with huge chunks of text with no sourcing or citing their own website that have been accepted. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip%27s_Drive-in

What do I need to do to get my article accepted in this case? Treuberg1 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small businesses rarely qualify for an article in Wikipedia, particularly start-ups. There is nothing you can do as far as Wikipedia is concerned at this time. At some later time, when and if the company meets Wikipedia's requirements outlined in WP:Notability and WP:NCORP, then by definition there will have been significant coverage of the company from reliable sources where both the sources and the coverage itself is independent of the company or those seeking to "promote" it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:36:50, 12 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jontickner

[edit]


Hello. I'm trying to complete an entry for the illustrator and author Ron Tiner, but it keeps being rejected because its sources don't provide significant enough cover. I wonder if I could request help with the sources. The subject is a very prolific comic book illustrator, who's also had his own books published (by mainstream publishers and globally available) and is mentioned in many places across the web... but often only really in listings (except for a detailed interview i've found in print). And this is my probblem.

However, his body of work is significant, as is/was his influence on others. And for this reason I believe he should be on wikipedia along with his contemporaries (who alll seem to be). My problem is that, as with many in his field, much of the work was published then destroyed, and so records are hard to come by. The listings in which he appears are important and official ones - ISBN filings, catalogues of work and so on. And for this reason I feel that an entry which mainly only lists his factual body of work could possibly be allowed.

What I'm hoping for help on is which of the sources I have provide suitable coverage, and which don't. Then i can amend the entry, slimming it down to only include the suitably verified information. Looking at entries for similar illustrators, such as Mark Buckingham (herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Buckingham_(comic_book_artist)) I can see I have more sources, and I wonder if I would be better off deleting almost all of the sources I've used, so that I only include one or two longer mentions. But this seems counter to a thorough, verified approach.

Thanks in advance for any help provided.

JOn

Jontickner (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:45, 12 January 2021 review of draft by Ajtppm

[edit]


Hello, I need help understanding why FORBES is not a reliable source. And what parts of my draft article are under scrutiny - so I can delete as appropriate to get a minimum version of my draft approved. Thank you!

Ajtppm (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source in this page is from a former "Forbes.com contributor" and as such is not considered a "reliable source" in the same way that articles created by staff members and are subject to "editorial oversight" are. See the entries "Forbes" and "Forbes.com contributors" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The "list" column links to previous discussions which might answer your question in more detail. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:11:14, 12 January 2021 review of submission by 2607:9880:1887:FF66:2078:33CB:2AE:53DA

[edit]

I made a revision. The item I want to include in wiki is one of the oldest publishing journals in gifted education. It is important for educators of this field. 2607:9880:1887:FF66:2078:33CB:2AE:53DA (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


16:16:04, 12 January 2021 review of draft by MurphCooper

[edit]


Hi there. I'm confused why this doesn't count as significant coverage. I have seen many pages on wikipedia with fewer references. One of the references I've provided (the Guardian newspaper, which must surely be reputable enough) mentions the subject name 5 times, and another (the Independent newspaper, also reputable) mentions it 6 times. These can't be trivial mentions can they? They are forming a large part of the content if they are referred to that frequently within the sources. Thanks for any help! Edit: shortly after writing the above, I received a notification saying the page "has been reviewed". Does this mean I should resubmit it without any changes?! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurphCooper (talk • contribs) 11:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC) MurphCooper (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:40, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Pastormikeu

[edit]

I have rewritten the entire article with a more neutral tone, and am requesting input as to how the article presents itself now.Pastormikeu (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Pastormikeu (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just commented on your talk page...I fear you are wasting your time continuing to edit this draft, once a submission has been rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, it will not be considered further. The draft still reads nothing like an encyclopaedia article, I suggest you get some practice editing in other areas to get a better feel for what is acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:09, 12 January 2021 review of draft by Uri Rosenbach

[edit]


Uri Rosenbach (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pls let me know how I should proceed to get this published.

Uri Rosenbach You need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button on the draft to formally submit it for review. It is possible that it will take several months, as drafts are reviewed in no particular order, so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:21, 12 January 2021 review of draft by RHDavis720

[edit]


RHDavis720 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete my draft titled Robert Michael Smith. How do I proceed?

RHDavis720 It will be automatically marked for speedy deletion after six months of inactivity. If you wish, you may add {{db-author}} to the top of the draft to request its deletion sooner. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_January_12&oldid=1001045598"