Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 14 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 16 >
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.


July 15

[edit]

02:06:12, 15 July 2021 review of submission by Rcarlberg

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_DMP_Records_releases

Recently, I compiled a list of releases on the defunct DMP Records label. Information for this table came from a variety of sources: some incomplete online listings, some E-Bay and Amazon auctions, my own collection... This table is being rejected now [by Locomotive207] for a "lack of references." But here's the thing: there is no way to provide a single all-encompassing reference, or even several partial references that are reliable for the information in the table. It relies on a changing used CD marketplace, which is a bunch of online listings that can't be linked because they're temporary. All of the information in it can be easily verified -- and has been, by me -- but I cannot point to a single, reliable, permanent reference.

I realize Wikipedia shies away from "original research," but for something like a discography, Wikipedia performs a valuable service by acting as a repository for transitory information. I think the normal customs (they're not even "rules") about references have to be set aside for discographies... especially for labels that are out-of-business. Rcarlberg (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rcarlberg (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:10:27, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Kartik0976

[edit]


This draft is about a book and it follows WP:NOTBOOK Guidelines and got significant coverage in two or more registered and popular newspapers, but last submission was rejected and reviewer commented: Needs book reviews by critics in major papers. I am not geeting if national news papers are not major papers then where I should look for. And the book is already got significant coverage in all those newspapers but why still book review is needed?

Kartik0976 (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:33:41, 15 July 2021 review of submission by Omkit84

[edit]

I create an article for an Indonesian businessman. I wrote a profile about the person based on Bahasa Indonesia Wikipedia (https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandi_Sulistiyanto). I translated with some minor editing. I also cited various realistic sources. Unfortunately, I was rejected. What should I do next? I'm asking for some help to make the page approved.

Omkit84 (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Omkit84: Apologies for the wait. Oftentimes, straight translations with the sources from the original won't work for English Wikipedia as its sourcing requirements are on the stricter side. Refer to the top table here.
The sourcing is, to put it bluntly, horrid. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:10:48, 15 July 2021 review of submission by Pomegranate Rose

[edit]

Hello, After waiting for a total of about nine months, I've recently had this AfC declined for a second time. The most recent reason given was 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources'. I assumed this referred to some of the citations regarding reviews of the novels that CM has written (since these are what establishes his notability). A number of these sources are not online -- being newspapers or journals that no longer exist and/or are only archived in microform. So I looked into this (the problem of 'recentism' being discussed in various Wikipedia fora) and found that providing an ISSN or OCLC within the citations -- (together with full quotations from the source) would suffice in such situations. (I have photocopies of the relevant newspaper reviews -- provided to me by CM -- so I know they are correct). So I've made these adjustments, and I'd like to get some feedback from more experienced WP editors before I consider whether to press the 'Resubmit' button or abandon the whole process. I should also mention that given that the WP notability requirement for this subject (CM) seems to be adequately met by his written works, then it is appropriate to also mention his music, especially given that this is what he has concentrated on for the last decade or so.

I'll be grateful for any support anyone might offer. Pomegranate Rose (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:06:36, 15 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:6081:8303:6BB8:C141:867E:99C3:C471

[edit]


2603:6081:8303:6BB8:C141:867E:99C3:C471 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:06:36, 15 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:6081:8303:6BB8:C141:867E:99C3:C471

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:16:53, 15 July 2021 review of draft by SteveCree2

[edit]


I'm very new to this. I created the page "The Death of Henry Jemmott". It was taken offline by an editor and I've tried to understand why and can't. I can't improve as it looks fine to me according to the general notability guideline and referencing rules mentioned in the edit. I'm not saying it IS fine, but as I can't see why it isn't I've put it back for review. I'm puzzled, I must admit, about why something I've created can be put into a 3 or 4 month delay pattern without a proper explanation. As to what a proper explanation might be? The same detail has been flagged on each of my references, but the explanation on the hypertext link seems like gobbledygook. Could someone take a look (I presume it's accessible here) and give me a pointer? Thanks so much. Steve13

SteveCree2 (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason whatsoever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. There's enough unsourced content here that this page could very feasibly be deleted as an attack page especially with respect to individuals who are mentioned but have no involvement in the matter. I also agree with the reviewer that this reads more like a news story than an encyclopaedia article, with the three The Times sources being borderline due to how perfunctory they are. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:52:58, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Kmk9923

[edit]


Hi, thank you for reviewing the submission. The following reason was given for denying the submission: "Writer in your own words than copying original text with minor changes. Read copyright guidelines." Might I ask which part of the submission this comment is referring to, in order to rectify the issue? Thank you. Kmk9923 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a copyright checker tool this doesn't seem entirely accurate. @TheBirdsShedTears: can you please provide a URL to the page that's being plagiarised from? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Copyvio showing 25% violation, but unfortunately i mistakenly misunderstood the matter. They are actually names of organizations or agencies. I undid my edit. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:27, 15 July 2021 review of submission by Zeenatameet

[edit]

I had written an article about a very accomplished singer who has contributed in his own unique ways to the music industry and to music as an art by itself. The article got rejected saying that there are not many articles to support it. an upcoming singer will not have many articles. I have seen random pages on wikipedia for random people but an artist has no space. There is no valid reason for the article to get rejected. If there are edits required those can be done, however I don't see a reason for the edits too! The article was well formatted as per wikipedia requirement, all information was stated clearly I don't see any logical reason for it to get rejected except for the fact that I know the artist personally but no one can write a detailed article about an unknown person. Easiest would have been to lie that I do not know the person and get the article published. This is highly disappointing. I need a valid reason for the rejection of the article!! Zeenatameet (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeenatameet Your draft was only declined, not rejected. This means that there is at least a chance it can be improved to meet standards.(rejected would mean nothing further can be done). A Wikipedia article about a musician or singer must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable singer. "Up and coming" singers rarely merit articles; a singer must have already arrived to merit an article. If this person does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, they would not merit an article at this time. Not every singer merits an article, it depends on the sources.
People write articles on Wikipedia about people they don't know all the time. This is because, again, Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources. People typically write about subjects they take note of in such sources, not topics that they personally know. Please review conflict of interest. If you just want to tell the world about this singer, there are other websites with less stringent requirements, or social media is available.
Please also review other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. Article standards also change over time, so that what was once acceptable is no longer. If you would like to pitch in and help us curate the over 6 million articles that we have, you are welcome to help identify other inappropriate articles for possible action. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:21, 15 July 2021 review of submission by SteveCree2

[edit]


My page creation as titled above has been rejected. It is my first attempt at a page creation. The grounds for rejection are notability and One Event. However, I looked carefully at the relevant rules before I posted and I am still unclear about why my article has been rejected. I am not complaining (!) but am trying to understand better.

The page describes a case which may be the largest in Belizean modern history. It has potentially enormous ramifications. It involves the death by shooting of a senior police officer at the hand of the mother of the grandchildren of the region's only billionaire. The question of culpability could feasibly be beyond the ability of the Belize justice system to manage. The entire police service are likely part-culpable for permitting an officer who was known to be drunk to remain armed. The power of the billionaire in what is a very small country is such that a fair trial may not be possible. The case has had enormous coverage not simply because of the nature of the death but because of the implications the event may have for the entire country's integrity as a sovereign entity.

I do not understand why this page is therefore considered insufficiently notable. It seems to me to conform to the notability rules by some margin. I would very much appreciate a steer. Thanks. SteveCree2 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveCree2: Please confirm: Have you seen the response by @Jéské Couriano: two three sections above this one? Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:10, 15 July 2021 review of submission by Excellenc1

[edit]

This draft was declined due to lack of reliable sources, after which I talked to the reviewer (the talk page section here). After some discussion (where I told the reviewer that the citations in my article are independent and self-published), I was being told to rather confirm at the AfC Help Desk regarding it. So is my article worthy of being approved? Excellenc1📞 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite misleading. I said "You may ask for assistance at WP:AFCHD regarding this draft." I never said "to confirm about "sources". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears I am very sorry for misunderstanding that statement of yours. Excellenc1📞 15:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:46, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Rd50322013

[edit]


Hi, I'm trying to get a page published but I'm having a hard time with the sources. I've made sure all of them are cited correctly and that they're all reliable but something still seems to be wrong. I was wondering what I need to do to fix the mistakes I made and if there's anything I need to change about my citations to get the page up and running. Thanks!Rd50322013 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rd50322013 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The history section has three sourced sentences, all of the rest needs to be sourced or removed and we can't use promotional puffery like "early success was developing a highly skilled and adaptable team" at all. Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:41:24, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Usesoap17

[edit]


Hello. I am requesting assistance because the user who reviewed this page stated that it doesn't meet the notability criteria for academics. Yet, when I look over the page on notability for academics, it states that an academic need meet only ONE of the 8 points of criteria. Kyle A. Thomas (me) is the editor-in-chief of an international academic journal: ROMARD. ROMARD has been in existence for decades and serves as a major source of research and scholarship on medieval and early modern theatre/drama. I'm not sure why the reviewer would claim that the individual this wikipedia page is about would not qualify for notability based on that criteria alone. Any further guidance on reaching the notability threshold would be helpful.

Furthermore, several of the sources are reliable and independent of the author. I will attempt to fix the ones that are not, but it would be helpful to know which sources do not meet the Wikipedia standards. When looking over pages of other academics--most notably, Carol Symes, who has an affiliation with Kyle A. Thomas--the references/sources are significantly weaker that those that I attached to this page. So, again, I am asking for further clarification.

Thank you for your help!!

Usesoap17 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources that aren't connected to you are too sparse for use as sources. We also strongly discourage writing about oneself due to the inherent conflict of interest involved. Refer to the top table here.
Does this help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:48, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Kartik0976

[edit]


I am not geeting why specifically book review is needed, This draft is declined more than 2 times because book review is not in the source. WP:NOTBOOK says two or significant coverage in any published work. Then why book review?

Kartik0976 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because as far as books go book reviews are going to be that significant coverage for better or worse. Sales figures verge on routine coverage. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:19:28, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Baghdas3

[edit]


I need to know what's the issue to create wikipedia.

Baghdas3 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdas3 You are not creating a "Wikipedia", but a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is the name of this entire website, which is composed of many articles. You were given the reason for the decline by the reviewer. Do you have questions about it? 331dot (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

[edit]

PLEASE COMMUNICATE WHY MY ARTICLE IS DECLINED. ALSO SUGGEST THE CHANGES TO BE ADOPTED! == 18:47:52, 15 July 2021 review of submission by DR BALWANT MESHRAM ==


DR BALWANT MESHRAM (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The decline reason is in the large pink box namely "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." Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Advocate Dharmpal Natthuji Meshram
@DR BALWANT MESHRAM: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason whatsoever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. Please do not use all-caps (it's read as screaming/yelling). Your sources need to be cited in-line. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:09:44, 15 July 2021 review of draft by Mukherjee27

[edit]


Mukherjee27 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was made on our submission: "Many bits of this draft are unsourced. Also, it somewhat reads like a resume. 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 22:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)"

Is it possible to get more specific comments about which bits are unsourced. Also, we would appreciate any thoughts or suggestions about the "reads like a resume" comment.

Thanks, Mukherjee27 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukherjee27: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason whatsoever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. You go into a bit too much detail in some sections, mainly about his work (which reads as a prose resume/promotional) and you have one source for the last two paragraphs - not acceptable in a normal article and anathematic in a biography. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_July_15&oldid=1034627957"