Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 22 << May | June | Jul >> June 24 >
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.


June 23

[edit]

04:07:33, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Unicorn Jill

[edit]

You keep denying everyone trying to create a page for Moses Ingram, stating she hasn't been in anything "significant". What you personally feel is not significant doesn't mean it isn't significant. She has indeed appeared in important roles: Joel Coen's The Tragedy of Macbeth as Lady MacDuff, and in James Cameron's Ambulance.

It appears somewhat odd other cast members listed (who all happen to be white and/or male; no Black females), such as Chloe Pirrie and Marielle Heller 

haven't appeared in anything significant, yet you allowed their pages to be published.

Unicorn Jill (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Jill, The reviewers determined this subject fails WP:NACTOR. However, as they noted, this subject may be notable in the future; however, at present, it is simply too soon. Curbon7 (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:05:18, 23 June 2021 review of submission by 103.56.254.176

[edit]


103.56.254.176 (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Curbon7 (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:46:21, 23 June 2021 review of submission by 103.56.254.176

[edit]


Sandesh Ghimire is an Author, Poet, Engineer, Educationist and Entrepreneur from Nepal. He has recently published his book " Peace and Harmony" and His other books " The Universe" and " Sujata: Rise of Tycoon" is coming this year. As a Young representative from a Small Country in Nepal, It felt Necessary to include him in Wiki info. He has been awarded various certificate from various institutions and Universities for attending and various activities conducted by the respective university. He is also a Research Scholar and doing his research activities in the field of building construction materials. 103.56.254.176 (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is highly promotional, which is likely what led to it being rejected. Curbon7 (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:05, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Haffie8

[edit]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Laurence Edwards


Haffie8 (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I tried to publish an article 4 months ago and it got rejected within in a day. I re-submited it having edited it and it's just sat there. Please can someone review it or let me know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haffie8 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haffie8, we review articles on a volunteer basis; sometimes reviews take place in less day a day and other times they may take months, as drafts are reviewed in no specific order and there are 4,331 pending submissions waiting for review.
What I'm more concerned about at the moment is you seem to have a conflict of interest per this statement you made in the draft's history: "I work directly with this artist and can assure that he is worthy of a wikipedia page".
We take conflict of interest editing very seriously. If you have a COI, you must disclose it via the methods in this link. If you are being paid for these edits, you should use the methods at this link instead. Curbon7 (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I am not paid by the artist, I suggested that as his profile is on the rise that a wikipedia page would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haffie8 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:39, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Gal Buki

[edit]

The draft has been declined because of notability concerns. With the request to address them.

I do not understand why the multiple articles from various sources do not satisfy the criteria for AfC?

The sources include published academic papers (MDPI), articles from newspapers that are not related to blockchain (Fortune Herald, Bloomberg, MyBroadband), the w3c (via their Github repository) and sources from organizations run by country states (SESIU, IFWG).

What makes the sources above not reliable and hence the article not noteworthy?

Thanks for looking into this. torusJKL (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Buki, per the comment left by Robert McClenon on the draft:
"There has already been a deletion discussion which has decided that Bitcoin SV does not require its own article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV.
This draft has been declined because of notability concerns. This draft should be resubmitted by addressing the notability concerns in AFC comments or on the talk page of the draft. Do not resubmit this draft without explaining how it satisfies a notability criterion. Do not simply add references, or make minor changes, without explaining how it satisfies a notability criterion.
This does not mean that the subject of the draft has been found not to be notable. It does mean that this draft, as written, does not establish notability. Notability should be established in the text of the draft, as well as by references."
My own comments: additionally, it seems that some of your sources are not reliable, such as several wikis and primary sources. Curbon7 (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7 Thanks for your response.
I'm aware that there exists an older deletion decision. I have talked to the person who made the decision at the time Vanamonde93 and he said that creating a draft would be the best way to go. Here the discussion on his talk page.
I'm a bit lost. If creating the draft wasn't the right move, what is?
I'm also aware that not all sources are reliable but I did not know that all sources need to be reliable in order for a draft to qualify. Is this the case?
Thanks torusJKL (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gal Buki, all sources do indeed need to be reliable. Regarding the prior deletion comment, perhaps it would be best to follow the instruction at WP:SPLIT and begin a discussion at Talk:Bitcoin Cash. With more editors involved, the determination may be to skip the draft phase altogether. Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7 I have removed all references to non-reliable sources. The article counts now 9 reliable sources.
Is this ok? If not how many reliable sources do there need to be for an article to be noteworthy?
Regarding the discussion at Talk:Bitcoin Cash. What would that look like? Who would need to take part in the discussion and who would then decide that a split from Bitcoin Cash into a dedicated article is needed?
Thanks torusJKL (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gal Buki, I'll can start the proposal with your consent if you'd like me to. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7 I would appreciate if you could initiate/manage the discussion as an unbiased person. torusJKL (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gal Buki and Curbon7:

If an article has been deleted after a deletion discussion, and another article on the same topic is created either in draft space or in article space, it is very important that the author show how the new article is better than the old article. Otherwise the new article is likely to be deleted as G4, or a new deletion discussion may be started. I declined the previous draft because I did not see that it added anything that had not already been there. So that is the most important consideration. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:

I don't know how to access the deleted version so it is hard for me to compare. Could you please send me the link?
Based on Curbon7's feedback I have removed non-relevant sources and the remaining references are 9 relevant sources and all but one are from a time after the first version was deleted. So they are all new and hence make a difference. Please let me know why you think the added sources are not relevant. Thanks torusJKL (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gal Buki - I didn't say that the added sources are not relevant. I will say that there is a common tendency by submitters to think that adding more sources is the key to getting an article accepted, and that some submitters waste their time and that of the reviewers by adding large numbers of low-quality sources, but I haven't seen the deleted article either and so I don't know and can't compare. In my experience, if an article has been deleted, merely adding sources is seldom enough. What is usually necessary is to add content to the article with new sources for new content. You can ask for a copy of the deleted article at Requests for Undeletion. Ask them to email it to you, or to copy it into a sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of spammy submissions in the cryptocurrency area, and getting a cryptocurrency article accepted and kept will require both good content distinguishing it from other cryptocurrencies and good sources, not just one or the other. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon Without the old article to compare I don't understand how you can make the argument that the new article does not add anything compared to the old. I kindly ask you to look at the new article and judge it on its own instead of jumping the gun. It has content that no other article in the crypto space has. e.g. Turing completeness of Bitcoin. Thanks torusJKL (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gal Buki - I didn't say that the new article doesn't add anything to the old. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that the new article does add something to the old article. After an article is deleted, re-creation of the article and resubmission of drafts are common, and usually they are more of the same, so we, the Wikipedia community, allow ourselves to put the burden of proof on a submitter to show that it is not just more of the same. That is just the way it is, and it is a reasonable response to repeated tendentious resubmissions. I am not saying that your resubmission is tendentious. I am saying that it is your responsibility to prove that your resubmission is worth our reviewing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: The following is new and did not exist on the old page (based on the fact that the used RS are newer then the deletion of the old page).
That BSV can scale to 9000tx/s, that Bitcoin SV is Turing complete, the token support, the learning platforms (no RS but still notable IMO), the notable projects. torusJKL (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: please let me know how we can continue with the review of this article. Thanks torusJKL (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating a copy of the deleted version of the article, which is available for inspection at User:Robert McClenon/Bitcoin SV. I think it is fair to say that the new article is nothing like the old one and the arguments against the old article (no RS and too early) do not hold against the new. torusJKL (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:44, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Charlsensiah1

[edit]


Charlsensiah1 (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlsensiah1, you didn't ask a question. Also, the subject is clearly not notable, per our notability criteria for musicians. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:13, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Amlawalajuma1

[edit]


Amlawalajuma1 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Nice to meet you and I called your attention to my projects concern the covid-19 we need your support for details (Redacted)

@Amlawalajuma1: Sorry, this Help desk is for asking questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Do you have a question that falls within our scope? Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deleted PlainDonut (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:33, 23 June 2021 review of submission by PlainDonut

[edit]


How do you use the same citation multiple times (in the same article), and only have it show as one common citation in the Reference area ?

PlainDonut (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PlainDonut: See here: named references. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - we will try that. PlainDonut (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:50, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Steincod

[edit]


Steincod (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steincod: The article needs more sources to demonstrate notability. Much of the info is unsourced. See WP:NMUSICIAN. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:03, 23 June 2021 review of submission by Officialrichard000

[edit]


Officialrichard000 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We're not interested in what sources you control say; we'd prefer to know what outlets with strong editorial control and no connexion to you or your surrogates have said. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_June_23&oldid=1031373016"