Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< March 22 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 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.


March 23

[edit]

01:16:04, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Drkahless

[edit]


Hi, ok. So this is confusing for a newbie. We received an email tonight from someone at "Wikipedia Writing" claiming the page in question was being declined as it was written by the person it was about. It was not. However it looks like they are consultants looking to make a fast buck or something and so I am trying to write you. I am writing this evening with regards to a Wikipedia page I was the lead creator on. The page was created for Professor George Bullerjahn. Professor Bullerjahn is the current director of the Great Lakes Center for Fresh Waters and Human Health – but of course I guess you know this as you have apparently reviewed this page.

Unfortunately you made an error if you declined the page because you thought it was written but the subject. Professor Bullerjahn did not create this page and had no knowledge of its creation while we were doing it (Professor Bullerjahn is a somewhat humble academic). A number of research scientists, led by myself and Professor R Michael McKay (the Director of the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research at the University of Windsor) are the authors. We of course have had feedback from multiple academics around the world (including in Russia, Israel and across the United States). To this end this is definitely a community driven effort and not one created by the subject of the page. It was entered by me since, because most of us are Wikipedia novices, we worked using word documents then I sorted out how to post stuff.

To this end your decision on declining the page seems incorrect and I assume it can be restored. Of course if there are other issues I would love to try and work on them too. Just so you know the Nov 2020 date corresponds with an online retirement party that 80 of us threw for Professor Bullerjahn on his move to Professor Emeritus. We had in fact been gathering the data and information since August. But on that week in Nov we posted the draft for all the contributors to see it was real (and to tell Professor Bullerjahn).

anyways, please let me know if there is a way to correct this (and to be honest I am not even sure I am coding this correctly in this box) sww


Drkahless (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That email is almost certainly a scam, so ignore it. Unfortunately, short of you disabling email, there's no way for us to prevent mercenary editors from trolling AfC in search of new potential marks to rip off. As to the draft itself, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason whatsoever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. Anything less is grounds for a summary decline, and is in fact why it was declined. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


OK. Thank you. As to the incident you refer I am not aware of it...I guess I can look it up. But to the claims in the article and those claims being challenged. All of the scientific claims are linked to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. This is a much higher standard than anything Wikipedia produces...but it seems you want things linked back to Wikipedia? To me, self-citation is the weakest form but ok...or is it just the personal components that are of issue? Please understand I am trying to understand. I can fix those (although I find it strange that you claim external links are bad - one would think a link to a State University page would be considered a very strong reference. For the personal information I can likely provide information linked back to news stories, etc. as most peoples personal lives are not on Wikipedia.

Again, apologies for my lack of understanding and I do appreciate the help and advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkahless (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 23, 10:15 (EST). OK. I have gone through the article as per all the suggestions. I am sure there are other errors you will find. Still not sure where the "advertising tag" isDrkahless (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bit off the mark. Our biographical policy as regards people who are still alive or have recently departed is that every biographical claim in an article that could potentially be challenged - regardless of who or why - must be cited to a third-party source that verifies the claim. If no such source exists, the claim must be removed. The issue is not the scientific claims as much as the ones about him specifically - Education and Training and Personal Life. especially. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:40:55, 23 March 2021 review of submission by 180.246.37.36

[edit]


180.246.37.36 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:15:07, 23 March 2021 review of submission by StoshK21

[edit]

The Donna Campana Drake page was declined due to not being able to verify the info, even though I included bulleted reference list with sites, and in the correct format. Along with info brought directly from the source. It also mentions there were corrections made, I would like to know what those corrections were. StoshK21 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StoshK21, welcome to the AfC help desk. I had a look at your draft. The references are not placed at the proper places. Have a look at WP:REFB, WP:IC, WP:CITE and WP:YFA.--Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:24:18, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Chasity Ent

[edit]


Chasity Ent (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chasity Ent, you didn't asked a question. But I'd recommend you to follow the comment by reviewer and read WP:IC, WP:REFB and WP:CITE.--Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:03:42, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Shah Kinchitkumar Arya

[edit]


Shah Kinchitkumar Arya (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shah Kinchitkumar Arya: I am afraid that drafts only containing an infobox are not siutable for Wikipedia. The absolute miminum would be a WP:STUB that is verifyable and shows how this subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of the term "notability". If this is an article about yourself, please also have a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and, judging by the birth date, WP:Guidance for younger editors. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


07:24:42, 23 March 2021 review of draft by WikiIndustrialComplex

[edit]

I need another admin to inspect this article, despite making the appropriate changes, User:Dan arndt has been completely unhelpful at best and downright obstructionist. He appears largely ignorant of how these articles usually appear, handwaving and dismissing me concern as "other stuff exists." I believe it would be best for all parties involved and for the article itself if another admin besides User:Dan arndt reviewed it.

WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiIndustrialComplex Anyone may review article drafts, not just admins. The advice you were given is correct. If other articles are the same way, perhaps those articles should be treated similarly to your draft. If you have a consensus that says otherwise, please offer evidence of it. I'd suggest removing your comments from the draft itself since they technically are part of the draft at the moment(and also formatted as section headers). You may respond to the comments on the draft talk page- but please do so without making personal attacks and name calling. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a similar example, at one point the mere existence of a school or university was enough to merit it an article, but that is no longer the case. Standards can change over time. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of an article for the A&B embassy is causing major confusion, particularly on Google, because it doesn't have an article. It moved out of a space it shared with 4 other nations, but is not there any more. As such, many things on both Wikipedia and Google default to using this older address. I just thought I was being helpful, I would have never put this much effort in the article if I thought the process would be this difficult. Please show some mercy, I just want the article to be put out there so that I can it be further improved upon, I will even add coordinates and literally drive into DC (I live nearby) to take a picture of the NEW embassy just to make the article that much better. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that I have never encountered an editor as obstructionist as User:Dan arndt, and the fact that I have made recommended changes and continue to be rejected, when all he has demonstrated in terms of knowledge of this type of article is nothing about absolute ignorance. Embassies in DC are considered notable enough because of the geopolitcal prominence of the US and the importance of the foreign countries' embassies in DC as part of broader global diplomacy. This is the only embassy article to get this kind of treatment, my question is why? I really hope it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Antigua and Barbuda is vast majority Black. Regardless, it felt like User:Dan arndt's building background was preventing a diplomacy/foreign relations perspective to break through, he was only responding literally to the embassy as an actual structure. But an embassy is more than that, isn't it...? I really want to give users the benefit of the doubt, but User:Dan arndt has never given that to me. As such, I believe he should be held accountable for this rampant obstructionism. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiIndustrialComplex You will need to contact Google for any issues involving Google; there should be a feedback or contact link in the Knowledge Panel(which is what I assume you are referencing). Dan ardnt is probably evaluating it as a structure since the draft does little more than tell of the existence of the embassy. Articles like Embassy of Russia in Washington, D.C. do a little more than that. Dan arndt might respond better if you stopped calling him a tyrant and ignorant and "the worst kind of Wikipedia editor" and saying he's racist. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand WikiIndustrialComplex's frustrations. I have attempted to explain myself on his talkpage. The issue is that embassies are not inherently or automatically notable - there are numerous AfD on embassies that justify my comments (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Santiago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the State of Palestine in Sri Lanka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Sweden, Tirana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Germany in Palestine). If however the user is arguing that the function of the embassy is notable then that information should be contained within an article on the international relations between the two countries in question not on the embassy page. Dan arndt (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt They decided to go and create the article anyway. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot that's a shame - have lodged an AfD so that it can be discussed and he can argue why it is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:29, 23 March 2021 review of submission by VaJaMe

[edit]


VaJaMe (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the advice, Fiddle Faddle. Of course, the text will be adjusted and new references added. They are already numerous. I am wondering why other societies, federations and associations such as the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society or the International AIDS Society are not forced to do so. The MDS list for example ONLY their association website as source, so - where is the difference? Btw, I am not paid by the World Federation of ADHD, I am paid by the Verein zur Durchführung Neurowissenschaftlicher Tagungen e. V. VaJaMe

09:36:59, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Jhilam RoyChowdhury

[edit]


Jhilam RoyChowdhury (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Lafc|username=Jhilam RoyChowdhury|ts=09:36:59, 23 March 2021|link=

11:56:08, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Mivida2021

[edit]


hi.. i want to change my title from canadian chamber of commerce, Egypt to Canadian chamber of commerce-middle east. I was wondering if its possible to do now as my draft is pending for approval. kindly let me know your suggestions. thank you. Mivida2021 (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mivida2021,  Done. Fiddle Faddle 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wow..Thanks a ton.. Mivida2021 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:05:42, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Gracemicnaij

[edit]


Greetings, i tried creating a page on Gazette Nigeria which is an online newspaper medium but it was rejected. i kindly request for it's creation. Thank you Gracemicnaij (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gracemicnaij, all you have to do is the work the reviewer suggested. Another reviewer will then review it after you resubmit. Wikipedia may never be used as a reference. Please use Wikilinks instead. See WP:CIRCULAR. Those faux references must be replaced.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 13:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:55, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Bailando bana

[edit]


Hello i am new on creating articles at wikipedia,my article was declined and now i have made some changes that are requested! Please its can someone help me if there is another issue on my article? Regards

Bailando bana (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:35, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Lazargang1

[edit]


Lazargang1 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:13, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Daivasparsha

[edit]


How to add the photograph and could you please help me in saying why the arcticle was not selected



Daivasparsha (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daivasparsha, before adding a photo you should add some references and sources, the reason why it was declined is explained in the reviewers comments. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:MINREF , if it is a biography it needs mandatory inline citations WP:ILC. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:08, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Athousanddaysbefore

[edit]


I'd like to request a re-review based on one moderator's reconsideration that this article does indeed meet the requirements of notability based on the band's acceptance of an Austin Music Award as documented by the Austin Chronicle, a notable publication based in Austin, Texas: https://www.austinchronicle.com/music/2019-03-01/here-are-your-2018-19-austin-music-award-winners/ Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss your sources.
  1. http://charts.bdsradio.com/bdsradiocharts/charts.aspx?formatid=54#C21 doesn't corroborate the claim it's cited for because it's set to always pull for the most recent week.
  2. https://www.austinchronicle.com/austin-music-awards/year:2018/category:best-performing-bands/2452622/ - I am unsure how prestigious this award is and whether it would help for notability or not.
  3. https://www.statesman.com/entertainmentlife/20190228/austin-music-awards-honors-shakey-schneider-shinyribs-and-more - Too sparse. This is a name-drop and is redundant with the source above.
  4. https://schedule.sxsw.com/2019/artists/2014184 - Connected to subject. They played at SxSW, and so it may as well be connected to them.
  5. http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=296434 - Connected to subject. Evidently they played at this council meeting.
  6. https://www.therockpit.net/2018/black-heart-saints-announce-road-to-sturgis-tour-2018/ - Connected to subject. Press release.
  7. https://metalinjection.net/news/drama/puddle-of-mudd-deletes-facebook-page-after-being-booed-off-stage - Irrelevant. If it doesn't discuss the band proper, it's useless as a source.
  8. https://www.metalinsider.net/social-networking/puddle-of-mudd-delete-facebook-page - Irrelevant.
  9. https://www.metalsucks.net/2015/06/29/puddle-of-mudd-booed-off-stage-delete-facebook-page/ - Too sparse. Doesn't help for notability, but it can be used to cite the claim they took over Puddle of Mudd's social media.
  10. https://www.statesman.com/entertainment/20200206/sxsw-adds-margo-price-yung-baby-tate-meacutelat-more - Too sparse. Name-drop.
  11. https://sweetwaterstudios.com/workshops/black-heart-saints/ - Can't assess because the source is literally password-protected.
The sources I did not list above are ones I can't judge due to this largely being outside of my area of expertise. But the fact that I've listed most of your sources should be a red flag. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for reviewing. If the question is about how prestigious the Austin Music Awards are, I would like to follow up with a bit more for your consideration. The following is a link to an archive detailing the awards for each year dating back to 1982, when the awards were first started: https://www.austinchronicle.com/austin-music-awards/winners/

The awards are managed by the Austin Chronicle, which is a notable publication as evidenced by its inclusion on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Austin_Chronicle

As Austin as known as a "music city" along with the likes of other cities such as Nashville, it can be established that the award is prestigious in the music community. Interested to hear your thoughts on this and thank you again for your time.

Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having a Wikipedia article does not make a source acceptable. The Daily Mail and The Onion have articles but are never going to be seen as acceptable sources. See WP:Reliable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And my concern is indeed the prestige of the award. More specifically: Is the award recognised at least statewide? If so, then odds are you can make a good case for notability based upon that, but again, you'd also need to get rid of the other useless sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:51:24, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Iamcybulski

[edit]

It was very disappointing that Dan Arndt recently deemed that Sery Kim does not "qualify" as notable enough to be approved for an article. It seems that notability determinations are influenced by sex and race. Her former colleague, Brian Harrison who is a white male, was approved for an article. He is currently running for the same congressional seat and is a former high-ranking federal government official (same as Ms. Kim) but has far fewer qualifications and accomplishments. Sery has numerous media appearances to prove her notability within several different professions including political strategy, political analysis, women's empowerment, and food and travel writing. These were all within notable and respectable media outlets such as Fox News, BBC, and CNN. If you simply google her name, you will clearly see that she is notable. It's unfortunate that a minority female does not get the same respect from the Wikipedia community. I believe this is biased view as to whom meets the criteria as notable. Iamcybulski (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamcybulski, please don't play the race and/or gender card. The two people are dissimilar. One is Chief of Staff of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, a position that confers notability (0.95 probability) and the other is presented as a candidate for office.
Your job as creating editor is to assert and verify notability. Please see WP:NPOLITICIAN. Please continue to work on that
Wikipedia does not routinely publish candidates' profiles. There has to be something else that confers notability upon them.
If you can show, truly show, discrimination on any ground, including race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and so much more, then please make a correct and formal complaint in the correct location, backed by evidence. Wikipedia will not ignore such a complaint and it will be investigated.
There is a major tenet here, to assume good faith. An equal tenet is to make not personal attacks. Please review your post in that light Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim about a living or recently-departed person that could be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. Anything less is grounds for a summary decline. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 21:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:34:10, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Brandon.cody.jackson

[edit]

I'm not sure why this page is being rejected. I have cleared up the wording from the page, and I'm solely trying to list my business on Wikipedia. Is there any additional info you'd like me to add? I can surely contact my manager and he'll be able to give me more encyclopedia-centric information.

Thanks.

Brandon.cody.jackson (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon.cody.jackson, If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your corporate reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:CORP does that. Fiddle Faddle 23:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brandon.cody.jackson Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to be "listed", either by the business itself or others. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a business, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_March_23&oldid=1014796313"