Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 24 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 26 >
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.


November 25

[edit]

05:50:15, 25 November 2021 review of submission by Vpolinger

[edit]

Hi, I lost access to the list of references in the draft I am working on. Can you please return me the access? Thank you 05:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

vpolinger (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vpolinger You didn't lose access to them. You deleted them. Use the history tab and you may recover the items you deleted yourself FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:11, 25 November 2021 review of submission by Indiaup42

[edit]


Indiaup42 (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indiaup42 It has been rejected. Why on earth would you submit something that does not even look like an article? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:22, 25 November 2021 review of draft by Marvelcanon1

[edit]


I am not sure on what I am summarising in the “Draft:Teen Baan, and would like to be asked in how to fix that problem? Marvelcanon1 (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvelcanon1 First I think you would be best asking the reviewer who pushed the draft back to you for further work FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:32:39, 25 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Lucienrb

[edit]


I don't understand why this draft article on Joy Renjilian-Burgy Renjilian-Burgy was rejected for "Does not meet WP:NPROF."... Yes, there are many things wrong with this article, which is why it's a draft. It needs a lot of citation and other work, and I've already declared I have a conflict of interest, etc. etc. but this professor receiving the La Orden de la Cruz de Isabel la Católica medal from the King of Spain is the definition of "notable"... a lifetime of achievement in your field is how you qualify for that particular award, lol.

For comparison, the reviewer "Nearlyevil665" has articles such as...

  • 2 Ray Cornbill 7 September 2020 Rugby Union (USA Eagles)
  • 3 Christopher Lippert 8 September 2020 Rugby Union (USA Eagles)
  • 4 Pierre Dospital 12 September 2020 Rugby Union (Les bleus)
  • 5 Alfred Roques 12 September 2020 Rugby Union (Les bleus)
  • 6 Élie Cester 13 September 2020 Rugby Union (Les bleus)
  • 7 Grant Charles Wells 18 September 2020 Rugby Union (USA Eagles)
  • 8 Chris O'Brien 26 September 2020 Rugby Union (USA Eagles)
  • 9 John Burgess 16 November 2020 Rugby Union (The Lions)
  • 10 Ron Mayes 22 March 2021 Rugby Union (USA Eagles)
  • 11 Jack Gleeson 23 March 2021 Rugby Union (All Blacks)
  • 12 Neil McPhail 23 March 2021 Rugby Union (All Blacks)
  • 13 Arthur Marslin 23 March 2021 Rugby Union (All Blacks)

How are references to random rugby players more notable or worthy of a Wikipedia article than a distinguished professor... someone with multiple lifetime achievement awards in her field?

I think there's an opportunity here to be more consistent about quality. Specifically for Nearlyevil665 to reconsider what appears to be a misinterpretation of "notable". Another way of saying that is, if the Spanish professor who wins a medal from the Government of Spain for contributions in her chosen field of Spanish language does not qualify as a notable person in her field, then certainly the random rugby players of zero distinction in the articles referenced above do not qualify either. Right?

Let me know what you all think. :)

Lucienrb (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucienrb For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
You have one reference. Wikipedia reviewers, while individuals, are as consistent as possible, and we decline material that does not meet our basic standards. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucienrb Now, to cover some of the other material in your post. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
We have poor articles. Gradually they are weeded out
Instead of debating the fact that your draft was declined, there is real work to do. Please do that work if you believe the subject is worthy of acceptance. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Timtrent "... there is real work to do..." That's fair. Thank you. Lucienrb (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucienrb The task is to look at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and provide the evidence that the subject meets it. I know you will wish to make the draft perfect, but that is not required. All it needs to do is to pass and be accepted. Once accepted others will edit it to perfect it in due course.
One issue you will have is the temptation to use their work as a reference. Learned papers are by no means always useful references, though they can be if the circumstances are correct.
Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:23:42, 25 November 2021 review of draft by מתיאל

[edit]


The references, one (Tracy) in from August 1990, the second (Sue) 17th on May 1989. Why then this red marks. מתיאל (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)מתיאל מתיאל (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@מתיאל The red marks have help links. Please follow them. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:47, 25 November 2021 review of submission by R412HA

[edit]

I tried to submit this draft to be reviewed. Somehow this did not work out. Do you know what I did wrong? The article draft is an english translation of a german article. Thank you. R412HA (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@R412HA: Anything CDTM published or otherwise had a direct hand in creating is not acceptable as a source (connexion to subject). I should also note that de.wp and en.wp have different standards for sourcing, and en is stricter. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:23, 25 November 2021 review of draft by Mirakee writes

[edit]


I have created this draft on behalf of social media cell of my college. I'm a reliable person who can be trusted regarding the information mentioned in this draft. I have also added official website link and one review of our college in the citation section. But still the draft is getting rejected because of insufficient references. But I only have this much references available online at this moment. Please look into the matter and help me publish the article.

Mirakee writes (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirakee writes: We can't cite the institution's own website, nor can we cite a near-content-free profile of the college. We're looking for sources that (1) discuss the subject at length, (2) have competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, and retracts when necessary, (3) isn't just routine coverage, and (4) has no direct connexion to the subject or their surrogates. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:16, 25 November 2021 review of submission by Kamranahmed1

[edit]


Kamranahmed1 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamranahmed1: We don't accept "articles" intended only to promote their subjects, and I have tagged the draft for deletion accordingly. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:08, 25 November 2021 review of submission by Hacking articles

[edit]


Hacking articles (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2021_November_25&oldid=1058045699"