Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 February 20
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 19 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 21 > |
| 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. |
February 20
[edit]04:12:32, 20 February 2022 review of submission by TLAGTeam
[edit]
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because there are over 34,200 impressions made from people looking for adult gymnastics classes and how to train like a gymnast. The founder, Danielle Gray, is a public figure and notable in the fitness industry. The article was written neutrally with only facts, information and no persuasive language. Although short, three of the references were from national publications.
TLAGTeam (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @TLAGTeam: We don't accept arguments by bizarre definition, and we don't accept investment brochures such as what you've written. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
05:06:02, 20 February 2022 review of submission by Deep Bishnoi0029
[edit]
Deep Bishnoi0029 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Deep Bishnoi0029: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This would be a slam-dunk no-context or no-content deletion if it were in mainspace. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
14:17:58, 20 February 2022 review of draft by Hksq
[edit]
Hi. I’m looking for guidance on how to improve a page that was submitted for consideration and declined.
The page is about Stephen O’Meara, who is an important figure in the visual astronomy community: he’s been an editor and monthly columnist with Astronomy (the astronomy magazine with the largest circulation) for about 15 years; he is a noted visual astronomer, and has made two noteworthy scientific visual observations (spokes in Saturn’s B-ring before the arrival of Voyager and the rotation period of Uranus) and one other noteworthy but non-scientific observation (the first visual recovery of Comet Halley); he’s published about a dozen books with reputable publishers; he’s received awards for his observations and his work to popularize astronomy; and he’s been featured in a book and movie on visual astronomy. At the suggestion of comet-hunter David Levy, the IAU named a minor planet in his honor.
Specifically, I’m trying to figure out whether the rejection is because this person is not sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a page or whether because the references do not adequately support his noteworthiness. I’d be grateful for guidance. Thanks.
Hksq (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Hksq. I think your problem lies in that your references do not show significant coverage, each one just makes passing mentions of some contribution to the field. You need to find a reference that says a bit more about O'Meara or his work (significant coverage), to adequately establish notability. Most of your references are OK for supporting the associated content, except the one about the film, which I could not verify. So we do not know whether this person is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant an article because the references do not adequately establish his notability. I hope this is clearer now, and wish you luck in finding suitable references. It can be difficult when someone is out of the public eye, regardless of the value of their contributions. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Peter. Thanks for your comment. I'm still a bit puzzled. Even excluding the rest, surely O'Meara is a notable person in the visual astronomy community because of his writing? He is a columnist for the largest-circulation magazine for the last 15 years or so, prior to that a contributor to the second largest circulation magazine, and the author of about a dozen books. This is in the public record. Wikipedia has many pages on authors that essentially list their works and give some details of their biography. Isn't this similar? Hksq (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
15:34:36, 20 February 2022 review of draft by Charlesbooth12
[edit]
Hello, I have a question about sources. My draft got declined due to a lack of sources, however, I noticed that another article uses Twitter to cite the birthdate of Swedish rapper bladee. I was just curious as to what the minimum requirements (if there are any) of citing twitter for posts from the musician themselves, or rather, if that is even allowed. Also, to cite the dates of albums, I used discogs in my citations as well, however I was told this is also not a reliable source. Why is that the case? Thanks.
Charlesbooth12 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- A verified Twitter account can be used in limited circumstances as a source, for purely factual points like a birth date, see WP:TWITTER. It cannot be used to establish notability. Discogs is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
hi,
why was our article declined?
Cheers
Therealbollocksgang (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Therealbollocksgang Wikipedia is not a place for groups to tell the world about themselves; a Wikipedia article about your group must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please see your user talk page for important information regarding your username. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
16:42:58, 20 February 2022 review of submission by Makgeeky
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhanda_(prophet)
Makgeeky (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Makhanda (Prophet) is full of inaccuracies and needs to be amended or deleted completely. The history is not certain, the sources are unreliable.
- Makgeeky This page is for seeking assistance with writing a draft. Please use the article talk page, Talk:Makhanda (prophet), to discuss concerns with that article. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
17:20:42, 20 February 2022 review of draft by Shortiefourten
[edit]
Hey everyone!
Thanks to Omni, healthcare has been swamped and I've been shirking my duties here to my own Wiki-work to look after "patriots"...but here I am on my only day off for the foreseeable future hoping to solve the issue with this draft! Let's do this...
So, the question is why a single page for two parks? This wasn't laziness or neglect. That's dishes left overnight in the sink by my husband. Here's the basic basis - the two parks are joined at the hip. Here's how:
- Both founded/donated in the early 20th century; Dobson in 1905, McFadden, 1912...
- Both have a shared history of starts and failures of getting up and running as full-fledged parks for decades...
- Both saw traction as completed parks in the 1940's and 50's...
- Both suffered from vandalism and neglect, simultaneously in the 1960's into the 21st century...
- Decades of local vernacular and reporting listing the two parks together, known as the "top of the hill parks"
- Located on the Chehalis city Hillside District, side-by-side...
- While not directly sharing a border, the parks are separated by about 150 feet at their closet contact points...
- The two parks share a trail, the Dobson-McFadden Trail...
- They're both named/donated from early pioneers of Chehalis...
- And finally, the are sadly both closed (almost at the exact time, too)
So, that was my reasoning to join the two in one page. They are just consistently joined to one another. Something happens at Dobson, McFadden follows. McFadden gets a news story, Dobson gets one, too. From a local perspective, this would make sense. The two parks are twins, in a sense. In the lede, I wrote about this "joined-at-the-hip" scenario and I do admit I am not no Inglisch scholar, but maybe that could have been written more clearly?
What better and more experienced editors here feel is best suited for these two parks is fine by me. Splitting the two off onto their own pages? I'll do that! Reword the existing draft to let the reader know the synonymous nature of the two parks! Let me see if some of my old English teachers are still alive and I'll get to work on it...
So, didn't try to circumvent any rules or be a burden or nuisance. It just made sense to combine the two parks...simply because that's what the city and people of Chehalis do.
Alright, time to enjoy my day off before me and my fellow healthcare workers have to deal with the glut of surgeries and medical care postponed by "patriotism"! Make sure to thank anyone you know who is employed in healthcare...we are going thru some, uh, excrement.
Thanks, Shortiefourten (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Shortiefourten (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Bearcat: When you draftified Draft:Parks and Recreation in Chehalis, Washington and Draft:John Dobson and McFadden Parks on 10 December 2021, you wrote in your edit summaries: "improper move of AFC draft without reviewer approval". WP:AFC is an optional process for most users. Generally speaking, no reviewer approval is required to move a draft to article space. Would you elaborate on why you require these two pages to be reviewed at AFC rather than simply taking their chances in article space? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Giving new users the option to bypass AFC review and move their work into mainspace themselves literally defeats the entire purpose of AFC even existing at all, which was to control the excessive creation of bad articles that aren't ready for prime time by new users who don't actually understand what's required. So if users have free rein to submit their work to the AFC review queue and then immediately move it into mainspace themselves, then there's inherently no purpose in the AFC review queue even existing at all — and that's especially true if they move it into mainspace with the AFC submission template still on the page, with the result that Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space has any contents in it at all. That category needs to be empty at all times, so if it's ever found to be non-empty that must be fixed immediately.
- But resolving that issue means looking at the page with my "would I have been able to approve this if I were conducting a proper AFC review on it?" glasses — and if the answer to that question is no (as it was for both of those pages as of December 10), then just walking away from it simply isn't an option. The only choices at that point are to either move it back into AFC, or list it for an AFD discussion, and listing it for an AFD discussion would be done in the full knowledge that the AFD would also inevitably conclude as "move back to draftspace" anyway, because that's exactly what AFD does when drafts that were prematurely moved to articlespace before they were ready for articlespace actually end up at AFD.
- So the snowball clause pertains: if just leaving it untouched isn't an option, then why bother putting it through a full week of AFD just to end up with the page back in draftspace anyway, instead of just moving it back to draftspace immediately? If I come across a page like that and it actually would have been approvable, then obviously I just remove the template and categorize the page where it's supposed to be — but if the page would not have been approvable, as neither of those pages were as of December 10, then I can't just leave it without doing anything about it: it's either back to AFC or over to AFD, and there's no third way in that situation — and just moving it back to draftspace immediately is far less bitey than taking it to AFD, to boot. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)