Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 23 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 25 >
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.


January 24

[edit]

02:19:25, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Deshabandara

[edit]

Dear Sir,

Please let me know how should I claim my identity.

Thank You

Deshabandara (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deshavandara, Wikipedia pages are created for subjects that show notability in secondary reliable sources. A small fraction of humans who lived/live/will live on this planet will actually meet the standards for having an article. Focus on being successful and someone, someday may write a wikipedia article about you.Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deshabandara: Wikipedia is not social media. Subjects do not "claim their identity" here (and in fact shouldn't be editing about themselves), and cannot dictate content in an article about them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:32:44, 24 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by JosePiedra

[edit]


I'm requesting assistance because DGG rejected my article. The message I received states, "The reason left by DGG was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: basically political advertising."

DGG doesn't cite any examples or evidence to demonstrate how my article "is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia," nor does he provide any evidence to support his completely subjective categorization of the article as "political advertising." In other words, DGG's subjective assessment without providing evidence to support his claims demonstrates his failure to abide by the Wikipedia neutrality principle.

Having reviewed my submission, I fail to see anything about it that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, i.e., the Five Pillars. I would hope that a more objective reviewer/editor can see that the rejected article is written from a neutral perspective and absolutely not "political advertising" as DGG capriciously claims. (The article even documents, with citations, that County Commissioner Keith Baker is term-limited and has stated that he has no plans to run for any other elected office.) Additionally, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles/entries on Wikipedia about various politicians at all levels of government, and frankly, the article I submitted is better quality than several entries that I've read about politicians.

Everything in my article includes citations for sources of the information included, and the article is written from a neutral point of view, which further undermines DGG's claim of "political advertising." For example, this entry about a Colorado politician, includes the following biographical information without citations: "Kerr attended Foothills Elementary School, Dunstan Middle School, and Green Mountain High School, all within HD 26. Kerr received a B.A. in Geography, an M.A. in Information and Learning Technologies, and an Administrative Leadership and Policy Studies license from the University of Colorado." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Kerr_(American_politician)

If anything, DGG's comments demonstrate disrespect for my legitimate work as a professional with a graduate degree and more than 30 years of professional experience as a writer and editor of publications in technical, scientific, business, history and many other disciplines.

For what it's worth, I started contributing to Wikipedia to improve entries related to Central Colorado, where I've worked as a professional editor and journalist for over 15 years. After making significant improvements to entries of local importance, I began working to create new entries to improve the information available about the people and places important to this region. After a decorated military careeer, Keith Baker has been a pillar of the local communities. Unfortunately, I was not able to find citable sources for most of his military achievements, but his other accomplishments, from helping to establish Browns Canyon National Monument, opposing Nestle Waters Norht America's groundwater extraction, are fully documented in my article. I have no interest in "political advertising," and I resent the subjective, unprofessional manner in which DGG rejected my article based on that false assertion. If anything in my draft does not meet Wikipedia standards, I'd appreciate a response from someone with enough professionalism to point out exactly what misses the mark and what can be done to address the deficiency.

I look forward to a reasonable response.

JosePiedra (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JosePiedra A county level politician does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, which means that Commissioner Baker must meet the broader definition of a notable person. I believe you that there are other similar or worse articles out there; 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. I don't see where DGG was "unprofessional" in just giving their views. That you disagree with their assessment (which is fine) does not mean that they were unprofessional in giving it.
The draft does a good job of summarizing what he has been involved with, but seem to have little coverage of him personally. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic have chosen on their own to say about it. Please tell the three best sources you have for this person which provide significant coverage of them.
You say you are a professional writer; do you work for or represent Commissioner Baker? If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot

Thank you for your response. It's interesting that county commissioners aren't considered notable since, in Colorado at least, the are paid more and generally have more power than state-level elected officials. Nonetheless, I would think Commissioner Baker's status as a US Navy Commander who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff would make him notable as well as his role in gaining national monument status for Browns Canyon. Main sources are 130-year-old local/regional newspapers and official government sources. I consider DGG's response unprofessional because he simply dismissed the time and effort I've put into this entry as advertising, which is not accurate. And no, I do not work for or represent Commissioner Baker. As I noted previously, I started contributing to Wikipedia to improve the coverage of important people and places where I work as a professional writer and editor. JosePiedra (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JosePiedra There must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him personally, not just what he has done- such as describing his role in the National Monument creation(not just that he participated in it and got a meeting with Obama), or that discuss his military career. Government documents are not independent sources(since the military is part of the government). 331dot (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot

OK. Wow. Without government documents, how can there valid proof of military service for anyone? And what are independent reliable sources with personal coverage of an individual? Personal coverage would seem to be, by definition, not neutral. Both of these requirements seem like catch-22s, and easily half the entries I've read on Wikipedia can't meet these requirements. JosePiedra (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JosePiedra I believe you that "half the entries I've read on Wikipedia can't meet these requirements". As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. Furthermore, only IPs and new users are required to use this process, and it has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, so other articles were not necessarily approved by anyone. If you would like to help us out, you can identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action- we could use the help.
Again, what is needed are independent reliable sources that discuss his military career. That's the proof. We don't need a document from the military as proof that he served- if independent sources write that he did with significant coverage(i.e. not just telling us that he served), that is sufficient. People like General Milley have independent sources that write about them(as well as lower ranked personnel; simply an example there). Sources need only be reliable sources, they do not need to be completely neutral, but they cannot be a primary source like an interview. The source must be writing about Commissioner Baker themselves, not just publishing what he says about himself. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, but reflects what sources say. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dotThanks for taking the time for providing some context to help me understand how this is supposed to work. At the moment I'm slammed with work that pays the bills, but when I do have some spare time, I'll focus on improving existing content.JosePiedra (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot

I recently discovered that Wikipedia has several entries for Colorado County Commissioners (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:County_commissioners_in_Colorado), which undermines your assertion that "A county level politician does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician." Also, several of these entries are grossly political self-promotion. Does Wikipedia not have some process for reviewing/challenging DGG's rejection of my entry? My knowledge of Wikipedia entries in general compared to my experience with this entry that I created is that the standards are applied capriciously and unfairly. Is there no recourse? Thank you. JosePiedra (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JosePiedra The notability definition is not my assertion, it is what is written at WP:NPOLITICIAN; "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability".
I will say again: Please read other stuff exists. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, with people doing what they can, when they can. Only new accounts and IP users are required to use this process, and this process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed. For these reasons, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. With over six million articles and only thousands of regular editors who are regularly here, things will be overlooked and take time to address. This is not capricious. It may be unfair, but this is unavoidable with a volunteer project. You are welcome to help us out and work to identify and address inappropriate articles that you detect. We could use it, and would appreciate it.
I have not examined all of the articles in the category that you mention. It could be that some of them are inappropriate as well. It could also be that the persons with those articles are notable for other reasons, and merit articles for those reasons and not for the mere fact that they are county commissioners. I told you earlier that if Commissioner Baker received significant coverage in independent reliable sources for reasons other than merely being a county commissioner, such as for his military career, or that otherwise go in depth about him personally, he could merit an article under the broader definition of a notable person. If you think that you can do that, you can appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:39, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Luckyluce

[edit]


Luckyluce (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luckyluce, you don't ask a question but your draft cites no sources. Need independent secondary sources to establish notability.Slywriter (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:48:33, 24 January 2022 review of submission by 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:78D6

[edit]


Updated references. Kale My Name is very popular in black community. Unless you are black, you should not be deciding if this is notable enough. Please allow the page! 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:78D6 (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works; the race of the reviewer does not play into whether an article or draft meets the notability criteria, and you cannot request that persons of a certain race(which we have no way to verify anyway, as we don't ask for proof of race here) review a draft. It is not us "deciding if it is notable enough"; you or those part of what seems to be a campaign to include this restaurant, must demonstrate that the restaurant receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets WP:ORG, the definition of a notable organization. As the draft was rejected, this seems unlikely, and as such it will not be considered further. Please use social media or the restaurant website to tell the world about this restaurant. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:56:46, 24 January 2022 review of draft by CarlSerafino

[edit]


There is an article about this in 5 different languages. But the one I created in English was rejected. I would like to learn how to improve. I would also like to learn how to create a drop-down menu so that readers can view an article about a subject in different languages such as this one. CarlSerafino (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CarlSerafino The draft was declined, not rejected- the terms have different meanings here; rejection would mean resubmission would not be possible. Please review the comments left by reviewers, as well as the deletion discussion linked to there. Note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies, and as such what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. I don't believe what you ask about a drop down menu is technically possible. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, and that is because each language edition of Wikipedia is technically on its own domain. It's unlikely someone who can read en.wp is going to be interested in, for example, hi.wp or ro.wp or ak.wp versions of that article, and if they are they can navigate to that wiki or use the relevant interwiki links on the left hand side. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:55, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Ising4jesus

[edit]

Regarding the AOZ Studio draft page...


What do I need to do to correct the problems that were flagged? I thought I'd addressed them. Do I just need additional authoritative sources?

Ising4jesus (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this page "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia"?

Ising4jesus (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ising4jesus First, if you work for them, you are a paid editor, you don't have to be specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell of the existence of something and what it does. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Interviews, mere reporting of activities, and other materials put out by the subject are not appropriate sources. This is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:02, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Ramkashamalla

[edit]


Ramkashamalla (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a blog to post our thoughts or experiences, it is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:42:54, 24 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan

[edit]


Hello, I have a problem with an article. I mistakenly submitted two drafts and was told that, as the first one had not yet been validated, this one would be examined. The problem is that the first draft has nothing to do with the last one (three-four lines versus forty). What can I do to make sure that the second and most recent draft is examined directly? Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan, edit the source of the draft you do not want reviewed and remove the afc submission template. Though one being reviewed will not prejudice the other.Slywriter (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Slywriter! I hope it will be better now. Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections, for follow up comments. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:01, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Raavimohantydelhi

[edit]


Raavi Mohanty 14:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Raavimohantydelhi: I strongly suggest you find a different topic area to work in. We take a very dim view of attempts to push fringe science, pseudoscience, and alternative medicine, as the reviewers politely told you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:26, 24 January 2022 review of draft by Popcultr

[edit]


I'm not sure I understand how Variety - one of the worlds leading entertainment magazines is not a reliable independent source :) Same for Comicsbeat and HLN ( one of the biggest newspapers in Belgium )

Popcultr (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popcultr, Variety is an interview which means the subject's own words and views are covered. Interviews for this reason are not considered independent secondary sources and do not contribute to notability. WP:THREE independent references that discuss the subject is the simple rule of thumbSlywriter (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:21, 24 January 2022 review of draft by Puserisrivate

[edit]


I am an accomplished musician looking to publish my own page, but I have run into a few problems...first, it says I am not citing my sources correctly, and secondly, not sure where I post "{{Connected contributor|User1=Puserisrivate |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}"

Puserisrivate (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puserisrivate, sorry to disappoint but wikipedia is not a promotional tool. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is something you should take time to read but in short, Wikipedia pages are based on what independent, reliable secondary sources have to say about a subject. Also, should wikipedia ever publish an article about you, you will have zero control over what is added or deleted from the article.Slywriter (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:12:14, 24 January 2022 review of draft by PaperDrake

[edit]


I can't seem to add the "children's literature" tag to my draft page for A.M. Dassu, a bestselling children's author from the UK. The other tags added fine, but this one keeps encountering an error and I don't know why. Can you tell me how to get it to work / add the tag for me please?

PaperDrake (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_January_24&oldid=1175354584"