Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 31 << May | June | Jul >> June 2 >
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 1

[edit]

01:57:42, 1 June 2022 review of submission by MattMili

[edit]


MattMili (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MattMili: Neither of your sources are acceptable - we can't cite streaming websites or YouTube (connexion to subject). Are there no in-depth, non-routine, independent sources that are written by identifiable journalists/music critics and published in outlets with competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:58:58, 1 June 2022 review of submission by 174.87.117.120

[edit]


174.87.117.120 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:06:06, 1 June 2022 review of submission by Somesh.j9

[edit]

Hi, I've recently attempted to submit a draft for the mentioned page as my first submission, but the draft has been rejected due to concerns over notability. As I understand that I would require more significant independent/secondary sources addressing the subject of entry in detail.

I've currently provided references to meet the independent/secondary source criteria for reviewing the facts shared in the draft. It will be more helpful if I could receive some assistance with getting the entry suitably revised and successfully published? Concrete advice regarding specific steps that need to be taken would be very much appreciated. Thank you! Somesh.j9 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Somesh.j9[reply]

@Somesh.j9: media outlets are subject to the same notability requirements as anything else, meaning they must meet the WP:GNG standard of showing significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Currently your draft lists no such source, citing only the paper's own website, and two sources providing access to past issues online; these only prove that the publication exists (if that), but do not contribute towards notability in the slightest. (There is also the possibility of notability per subject-specific criteria, as outlined in WP:NMEDIA, but nothing in the draft suggests these would be met.)
On a different point, it isn't clear where the information in the draft is coming from, as you haven't cited your sources inline, and have instead simply piled all the cites at the end. This makes it difficult to verify any of the statements. Please see WP:REFB for advice.
Finally, you should write in a neutral tone, without trying to promote the subject: expressions like 'coveted', 'quite remarkably', etc. are puffery and have no place in an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:46:43, 1 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Lordofhunter

[edit]


My topic is notable as per WP:NBASE. Still, the top authority sources are removed and the draft is rejected.

Lordofhunter (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordofhunter: The draft has been declined, not rejected; a declined draft can be edited and resubmitted. The three sources you had included were Wikipedia mirrors and other wikis. Such websites can't be used as sources in Wikipedia. Have another look at the information in the decline notice and on your user talk page. Follow the links in the notices – they have a lot of info about the requirements for sources to be considered reliable. --bonadea contributions talk 05:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Updated sources, please check. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:36:02, 1 June 2022 review of submission by SandAndrew

[edit]


Company is well established and also getting good presence in Google Trend and Local and National News..so Expecting someone to help me to publish this company

SandAndrew (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandAndrew: the draft has been rejected and will no longer be considered. Also just to clarify, "well established and also getting good presence in Google Trend" are not notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:42, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Mango150

[edit]


Mango150 (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wondering how the sources in this don't show notability, and I'm not sure how I didn't write neutrally and being accused of making an attack page? I thought this was just informing people about a political candidate. Many thanks.

@Mango150: for the record, I didn't 'accuse' you of anything; no need for the drama. I said care should be taken so this doesn't result in an attack page. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry. However, how do the sources not establish notability? There are plenty of articles of him on google, and the articles mentioned mostly contain him, and one contains the election results which included him. Mango150 (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the Real News Hub a reliable source. Not that I know it, but their style of reporting, and the way they describe themselves in the About section, doesn't suggest that.
Candidate profiles, campaign news, manifestos, etc. are routinely reported around election time, and are essentially based on the single event of the candidate running for election. Had they not stood, they would not have warranted such coverage.
The 6 May 2022 ABC News story comes, IMO, closest to providing significant coverage, but it alone isn't enough.
That's my take of it. If another reviewer sees this differently, they're of course more than welcome to overrule me and accept this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Is there any way to find the actual nomination forms of the candidates in the electoral commission? Would that establish enough notability? Mango150 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There also also several other sources that report on the same ABC News story you referred to, such as:
quite a lot more too Mango150 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Hi again, sorry for so many replies. I have just updated the page again. I have removed the Real News Hub, and added The Brisbane Times. Wondering if it is now worthy as an article or not? Mango150 (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:21, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Billy Rosendale

[edit]


Hi there!

I updated this article Regius_Professor_of_Engineering (Edinburgh) to add the Incumbent regius professor, Themis Prodromakis.

I thought it entirely appropriate to create a biography article for Themis (as exists for the preceding professors in the list) and suggested this to colleagues working in the field of research.

And so we have created a draft article: Draft:Themis_Prodromakis.

First submission was declined for lack of citation. Which I tried to rectify.

There was also a comment regards copyright violation but I have been assured the content was written for this Wikipedia article and then copied to Themis's Imperial profile page - not the other way around! I have not worked out how to reply to comments made by reviewers - or indeed how I could give verification that copyright has not been violated in this instance.

The second submission has been rejected based on the poor quality of references.

I am really struggling to find verifiable sources for citation. For example, Themis is Visiting Professor at the Department of Microelectronics and Nanoelectronics at Tsinghua University but I could only find his own tweet on Twitter to verify this.

Is it simpler to delete claims for which verifiable sources cannot be found? Can anyone offer advice or help improve this draft article? Comments suggest the article will be deleted if it fails another submission.


Cheers Billy

Billy Rosendale (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Billy Rosendale (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Billy Rosendale: this person should be inherently notable per WP:NACADEMIC, on account of the named chair, and possibly one or more of their Fellowships as well, so looks to me like they warrant an article. Of course, those claims would need to be supported by reliable sources, but these can be primary (eg. university staff profiles etc.).
All material or potentially contentious statements, as well as any private personal details such as DOB, will need to be supported by reliable sources via inline citations, and any content that cannot be thus supported must be removed. This is especially important in articles on living people, see WP:BLP.
Finally on a different point, you need to formally declare your conflict of interest, as you appear to be professionally connected. I will post a message on your user talk page on how to do that. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:21, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Wikiputta

[edit]


Wikiputta (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:01, 1 June 2022 review of submission by 2400:AC40:609:2235:5CA6:5A18:E9BE:DCE4

[edit]


2400:AC40:609:2235:5CA6:5A18:E9BE:DCE4 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article:Hefzur Rahman Khan I'm a Rohingya boy I living in Bangladesh Cox's Bazar Teknaf I was born in Myanmar Ali than kyan Medina para, 2006-05_06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.177.247.123 (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and? Your draft Draft:Hefzur Rahman Khan was rejected, Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about yourself, it is an encyclopaedia not social media. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:26, 1 June 2022 review of submission by Wikiputta

[edit]

Please help me to create a page of this movie

Wikiputta (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiputta Unreleased films generally do not merit articles, see the notability criteria. This is why the draft was rejected. It may be reconsidered when the film is released. If there is some notable aspect of the production of the film itself, beyond cast/crew announcements or other routine coverage,(see Rust (suspended film) for one example) please discuss that with the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:22, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Guycitizen

[edit]


Hi there! I've added citations with credible sources but it's still not approved? Can you please assist me? Just trying to make a page for a notable VC and foreign policy expert.

Guycitizen (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guycitizen: Entire swathes of your text are still unreferenced; this is not acceptable. Every claim that could potentially be challenged requires a cite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:57:33, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Dicone123

[edit]


I need to change the title to Formic rather than Formic Technologies. The company changed their trademark.

Dicone123 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may leave a note on the draft talk page for the reviewer, who will place it at the proper title if they accept it. Note that Wikipedia does not necessarily use official or legal names as article titles, but what independent reliable sources refer to the topic as. See WP:COMMONNAME.
If you work for this company, that must be declared, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_June_1&oldid=1092075261"