Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 30 << Apr | May | Jun >> June 1 >
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.


May 31

[edit]

05:10:41, 31 May 2022 review of submission by 112.204.174.213

[edit]


112.204.174.213 (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:29, 31 May 2022 review of submission by AshVR

[edit]

Hi, I received a notification saying that my article was declined, however on the actual draft it says that its still for review?? Can I get some clarity? AshVR (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AshVR: that's because you appear to have changed the templates. But not to worry, I've declined it for you again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! So it was declined for "non reliable sources"? - new to Wikipedia so I'm learning everything lol. AshVR (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the only sources cited are two Twitter accounts, and that's about as non-reliable as they come. Which is to say nothing of the fact that both accounts appear to be closely associated with the draft subject. (And in hindsight, for these reasons I probably should have rejected, rather than merely declined, the draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, I appreciate for your help! I'll try my best to find some reliable sources and replace them there. Thank you once again. :) AshVR (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please also address the apparent conflict of interest. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions on how to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:13, 31 May 2022 review of draft by Adridzius

[edit]


Hello i don't really understand what this question means; As per the previous comment, given the nature of the subject in-line citations are strongly desired to support each claim made. Please see this guide. S0091. Thank you. Adridzius (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adridzius: it means that you're writing about a controversial topic and making highly contentious statements, and it is therefore imperative that you support each material statement with an immediate inline citation to a reliable source which clearly backs up what you've said. Yet, as it stands, your draft doesn't have a single inline citation, or even any proper referencing as such. Please review the guide the earlier comment signposts you to, and ensure that the draft complies before resubmitting. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, i don't know what to do. The sources i find are only the ones i linked in the references nowhere else. Adridzius (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adridzius there are two separate but related issues here:
  1. You need to cite the sources that provide the contents of the draft. For example, where does the information in the unreferenced section 'Skydas today' come from? If you read it somewhere, cite that source. If it's just your own conjecture, take it out (see WP:OR). The same goes for everything, if you cannot support a statement with a reliable source, then it has no place in the draft.
  2. You also need to provide sources which are sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the notability of the subject, per WP:GNG. The ones you've listed (though not cited) in the 'References' section may, or may not, be enough for this; I'm passing no judgement on them either way.
You must address both points 1 and 2; otherwise this draft cannot be accepted. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:56, 31 May 2022 review of draft by Maansouz

[edit]


Maansouz (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question you wish to ask @Maansouz? (You have resubmitted your draft and it is awaiting review.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:47, 31 May 2022 review of submission by True Balkan Historian

[edit]


True Balkan Historian (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC) bc the thing i wrote is way too good to get rejected (fr)[reply]

@True Balkan Historian: I came close to reporting you, actually, but held back as you appear to be a new editor. I would advise you not to repeat this, though, because that particular excuse has now expired. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:24, 31 May 2022 review of draft by ShayanXtreme

[edit]


ShayanXtreme (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:07, 31 May 2022 review of draft by ShayanXtreme

[edit]


ShayanXtreme (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ShayanXtreme You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:23, 31 May 2022 review of draft by ShayanXtreme

[edit]


ShayanXtreme (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:27, 31 May 2022 review of submission by Paulgorry

[edit]


Hi there, I was just wondering why the submission for The Black Skies page had been rejected? Many thanks...

Paulgorry (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulgorry: it hasn't been rejected, it has been declined, meaning you're welcome to resubmit, once you've addressed the reasons for declining. That reason being lack of notability. Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft only cites one source, a YouTube clip. It also lists, without citing, an interview and a blog. None of these meets the GNG standard. And if all this band has released so far is one single, then they wouldn't be notable under WP:BAND either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulgorry: I made some improvements, but there's not enough sourcing. This other source I found [[1]] is a bit too promotional and fan-focused to help demonstrate notability, but could be used to source some background. It's still not enough. Please see WP:TOOSOON. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:42:20, 31 May 2022 review of submission by Qarva2016

[edit]


Qarva2016 (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


(Redacted)

Removed obvious spam. Unsurprisingly the editor is blocked and their draft deleted (as G11, natch). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:35:25, 31 May 2022 review of draft by QiuLiming1

[edit]


@The Most Comfortable Chair: Hello, I am very not sure why this article is declined because of notability, on zhwiki, it have 20 different supporting sources, it is also widespread in chinese social media. PEP textbook is used for more than 70% of student in China for 10 years, and inappropriate illustration many effect thousands or millions of student. QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, there is no article this draft can be merged into. QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello QiuLiming1. Although the incident is being covered by the mainstream media right now, it is too early to tell whether this will have any lasting significance or impact. Education in China could be a place to potentially merge content from the draft, particularly to the "Issues" section. Alternatively, I noticed that Wikipedia has an entry on Higher Education Press but not on People's Education Press — this could also be an opportunity to start an article about PEP (an obviously notable government entity) with contents of the draft included in a potential "Controversies" section. — The Most Comfortable Chair 17:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QiuLiming1: I'm going to echo the comments above that this is not appropriate for an article. Nobody is going to come to Wikipedia and look this particular title up. However, I'm going to take a different approach with my recommendation to you. While there may be a suitable place for this info in Education in China, it is recommended that you let someone else add it. Per Wikipedia:Competence is required, while English fluency is not required, since "minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others," from the current state of the article, I do not believe that your English skills will allow you to successfully write the content. Per guidelines, "if poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post an edit request on the article talk page." TechnoTalk (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: I actually looked up the exact title as it is written on Chinese Wikipedia, but I do understand maybe their is no enough significance for it to be included in an article now. For that reason, I do not think that should be included in Education in China article. QiuLiming1 (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also, another article related to Chinese new, 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak got keep during an afd, could you breifly explain the difference of their notability? QiuLiming1 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding of the AfD discussion, participants seemed to agree that an article covering the outbreak specific to March 2022 would not be notable itself. However the consensus was that expanding the scope of the article to a timeframe of a year was warranted since the outbreak and its consequences persisted beyond March (PERSISTENCE) and merging this article (which was likely to expand in its coverage of events) would be inappropriate per SIZESPLIT. There were also various comments that pointed to the unique circumstances of the 2022 outbreak, which strengthened the case for it having a separate article per CONTENTSPLIT.
In contrast, the draft covers an event that is much narrower in its scope as well as timeframe. Essentially, it is not possible to determine if events covered in the draft would be reported on for much longer — while it would be reasonable to expect that the duration and peculiar details of 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak would ensure sustained coverage. As of now, it is unclear whether or not this textbook controversy would be independently notable per NEVENT, and it would be best to wait for now — DELAY: "Many events portrayed by the media as major on the day they occur quickly become only a footnote." — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got it, thanks. QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:43, 31 May 2022 review of draft by Vladdy Daddy Silly

[edit]


Why are the sourced not verified? they are used for the page about the romania-brazil relations. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

after the feedback of an admin i decided to delete the article. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved comments to chronological order and to display author. @Vladdy Daddy Silly: (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). TechnoTalk (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_May_31&oldid=1091881705"