Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< September 14 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 16 >
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.


September 15

[edit]

00:00:33, 15 September 2022 review of draft by VampireKilla

[edit]


How else should I try to establish why Gibraltar Wave are notable? They're the only independent women's team in Gibraltar, the only organised beach soccer team in Gibraltar, the first and only Gibraltarian team to participate in the BSW Euro Winners Cup, all other currently active women's teams in Gibraltar have Wikipedia articles that haven't been deleted. I'm trying to figure out how that's not more notable than, say, the stub article for Crawley Wasps F.C. which has no references whatsoever, or Leafield Athletic L.F.C. which is virtually empty. It feels almost like *because* it's the only team not affiliated to a men's team, that's why it's not being approved for an article. If someone can explain exactly why the 9 references included in the article (only one of which is from the club itself) aren't independent that would help too. VampireKilla (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VampireKilla: notability doesn't mean "the first to do X" or being "the only Y in Gibraltar". It means being able to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Based on a quick look, I don't think any of the sources cited in this draft meets this standard, although I'm happy to analyse them in more detail if you'd like.
As for other articles which may be out there with similar or weaker referencing (the so-called OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), that is undoubtedly the case, but it doesn't mean we should create more of the same; it means those articles should also be brought up to the required standards. Meanwhile new articles must comply with the relevant guidelines, in this case WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate someone taking the time to look more closely at the articles I have used as references. Bear in mind some are in German or Spanish as it has had coverage from different countries - I've rarely had to use the referencing system for foreign language articles so not 100% sure on how to flag the languages of the links. VampireKilla (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VampireKilla
Okay. It's not clear whether by 'someone' you mean someone other than me, but here's my take on it, all the same:
  • Refs 1/2/5: I consider these the sports equivalent of 'routine business reporting' (acquisitions, appointments, product launches, etc.); can be used to verify information, but not to establish notability. I should point out that as these are behind a paywall, I haven't analysed the text properly, and it's possible bits of them may collectively add up to significant coverage. If that's what your notability assertion specifically relies on, then please provide more details (eg. on the draft talk page).
  • Ref 3: primary source
  • Ref 4: press release, likely primary source
  • Ref 6: close primary source (club website)
  • Ref 7: at first I thought this would meet GNG, but then noticed it's written in first person voice, so it's clearly the 'club talking'; finally realised it's by the club chairman, ie. clearly not independent.
  • Ref 8: only mentions the club once, in one of the fixtures graphics
  • Ref 9: this is probably the strongest of the lot; it could be argued the coverage isn't all that significant, or that this is similar to refs 1/2/5, or perhaps that the publication isn't fully RS (being a local online newsletter/blog), but even if one gives this the benefit of the doubt in all those respects, this one source alone isn't enough to establish notability.
Happy to be proven wrong on any or all of these points. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:42:32, 15 September 2022 review of draft by Umeshnair4u

[edit]


I have submitted my page as I am a movie producer in India. I have produced 2 movies and 2 tele serials in India. If i am not mistaken this is the second tie i tried to publish my page on wikipedia and still I couldn't get through. Looking forward for a support to get my page live as I am not sure what I am suppose to do.

Umeshnair4u (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Umeshnair4u: firstly, if this is ever published, it won't be "your page"; it will be a Wikipedia article about you. There's a big difference.
Secondly, you shouldn't be trying to publish an article about yourself, for all sorts of reasons which are enumerated here: WP:AUTOBIO. Please read and understand them.
The reason why your draft was declined is that it is entirely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and WP:GNG on notability.
And just to remind you, you really shouldn't try to publish an article about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your updated. Umeshnair4u (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:16, 15 September 2022 review of draft by 50.101.160.189

[edit]


i was wondering how if the draft articles do not expire if not then by when

50.101.160.189 (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your question is — are you asking how long a draft stays on the system before being deleted? Six months from the last edit, per WP:G13. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:15, 15 September 2022 review of submission by 50.101.160.189

[edit]

is there a deadline for article drafts if so how much

50.101.160.189 (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:13, 15 September 2022 review of submission by MistaEntertainer

[edit]

He has now a Google Knowledge Panel and a wikialpha page. Is he now worth? MistaEntertainer (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MistaEntertainer: please don't copypaste the entire draft here, and certainly don't do it several times. Thank you.
No, there is not the slightest indication of notability here. In any case, the draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care about Google's (ab)use of its platforms. Besides, the Knowledge Panel is known to cull from Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MistaEntertainer Wikialpha is not a reliable source. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:16, 15 September 2022 review of submission by ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513

[edit]


ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513? The draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:12:03, 15 September 2022 review of submission by Plumbgum

[edit]


Hello! I thought that my submission provided more information about a brand that I've grown to love in recent years. Could you all provide more information about which sections violated Wikipedia guidelines and/or why my submission was rejected? Is there a way that I can improve my submission?

Thank you.

Plumbgum (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plumbgum: if you're talking about Draft:Cash Acme, then that has been deleted and hence there's no way of improving it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2022_September_15&oldid=1111459378"