Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 9 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 11 >
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.


December 10

[edit]

04:36, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Revanth553

[edit]

what are the reason for reject Revanth553 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably refers to  Courtesy link: User:Revanth553/sandbox, subsequently U5'd. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Girishpparmar

[edit]

Greetings Kindly assist me with this page, first I had given references but got a review of reference bombing,, so i removed few of the references and resubmitted again. please let me know about independent references required and guide me in this endeavor to publish this page of the senior most sculptor in Asia pacific region

Raghav Kaneria is alive and currently living in USA.


Thank you Girishpparmar (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Girishpparmar, you'll need to be more specific than "let me know about independent references required and guide me in this endeavor" – what is it you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 10 December 2023 review of submission by StuartDouglas

[edit]

I created this page over a week ago and it was rejected almost immediately by user Aviram7 as not notable. Believing that it is notable, I asked for more detail on his user page and was told it needed RS. Again, as I had used sources including newspaper sites, Edinburgh university sites and those of an award ody, I thought these were notable and asked for clariifaction, without reply (and in fact the page no which question sat has been deleted.).

It may well be that I am wrong and the subject of the page I created does not reach notability levels suitable for the Wiki, or that I do need more RS, but Aviram7 has already been pulled up recently for deleting pages too quickly and in error, for deciding to reject on grounds of notability for no reason (sample response to another user: 'I think this article is not notable, I don't have any reason why I think so, sorry, but we don't want to talk about it further,') and for not realising that RSs are in fact RS.

If someone could advise how I can improve the page, I would be grateful. 

StuartDouglas (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StuartDouglas: the draft has been resubmitted, so you will get another assessment shortly anyway; is there a reason why you need us to pre-review it here at the help desk (which isn't something we normally do)?
Also, just for the record, the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean the end of the road, decline simply means you need to address the issues highlighted, after which you can resubmit; it is an iterative process aimed at improving the draft, and should not be seen as a negative. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
StuartDouglas, your draft was declined, not rejected, and that is an important distinction. The Scottish Nature Photography book awards allow anyone to vote, which means that it is of negligible significance, and certainly does not contribute to notability. Your references seem weak. Which independent reliable sources provide significant coverage of this person, as opposed to passing mentions, event announcements and the like? Cullen328 (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if that's how it works here, but I do wonder (a) why a popular vote run by an independent source is of 'negligible significance' and 'does not contribute to notability' and also (b) why event announcements, put in as references to indicate that significant non-online activities - university sponsored lectures on photography and exhibitions - took place, are not evidence of notability?
I haven't really done much editing here, so apologies if these are obvious questions- I'm just not clear whether events which do not occur online are in some way less relevant, or if they need to be referenced in a different way?
Thanks again for any help. StuartDouglas (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stuart. "Notability" is a slightly unfortunate choice of word: what it means in Wikipedialand is something like "there is enough material published to base an article on" - bearing in mind that, for the most part, the material must be both reliably published and independent of the subject. What the subject is or does is irrelevant unless it has been written about.
Unfortunately, this does mean that certain kinds of subject rarely meet the criteria (for example, music producers are far less written about than musicians). But it is essential if we are not to compromise the core principle of verifiability. ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I asked here because the page says 'If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk' and I thought I needed extra help. StuartDouglas (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:42, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Seaquell

[edit]

How can I insert pictures of Kim relevant to the entry? I tried to upload but it says I don't have permission. Seaquell (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seaquell New accounts cannot directly upload images. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Once your draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia, you can then worry about images. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Seaquell (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Punjabiplayer

[edit]

i have created this draft and it is getting declined, i have added all the notable sources from Forbes, entrepreneur etc. May i please know what am i missing? Punjabiplayer (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabiplayer If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Be aware that editing about crypto/blockchain has its own special rules, I will notify you of these on your user talk page.
You are missing independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your sources are all brief mentions that do not discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about this company. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Forbes pieces are often paid promotional entries. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are all 'sponsored' sources; plus, Republic World is deprecated. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Punjabiplayer: you have failed to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG / WP:NCORP; your sources are pure churnalism.
You have also failed to disclose your COI with regard to this business. Please do so now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 10 December 2023 review of submission by PinneyFowke

[edit]

There are two aspects to my problem with getting this entry accepted, and although the first appears to be the major one, I think it might be solved if I can sort the second.

1) Notability - I accept this was fair criticism on my first draft, I had not put in enough detail. I have now added more information. 2) Finding referencing sources online, and not using blogs. I accept that taken overall blogs are not indicative of facts, but it does appear there is not an overall ban on referring to them, I want to be able to use them illustratively, of continuing recognition and referral to Fowke in the SF world.

Somehow I need to be able to distinguish what published sources there are, from the ones that could be treated as illustrative of a continuing interest in Fowke's work.

I really would welcome any help and assistance, as I don't seem to be making any real progress.

Many thanks Pinney 

PinneyFowke (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PinneyFowke: the problem with blogs is that they are user-generated, and therefore cannot be considered reliable; people can – and frequently do! – write whatever they want in their blogs. So even if blogs aren't expressly and categorically banned per se, they do not count as reliable sources, which is what article contents must be supported by. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what DoubleGrazing said, your comments indicate that you don't understand the special Wikipedia meaning of notability. I have now added more information has little or no bearing on establishing notability, which is almost entirely abnout finding referencing sources, though they do not have to be online, as long as they are reliably published. ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 10 December 2023 review of submission by 105.242.231.131

[edit]

I have added the requested references about individual online 105.242.231.131 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't, there are no references on that draft at all. Qcne (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, you haven't added any references at all. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, go and find some sources to back up the statements made in the draft, and add those sources to the draft. Please do not waste reviewers time by resubmitting the draft until you have found and added some sources. Nthep (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to resubmit the article after improvements 105.242.231.131 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not improved it, there are no references. Therefore my rejection still stands and you cannot re-submit. Did you actually click Publish on your changes? Ping me if you manage to add sources and I'll have another look. Qcne (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist 105.242.231.131 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating new topics and read the replies above. Qcne (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 10 December 2023 review of submission by 73.169.188.142

[edit]

I'm at a loss. I have tried in earnest to address the issues, over the past 8 or 10 submissions. I need help to figure out what qualifies. 73.169.188.142 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. You have not shown that he meets the definition of a notable musician with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Jah98000

[edit]

Struggling to understand the reasons for rejections. Initially the reason was related to references (dont show significant coverage); then the lack of a formal tone of the article, now it's just ; "doesnt seem worthy of a wiki article" Seems like the goal posts keep moving.

Help :-( Jah98000 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jah98000. Editors can decline for multiple reasons. I rejected based purely on the state of the article as it is now (but went for a reject instead of another decline as you've had eight chances): you have not proven notability under WP:NMUSICIAN. Lets go through your sources one by one:
  1. A WP:PRIMARY source, so cannot count towards notability.
  2. An interview, so cannot count towards notability.
  3. An interview, so cannot count towards notability.
  4. Discogs cannot be used to count towards notability.
  5. A database entry, so cannot count towards notability.
  6. A database entry, so cannot count towards notability.
  7. A database entry, so cannot count towards notability.
If you can fundamentally re-write this draft to include sources that are secondary, significant in coverage, not interviews, and independent of Matt let me know. But I think it is the end of the road for this draft, sorry. Qcne (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think youre looking at the wrong references.
  1. Is a link to AllMusic which I'm to understand is the source of music credits that publishers use.
  2. Is a link to the Academy Awards (Grammys) website that shows the Album was nominated for a Grammy. in the Best Contemporary Blues Album category. (NOT AN INTERVIEW)
  3. A link to Jaxsta (another music credits source) that shows he's credited on the movie Echo in the Canyon. NOTE: he's also credited within the wikipedia article (Echo in the Canyon) NOT AN INTERVIEW.
  4. Is a link to his Podcast in Spotify --- NOT Discogs
  5. is a link to a press release announcing his endorsement by the company. Not an interview, NOT A DATABASE
  6. Link to the company website, listing his endorsement (NOT A DB)
  7. Link to the company website, listing his endorsement (NOT A DB)
Are you sure you reviewed my most recent submission? Jah98000 (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jah98000, no you are totally right. My bad. The External Links section should only be one or two links long, and while skimming it I misread it as the references section. Sorry about that. I'll go through your actual references..
  1. AllMusic: see WP:ALLMUSIC which states that entries without accompanying prose don't count towards notability.
  2. Grammy: unless I am not seeing it I cannot see Matt mentioned on this link? In any case if its just a credit it doesn't show WP:SIGCOV.
  3. Jaxta: again, a credit so not WP:SIGCOV.
  4. Spotify: WP:PRIMARY.
  5. DrummersReview: this looks to be a press release? If so, it doesn't count towards notability. If not a PR piece then it may work as a source.
  6. Paiste: Not independent of Matt, as they seem to be the supplier of his drumkit?
  7. As above.
What we're looking for is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary independent sources. Album and song reviews from reputable music websites; discussions, analysis, and interpretation of his work from music media. At the moment those sources don't have that. Qcne (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion here is that you have a section of external links and a section of references. The external links are as Qcne describes them. The References section is as you describe it- but those things don't establish notability either; none of those are significant coverage of Mr. Tecu that discusses what makes him important/significant/influential. I see the album he worked on listed on the Grammys website, but his name is not mentioned. I believe he actually needs to be named as a nominee to be considered such(i.e he would have taken home a Grammy had he won). 331dot (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SO... lets discuss the Grammy nomination.
That was the point of the AllMusic reference to establish that he was credited on a nominated album. [1]
The GRAMMYs recognize anyone
The Recording Academy is pleased to offer customized participation certificates which recognize anyone who was creatively or professionally involved in a GRAMMY-winning or GRAMMY-nominated recording.
Who is eligible?
Musicians, composers, publishers, studios, and labels may apply for a participation certificate with proof of participation in a GRAMMY-winning or GRAMMY-nominated recording.
https://www.recordingacademy.com/awards/grammy-participation-certificates Jah98000 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note he is credited within the WikiPedia Article of the Echo in the Canyon movie Jah98000 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our WP:MUSICBIO guidelines do state a person may be inherently notable if they are "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award". However... I am not sure this counts in this instance as he is not mentioned on the Grammy page, and although the album was nominated he as a person was not. Qcne (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note again though, @Jah98000, I'd be willing to un-reject if you can prove notability. Even if it takes a few weeks, just ping me on my user talk page. Qcne (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you Un-reject based on the fact it was only my 6th Submission (not eight)?
I'll keep working on it.
BTW, This is kinda fun in an odd way. I'm learning a lot. Jah98000 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Proof of participation in a Grammy-award winning album is not the same thing as being awarded a Grammy. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share your source of this information for this assertion? (a reference please)
The Recording Academy is pleased to offer customized participation certificates which recognize anyone who was creatively or professionally involved in a GRAMMY-winning or GRAMMY-nominated recording.
Who is eligible?
Musicians, composers, publishers, studios, and labels may apply for a participation certificate with proof of participation in a GRAMMY-winning or GRAMMY-nominated recording.
https://www.recordingacademy.com/awards/grammy-participation-certificates
Jah98000 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My source of information is your own postings with some common sense. A participation certificate is not a Grammy trophy, nor would recipients of a certificate appear on stage or have their names called out during the ceremony. When an NFL team wins the Super Bowl, not everyone in the entire winning organization receives a ring and can say they "won the Super Bowl". They can say they worked on the team that won the Super Bowl. It's the same thing here, and in this case it means he's not notable, as he himself was not named as a nominee. Maybe others disagree, and you can certainly try resubmitting, but I don't think he's notable, sorry. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully I think you are wrong.
To use your analogy though, the NFL awards the trophy to the "team" and the players get rings (participation awards).
In this case, SugarRay Rayford received the nomination for the album, and Matt was on a player 'on the team' who DIRECTLY helped create that album. The academy rightfully recognizes "anyone who was creatively or professionally involved in a GRAMMY-winning or GRAMMY-nominated recording."
I assert this IS the same as being nominated.
And YES i will keep trying. Jah98000 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving that issue aside, you still need independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of him and discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about him. He might qualify under WP:BIO more broadly if such coverage exists, that discusses his personal influence. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out from the Grammy Rule Book (Contemporary Blues Album) Jah98000 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Matt contributed 100% to that album Jah98000 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reading the Grammy rulebook, I do not believe that a participation certificate is equivalent to being awarded a Grammy. He needs to actually be named as a nominee. We'll just have to disagree there. If you have sources that discuss his contribution to or influence on the album, please summarize them in the draft. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm making a bunch of silly mistakes today aren't I? As you asked nicely I will un-reject but don't submit it again until that notability has been proven. Qcne (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 10 December 2023 review of submission by Preksha30

[edit]

I have made the required changes. how to submit the page for review? Preksha30 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't, and my rejection still stands so you cannot. Qcne (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tone is totally unacceptable for an encyclopaedia article I concur with the rejection. Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_10&oldid=1190129426"