Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 14 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 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.


January 15

[edit]

04:42:38, 15 January 2023 review of submission by Aben tc 1997

[edit]


Aben tc 1997 (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@aben tc 1997: erm, your draft is only 2 urls. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:12, 15 January 2023 review of submission by Waveice

[edit]

Hi, As you mentioned that the place is not significantly notable, but if you just look over google, you will see the google maps data along with local news reports. In fact, Govt. site of Bangladesh also listed the mosque as a notable place. The mosque is also very old established in 1839 AC and reconstructed in 2020. Please re-review. Thank You. Waveice (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waveice The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further- no amount of editing can confer notability on this structure. Being old is not enough, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:35, 15 January 2023 review of submission by Varunkrishnaoff

[edit]

Varun Krishna https://g.co/kgs/tN37Mr https://m.imdb.com/name/nm12989483/ Varunkrishnaoff (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Varunkrishnaoff If you have a comment to make, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This may be easier to do in full desktop mode, even in a browser on a device; the mobile and app versions of Wikipedia do not have full functionality. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://m.imdb.com/name/nm12989483/ Varunkrishnaoff (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Varunkrishnaoff I'm not sure why you are posting a link; please communicate with us in text. IMDB is not considered a valid source on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am varun Krishna an Indian Musician.i have created Wikipedia page for me instead of other using fake information about me. Varunkrishnaoff (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Varunkrishnaoff I don't believe that there is any information, fake or otherwise, about you on Wikipedia. Not every musician merits a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:31:15, 15 January 2023 review of draft by Rachbad

[edit]


Does the listing of education need to have a citation? Rachbad (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachabad yes, everything need a citation. Currently the only "citations" in the draft are nothing more than mere proof of the existence of a few books. There's nothing to prove any of the books' significance. For books in general the rule of thumb is cite professional reviews, not book sellers.
The "Career" section is currently simply a list of job titles, there's no context, no claims of significance and no sources at all. In fact the draft doesn't even prove something as simple as his birthdate.
Take a step back; first look for and sort your sources, then arrange the basic facts (you've sort-of got this part already done) then cite every claim or fact to a source. Next take another deeper read through the sources and pull out more details. Your current infobox mentions a wife and children, do any of your sources say when and where he got married? You're writing a biography, not merely a resumé. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rachbad I've just read the Jerusalem Post article you've listed as an external link. It's a gold mine of context and detail about Elkins' military career, so use it as a source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The J-P article mentions that he lives in Jerusalem, that's a significant fact. Try to find a source for when he emigrated from the US to Israel. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:20:36, 15 January 2023 review of draft by Raylaur15

[edit]


I have submitted a draft of the article Los Pleneros de la 21 from my Sandbox. The article was redirected to a draft page while it awaits review. How do I clear my Sandbox page so I can begin another article (on another subject) while I wait to see if the Los Pleneros draft is accepted? thanks! Raylaur15

Raylaur15 (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raylaur15 I have cleared the redirect. If that happens to you again, the page you end up on has a link to the page you were redirected from at the top, which you can use to actually get to the original page. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot: Got it. Thanks so much!!
Raylaur15 2603:7000:8106:B298:548:D99D:C5CB:89FD (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot: One more question. After you cleared the redirect from my sandbox, I have begun working on a new article. Only problem is I don't see the "Submit your Draft for Review" blue button after I add content and save by hitting "Publish Page...." I'm not ready to submit yet, but when I am what do I do? Do I just hit the "Move" button to submit the article? Or is there something else I need to hit to bring up that "Submit your Draft for Review" blue button?
Please advise.
thanks, raylaur15 2603:7000:8106:B298:AD05:3924:9B7E:1BC5 (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:05:22, 15 January 2023 review of submission by Farsiexplain

[edit]

Hi i want to edit and publish my article about Roy Patrick Streamer but its not acceptable for to publish on Wikipedia. Could you guys please help me to fix this error? Farsiexplain (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info Famous People, Farsi Explain and Characters Wiki are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:19, 15 January 2023 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:BE32:FF00:DCE6:192A:E4C5:B905

[edit]


2A02:C7C:BE32:FF00:DCE6:192A:E4C5:B905 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:16:26, 15 January 2023 review of submission by Farsiexplain

[edit]

Dear @Theroadislong, as I mentioned in the comment that I am new to Wikipedia for creating articles, I don't know much about how to use refs on articles. So if you just give me a hint or fix my article that would really help me out with this article. Farsiexplain (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, you do not appear to be notable as Wikipedia defines it, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:45, 15 January 2023 review of draft by UnitNest

[edit]


Hello! I am working on a new article for the High School Republican National Federation. This page recently got declined, but I still believe the topic deserves an article. What changes will help this article get approved? Thanks! UnitNest (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UnitNest Your draft has no independent reliable sources to support its content. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not for merely documenting the existence of a topic. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:04:56, 15 January 2023 review of submission by TooLebby

[edit]
OP blocked, draft deleted. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The rejection is situated around the belief of myself having a financial gain with promoting or editing pages. This is not the case. I do no gain anything by creating or editing articles. Also, I have no connection with this subject.

Please consider re-reviewing this draft.

Thank you. TooLebby (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reason the draft was rejected. It will not be considered again. --bonadea contributions talk 21:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Please explain why you declined the draft. Do not link anything, I want an explanation here. —-TooLebby (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like an answer from the person who declined the draft. They need to include more of an in depth response than just “the submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.”
That is not enough. Just because the draft had been declined before, does not mean it should be declined again. Especially after I and many others have put in work to ensure that the draft meets requirements to become an article.

A simple comment to say what the draft needs to change in order to be accepted is all I request. TooLebby (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that there is nothing that you or anyone can do. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is simply not true. Admins often suggest that if a draft is rejected, that you listen to the comments and you improve the draft. Why else would there be a resubmit button? Also, there is plenty of information, articles which are included in the citations and websites that show that the person who the article is about is notable. Basically, everything about your comment is wrong.

Again, I have no valid response regarding the decline.

I have every right to suggest that this is biased decision making and will have no choice but to take things further.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TooLebby (talk • contribs)
There isn't a "further" to go to. You are free to make a community appeal here and argue that everyone who has looked at your draft is in error, and that this person meets the notability definition. I'm not sure what "bias" you are alleging, but that is a serious accusation that requires evidence; not being told what you want to hear is not bias. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is literally the same as others. Pettiness. It has nothing to do with “not hearing what I want to hear”, it is about being biased. Which the decision was, it is clear. I’m not alleging, it is facts. You accused me of a personal attack which is a huge allegation. So I could take that further as well. All I wanted was a serious and helpful response but yet you and other cannot and will not give it to me. Please improve on your social skills. Do not bother responding because you’re not helping the matter and are clearly abusing your status. Move on. Good luck with everything. Thanks. TooLebby (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't said what response you want that you aren't getting. The reasons for rejection are clearly given on the draft. I want to help you, but you have to come halfway and not make personal attacks. There is no "bias" involved here. The person is not notable according to our definition. What is the source of your strong investment in this draft? Please sign your posts with four tildes. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear what I am asking. You can see that many comments ago, whether it’s on this page or my talk page. Again, you’re accusing me of personal attacks? I’m going to assume that you’re personally attacking me by continuing to accuse me of that. Like I explained to you, it is nothing personally towards you and I mean no disrespect towards you. No hate involved either. The person is notable, way more notable than many other people who have articles on Wikipedia. Please explain why you do not believe this person is notable. Anything wrong with the citations? No, they are verified and highly resourced news websites. Information? There is plenty of it. The persons career is based on the internet, so how can he not be notable enough for a Wikipedia ON the internet? That is why I believe it is bias decision making. It is also clear that those who review the drafts are not doing their job properly. Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion. I got notified that the user who reviewed the draft believed I was getting paid to edit. That is crazy. A simple edit and I get accused of that. Even when I request a review, I get turned down immediately without hesitation.

TooLebby (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TooLebby Please read other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. 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. If you would like to help us out, feel free to identify other inappropriate articles that do not meet our criteria.
Please read for yourself the last deletion discussion regarding an article about this person at ,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deji (Youtuber); there are links to further deletion discussions there as well. He is not notable by association. He is not notable as a boxer. He is not notable as a musician. No, being on the internet does not make him a notable person. The sources offered do not seem to be significant coverage of him.
This person has been the subject of repeated, failed efforts to create an article about him, and it usually fails on notability. I'm not sure what the source of your strong investment in this topic is, but you aren't the first to attempt this. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, I am not getting paid to edit. Again, he is notable. He is notable in association, boxing and the internet. He is associated by Britain’s largest YouTube group (they have a Wikipedia), his brother (he has a Wikipedia), boxing (recently fought one of the most famous boxers of this generation and went all over the internet) and his career is built through the internet meaning that he IS known on the internet, otherwise he wouldn’t even be discussed. I really just think that most staff or users are lazy on Wikipedia and do not want to reverse their first decision. This person ticks the box of every criteria to be an article, regardless of how much you try to convince me otherwise. Wikipedia needs to do better. TooLebby (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Groups do not "have a Wikipedia". Wikipedia is the name of this entire website composed of articles. I didn't say you were paid- I asked what the source of your strong investment(by which I mean emotional) in this topic is. The logical fallacies with your position are obvious. It's clear that you are disappointed that you aren't being told what you want to hear and do not want to listen to the advice of more experienced(not "better") users. I and others are happy to change decisions when they need to be changed- there is no evidence whatsoever that it needs to be here, though. I've explained why he's not notable but you do not listen(based on other comments you made I think you probably didn't even read the pages I linked to). 331dot (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would not have needed to waste your time arguing if you had read the rejection reason to begin with, TooLebby. To quote the closing statement in one of the discussions that were linked from the rejection: [T]he community is frustrated with the many disruptive attempts to evade scrutiny and to game an article about this topic into Wikipedia, and decides to keep the article deleted. That was just a couple of months ago. --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, it’s not the fact that I’m disappointed but the fact that you and the other user comments do not make sense. You actually believe that the subject is not notable yet I’ve explained many times how he is notable. Do your own research if you do not believe me and other who have put forward that draft and have worked to ensure it meets the requirements (which it does). You can repeat yourself all you like but you’re still wrong. You’re only going off of your own opinion. You’ve said that there is no evidence that suggest this person is notable, when there is plenty. Like I’ve said, articles, associates and his career starting on the internet. His citations and references are legitimate news articles and websites. News articles in the UK and USA meaning that the person is notable in multiple countries. That isn’t notable enough? Like I’ve said, Wikipedia is lazy and do not like or want to overturn silly decisions.
Bonadea - I suggest that you stop reviewing drafts as I have done my research on your decision and have found that many people have disagreed with them. Not only do you quickly decline the drafts, but you avoid answering when someone queries it. In my opinion, you should have no role in deciding whether a draft is accepted or declined because clearly you’ve made another mistake. Before you decline anything, do your research.
If I do not see this decision overturned I will have no choice but to put forward a Arbitration report. Thanks. TooLebby (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing here to arbitrate- ArbCom does not take up this sort of disagreement with established policies that a user simply disagrees with. But you can try if you want. If this person is, say, notable as a boxer, please tell which criteria they meet as a boxer; and/or tell the criteria they meet as a musician. People have tried and failed for years. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't up to me to prove that he is notable for you. If you have all these sources, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you’re only focusing on those two careers? What about his main one? You’re attempting to say that he isn’t notable for boxing as he, as the page shows, hasn’t won a boxing title or boxed as an amateur. So how does his brother include boxing on his article? He has never won a boxing belt or boxed as an Amateur. If you want to get technical, then yes they have had an amateur boxing match. I have plenty of comments and information to put forward a Arbitration report. It is clear how biased the decision making is. Continuously contradicting yourselfs. You want sources? Check the draft. Which clearly hasn’t been done. Otherwise you’d understand that the draft contains resources all around the world to show that enough people know this person for them to have a Wikipedia article. I never claimed you decide whether people are notable enough, I just don’t appreciate the blatant lies and responses. TooLebby (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have lied about nothing, I have been civil and honest with you. You still have not shared the source of your significant investment in this draft- but okay, if he meets the broad definition of a notable person, please offer right here your three best sources that demonstrate that. "Being on the internet" does not make him notable in and of itself. If independent sources describe him as significant or influential, please show that. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about how many people know him or his number of followers- if you think it is, you are operating under a severe misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it isn’t about the number of followers. Wikipedia is more interested in articles that involve the subject. I’ve added some of these news articles below.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-50860939 (biggest UK news page)

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/youtube-star-deji-fined-after-dog-bit-neighbour-as-cctv-of-attack-released-11890830

https://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/12747104/floyd-mayweathers-exhibition-with-youtuber-deji-ends-by-stoppage-inside-six-rounds (UK’s biggest sport news website)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2022/11/22/floyd-mayweather-jr-vs-deji-olatunji-first-ever-boxing-match-streamed-in-the-metaverse/amp/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/deji-floyd-mayweather-youtube-news-28414603.amp (Another huge news page in the U.K.)

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/boxing/1697461/Floyd-Mayweather-Deji-Olatunji-YouTube-boxing-news/amp (Another huge UK news page)

https://www.dazn.com/en-GB/news/amp/boxing/what-time-is-floyd-mayweathers-fight-tonight-ringwalks-running-order-streaming-how-to-watch-mayweather-vs-deji/e8ka8232g00jzuz6w9dc8gh2 (Huge sports entertainment platform which is global. The subject also fights on DAZN when he competes in boxing)

https://www.sportbible.com/boxing/deji-vs-alex-wasabi-20220113.amp.html

https://www.sportbible.com/boxing/ksi-deji-boxing-youtube-20220828.amp.html

https://www.sportbible.com/boxing/deji-vs-alex-wassabi-fan-chucked-over-top-rope-in-royal-rumble-style-20220306.amp.html

https://metro.co.uk/2018/02/16/who-is-deji-olatunji-youtuber-and-brother-of-ksi-7318782/amp/

https://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/story/_/id/35021497/floyd-mayweather-jr-stops-deji-olatunji-sixth-round?platform=amp

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/boxing/1694589/Deji-Olatunji-Justin-Bieber-Floyd-Mayweather/amp

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/deji-floyd-mayweather-fight-news-28474387.amp

And that isn’t everything. Like I’ve said, these are big news pages and platforms. TooLebby (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does his dog attacking someone make him significant or influential?
How does his participation in an exhibition boxing match with Floyd Mayweather Jr. make him significant or influential? Keep in mind WP:NOTINHERITED.
How does an announcement of a match make him significant or influential? These are just some preliminary questions I have. And Wikipedia is not interested in "articles about the subject", but articles that offer significant coverage of the subject and discuss its importance or significance as the source sees it. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can disagree as to how notability applies here in good faith; it doesn't make us clueless or biased. But there have been numerous repeated attempts to do what you are trying to do(and you still decline to answer my question as to the source of your strong interest here) and you haven't offered anything new. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your responses support my ‘clueless’ claim. The dog situation was a significant story. His boxing announcements are significant to his career and you ignored the other articles that didn’t include his dog or boxing. How can you continue to be so biased? Serious, how can you continue to act like this? How do you not understand the website which you’re an admin in? Biased. You’re literally going against everything I’ve said and provided. TooLebby (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

23:04:15, 15 January 2023 review of draft by 98.97.34.148

[edit]


The submission was declined. Please call the next user if that user made the submission declined again. 98.97.34.148 (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_January_15&oldid=1134878402"