Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< January 22 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 24 >
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 23

[edit]

10:33:26, 23 January 2023 review of submission by "ankitkumarofficial"

[edit]


"ankitkumarofficial" (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:37, 23 January 2023 review of draft by BethanyGraceAB

[edit]


Hi, I am trying to work out how my draft got the comment that all articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I am confused because none of the references and citations have been produced by Cytiva. All of them are independent of the subject. Can you help clarify please?

BethanyGraceAB (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BethanyGraceAB If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. You should also read conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place to document the existence of a company and tell what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. The key here is "significant coverage"; coverage that goes beyond just telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as significant or influential about the company, not what it sees as significant about itself. Your sources are almost exclusively announcements of the activities of the company, which does not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BethanyGraceAB: There are a couple of things here. First, Cytiva is a company that in one sense has a fairly long history, in the form of older companies that have been merged and/or bought and changed their names and so on. Several of those companies are clearly notable, and there are articles about Pharmacia and GE HealthCare and Amersham plc, and even about Pharmacia & Upjohn – and a considerable part of Draft:Cytiva is about the history of those companies. I don't see the relevance of any of the acquisitions and mergers listed in the History section up until the Danaher Corporation sub-section. Secondly, you say that All of [the references] are independent of the subject – I'm afraid that is not correct, though. Sources 1 and 2 are two copies of the same press release, slightly rephrased. That it is a press release would have been evident even if there had only been one copy. Source 3 is an interview with a Cytiva manager. Source 4 is another press release. 5 is a listing in a business directory, clearly written by the company itself. So it's definitely not the case that all sources are independent.
So the first thing to do is cut away a lot of the content that isn't really about Cytiva, and finding actually independent sources (I found this and maybe one or two others but it does seem to be a bit hard) – if such sources can't be found to show that WP:CORPDEPTH is met, it would be better to add a section to GE HealthCare or Danaher Corporation about the current name. --bonadea contributions talk 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:47, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Rockoutto

[edit]

Hello, previously the article was not posted because "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Since then PHELIXX LAKE has been added to playlists consisting of 666K Likes curated officially by Spotify as well as released music through the Ghost Killer Entertainment youtube channel consisting of 260K subscribers. Please reconsider to include the topic/band. Rockoutto (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockoutto Being on large number of playlists or a large number of social media followers is not one of the notability criteria for bands. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:47, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Mayukhsenkar

[edit]

Hello all, I got the following message on the review of the submission. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

It seems I have referenced sources adequately and all sources are vetted and reliable. Including sources from reputed national dailies. Please let me know what changes to do, to get the write up published successfully.

Could someone please help and explain the reason behind decline in a little more detail?

Thank You very very much

Mayukhsenkar (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mayukhsenkar YouTube, Sportskeeda and Facebook are not reliable sources so those need to be removed along with any content attributed to them. See also the the notability guidelines for people. S0091 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sportskeeda has been cited for other notable sportspersons of the same stature. Please check the WP: verification and WP : Notablity for information on sports. The YT reference is not a reference to a random video but a National Radio Broadcast as per secondary sources in the Guidelines of Golden Rules of Wiki. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mayukhsenkar That other articles do the same wrong thing doesn't mean you can do it too. It just means we haven't gotten around to removing it yet. See other stuff exists. The YouTube video does not seem to be from a verified channel of a media outlet- the only time a YouTube video is acceptable as a source. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The verified media outlet has been contacted by the interested parties, as per public knowledge, the authencity of the video is not in question. As supported by WP: verification. In any case National radio Broadcast was before the occurrence of Notable Event according to WP: notability, for which the person qualifies and citations corroborate. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying the video is not authentic, it simply needs to be from a verified YouTube channel. The guidelines for athletes have changed- athletes must meet the notability guidelines for people; the sports guidelines page is merely a list of topics that are expected to receive the coverage needed to meet the notable people guidelines. It used to be that appearing in the Olympics was sufficient to merit an article, but that is no longer the case. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reference for the claim "It used to be that appearing in the Olympics was sufficient to merit an article, but that is no longer the case." A verified YT channel would mean a channel where identity is established according to YT guidelines, which the present video qualifies for. The notability of the athlete is not only established by Olympic participation but by World Championship wins and Elite level competitions as can be seen from the Sportdata reference, which was again used for his qualification into Olympics. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All appearance criteria were removed from the sports guidelines after an extensive discussion; please see the sports guideline page, if you are really interested you can find the discussion in the talk page archives. The information about him winning world championships is not in the lead; that should be there instead of supposedly appearing in the Olympics; I'm seeing in other discussions that he did not actually compete in the actual Olympics, but in test events beforehand. That statement should be removed. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source to the sport guideline page, it would be worth to review the change of policies. As per WP: Notable , different corroborative evidences could be accumulated to break the threshold of notablity.
Please provide further details regarding "actual Olympics", as a suggestion/ middle ground, I can rephrase to "Attended Olympics 2020" which has been well sourced elsewhere. Please provide affirmation. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very invested in this athlete, do you have an association with him? 331dot (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have an association with him. Nor do I have any involvement, had that been so, I would have recused myself from this article as per Wikipedia:How_to_create_a_page Mayukhsenkar (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sports guidelines- which are now just a supplement to the general notable person definition may be found at WP:NSPORT. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thank you so much for directing. Much appreciated. Please provide affirmation to the rephrase cited above. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the Olympics should be mentioned at all; tens of thousands of people attend the Olympics. If he's won world championships, the draft should focus on that. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thank you for your suggestion but notablity is further enhanced with the athlete being an official attendee of Tokyo2020, which is over and above his previous achievements. Not mentioning the Olympic at all would be a mis-information and render the article not up-to-date. In the present scenario a rephrase seems the only factually correct option. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics should not be in the lead. It could be in the body, but tens of thousands of people attend the Olympics, that doesn't make them notable. If he had medaled, that would be different, but it doesn't even seem like he competed. Winning world championships is more significant than attending the Olympics. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can restructure the wording. His world championship track record is already sourced. The fact that his extra-ordinary achievements make him noteworthy and further consolidated by his Olympic stint. "Doesnt even seem like he competed" is a conjecture which would be factually incorrect. Please advise on the rephrase. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hoax. There was no 2009 World Championship - they were held in 2008 and 2010. MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie Please check the sportdata reference shown previously on the other thread. "Its a hoax" I would advise you for courteousness and non-hyphenated response on this forum. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That lists ranking in the Cadet World Championships - the kids league. Not the same thing at all, and not notable. The article is definitely misstating. MrOllie (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Sportdata Rules of 2008, the Sporting points are transferrable, "Kids league" is an undermining language, please refrain.
The Tokyo 2020 criteria warrants participants over the age of 16, athlete's World championship and "World Cup" 2009 rank was translated to Junior category which is an age group starting at 16, which is in turn used for distribution of points. Hence, making the athlete eligible to Tokyo 2020 and subsequent NOC endorsement.
Kindly perform due diligence before misinterpreting. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is so convoluted I can't make sense of it. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the evidence on Sportdata page, sure you are not the one to find evidence, however, quite amusingly reviewers are the ones to reject it at first instance, with a bare minimum insight into the qualification and relevancy.
Please elaborate on the "convoluted" instance, an explanation would surely be able to answer. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Karate at the 2020 Summer Olympics indicates that no Indians competed. Test events beforehand don't count. I would just change the opening to mention the world championships he won. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-match events at Tokyo 2020 come under aegis of Tokyo 2020 OC Rules, count or not count should and is not decided arbitrarily when the athlete has been given WOA member title and is an Olympic 365 mentor. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he competed, the IOC would have a record of that. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Please check the WKF links to find the IOC record of the event stated. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not up to me to find your evidence, you must provide it. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In collaboration of efforts a volunteer platform like wiki, functions on day to day basis. A better and conducive approach towards fellow volunteers would not harm. In response to your message :
https://www.wkf.net/news-center-new/ready-steady-tokyo-karate-test-event-underway-at-nippon-budokan/1060, https://olympics.com/en/news/karate-follows-judo-with-successful-budokan-test, https://www.wkf.net/news-center-new/ready-steady-tokyo-karate-test-event-shows-karates-determination-to-shine-at-olympic-games/1061 Mayukhsenkar (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Test events are not the Olympics. Only a competition where an Olympic medal is the possible end result is "the Olympics". I would tend to agree with MrOllie that you seem to be exaggerating this person's accomplishments. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collaboration does not mean I have to make your case for you. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-match and events which are part of the Olympic event constitute an Olympic event coming under the aegis of Olympics, as per LOC guidelines. Please provide a source of the claim of definition of Olympic event as stated by you.
You can agree with xyz and more, it does not alter the established relevance and factual misinterpretations provided by him. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine your definition of volunteering is superfluous, however, I do not recall asking you to make a "case" for me. Please do not make hyperboles like the other reviewer and please do not mis-state. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:26, 23 January 2023 review of submission by El Indio Deportivo

[edit]


El Indio Deportivo (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:44, 23 January 2023 review of submission by JDHumphreys

[edit]


JDHumphreys (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my article on a feminist writer and thought-leader keeps being rejected. First for a bad citation I made (to Daily Mail), which I corrected. Then for notability (so I added additional references, and a reminder that women working collectively like this person does are often only acknowledged peripherally). Then on chat for being "a subject that is quite volatile right now" (meaning feminism). My concerns are that it is being rejected because it is not a subject of nuanced interest to the Wiki editors. It is, however, of great interest to the larger, decades-long topic of women in society -- people like this subject (whom I have read about for many years) need to be acknowledged for their role in moving this important global conversation (that affects the lives of half the planet's population) forward over decades. Would love some expert advice on how to improve the article and have it approved. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joanne_Sandler

20:32:47, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Brava55

[edit]

The page was rejected by Mattdaviesfsic because it was written by someone with the same surname as the person in question: Naief Yehya. Is this a rule that disqualifies a submission? Are there any doubts about the veracity of the information? It also says that "a lot being unsourced". Could the reviewer be more specific? Thank you in advance.Brava55 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Brava55 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brava55 Please communicate with the reviewer directly on their user talk page to ask them specific questions. It is not forbidden to write an autobiographical article, but it is highly discouraged. (see WP:AUTO) People writing about themselves must set aside everything that they know about themselves and all materials they put out and only write based on what independent reliable sources say about them. That's usually very hard for people to do about themselves. Most attempts at autobiographies in my experience fail because the person wants to post their resume or list their accomplishments, not write an encyclopedia article. While I do not speak for the reviewer, perhaps they felt the prospect of the draft being written as an encyclopedia article was low. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brava55 If this draft is not written by its subject, please make sure the reviewer knows that, when you contact them. David10244 (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for your response. The article was not written by the subject. I'll contact the reviewer. Brava55 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:32, 23 January 2023 review of submission by Charles pines

[edit]

i would like to have this article published as this will gratly help the mental health of the peolple Charles pines (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to help people's mental health on another website. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:30:57, 23 January 2023 review of submission by El Indio Deportivo

[edit]


This is a podcast of wrestling, the data is on facebook, instagram and youtube, that have the videos of interviews with wrestlers, analysis of wrestketling show. All are jornalist. That make a tremendods work. is something serious. The fans what to know more about us, and youtube and instagram has the evidence of that with a good base of fans.

El Indio Deportivo (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_January_23&oldid=1256555946"