Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< July 10 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 12 >
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.


July 11

[edit]

00:36, 11 July 2023 review of submission by 92.11.81.211

[edit]

There are multiple references to the BBC TV and Radio writer Rob Kinsman on Wikipedia including for his episodes of Father Brown Mysteries and Doctors. He also created and wrote the 2023 Channel 5 series Blindspot, broadcast on Channel 5 in the UK in July 2023 starring Ross Kemp, and has written for BBC Radio.

I don’t have the technical know-how to add sources which are already available on Wikipedia, it would be helpful if a more senior editor could tie some of these in to the draft article so that it may be published. 

92.11.81.211 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your link for proper display (you were missing the "Draft:"). 331dot (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Referencing for beginners to learn more about creating references. It's also not enough to merely document his work, you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this man, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:56, 11 July 2023 review of submission by 223.123.15.79

[edit]

The Page Ducky Bhai is about a Pakistani Youtuber who’s getting me paid for writing this article. Please give me assistance 223.123.15.79 (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected. Do not try to resubmit it again. Instead use other outlets, such as social media, to promote Ducky Bhai. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been rejected and will not be reconsidered. Please read WP:PAID, a mandatory policy. We expect declared paid editors to be competent. Your only reference is to IMDb, which is primarily user generated content and therefore not a reliable source. See WP:IMDB for the consensus on its general unreliability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:10, 11 July 2023 review of submission by ShibuEalayil

[edit]

I have submitted an article, but it got rejected , please hep me with assistence ShibuEalayil (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! As this is most likely an autobiography, if you think you are notable someone else will eventually create an article for you. However the use of bare links and no sources are the main reason for decline. Please add more reliable sources to help verify all information. Karnataka (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:48, 11 July 2023 review of submission by Mustachian Post

[edit]

Hey there,

This is my very first time on article creation on Wikipedia. I purposefully waited 10y since my blog exists. And I took all the necessary precautions to not make it sound commercial in any way.

May you let me know what I could do better (which line exactly) to get it accepted? Mustachian Post (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is meant to promote the blog, and therefore has been rejected - please do not resubmit this. The use of weasel words such as "thought provoking", "dedicated" etc. do not help with this article being published. The references are just features of the blog, whereas large parts of it remain unsourced. If your blog is notable, someone else will make an article for it eventually. Karnataka (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 11 July 2023 review of submission by Vproductions123

[edit]

As per our knowledge we have edited and published this article. we request you to please feed us the knowledge where we need to correct and what we need to do. Vproductions123 (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! How many people use this account, based on the word "we"? Vproductions123 Karnataka (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided sources, but it is not clear what the sources are citing. The sources must be in-line with the text, next to the information they are supporting. See referencing for beginners for more information.
If you are associated with this actor, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:20, 11 July 2023 review of submission by Xardwen

[edit]

Hi,

I have a somewhat complex situation regarding an article I'm trying to get approved for creation; the article in question is on post-finasteride syndrome (PFS), which was the subject of a dispute in 2021 over whether there were enough credible medical sources to warrant an article on the subject. As a result of this dispute, the PFS article was changed into a redirect for Finasteride, and was locked from editing by user:Acroterion.

I recently drafted an article which I hope addresses the concerns raised in the 2021 dispute, and submitted it for review; however, it was declined with a note that I should seek consensus on the Talk page for Finasteride as to whether a separate article should be created for PFS. I left a post on the Talk page, and have also reached out to user:Acroterion to solicit their opinion. As of yet, I have received no responses after about a week.

In the event that no one feels compelled to comment and help reach a consensus, how should I go about navigating this situation?

Thanks, Xardwen (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no one comments, resubmit the draft and note on the talk page that you asked for comment but no one replied. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 11 July 2023 review of submission by 176.229.216.92

[edit]

Hi, I could not understand the reason for declining my draft. May someone explain me which part of the draft was not cited/not cited correctly? I could not understand it from the attached links.. Thank you! 176.229.216.92 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor,
There are large sections of your draft that are entirely uncited (the entirety of Research and teaching section and most of Biography, for example). You also need to fix the references as they are appearing under External links, which is the wrong place for them.
Check out a good article from Wikipedia:Good articles to see how you should be citing properly. Qcne (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanl you for your quick reply!
I did find some sources that confirm roles Paldor currently occupying. But what should I do with degrees or places he graduated? I dont have his diplomas.. Are diplomas are good to confirm this facta? Or this is not what you ment? Because I have never seen diplomas on Wikipedia.. BnayaMeir (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find sources for biographical facts, then I am afraid you can't include them. Have a read of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which is a comprehensive explanation of how to source information for living people. Qcne (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomas are not published sources and have no place on Wikipedia, BnayaMeir. If reliable sources do not discuss the schools he was educated in, and his degrees, then this information does not belong on Wikipedia. Just leave it out, along with any other unreferenced content. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, BnayaMeir, remove all puffery like most internationally acclaimed and unprecedented international recognition. Wikipedia articles are written from the neutral point of view. We neither praise good people nor denounce bad people in Wikipedia's voice. Any evaluative language needs to be cited to and attributed to reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 11 July 2023 review of submission by Art Therapy Resources

[edit]

Hi, I have submitted a page with the title Queer topics in Art Therapy. Reading list. There is a feminist reading list on Wikipedia already, so this page is following that established precedent.

Somehow it got declined, so please guide me on how I can move on with this further.


Thank you Art Therapy Resources (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Art Therapy Resources.
Unfortunately, the existence of an existing Wikipedia article should not be used as a guide to make a new article (unless it has Wikipedia:Good articles status). Could you link the feminist reading list you've found, as I cannot find an existing article with that name?
The reviewer declined your article as it contravenes the WP:NOTDATABASE policy. If you want to try again with this article, start from scratch and instead summarise what independent, third party, reliable sources state about queer art therapy.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 11 July 2023 review of submission by FromAbilityToNeed

[edit]

The speedy deletion for this article was reverted, because it is not unambiguously promotional. The current draft is based on independent secondary sources and describes the practice of an internationally recognized (i.e., notable) collective of Dutch (multidisciplinary) artists. The page has partially been translated from the existing Dutch wikipedia page (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAAF), but in my own words and on the basis of relevant English-language sources. What would need to change in order to publish it on wikipedia? FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FromAbilityToNeed. Sentences like Through multidisciplinary research with scientists, visual artists, experimental architects, and craftsmen, RAAAF creates artworks that invite reflection on practices and policies connected with the contemporary environments in which we work and live. are unambiguously promotional. The tone of that sentence is utterly inappropriate for a neutrally written encyclopedia, and is far more appropriate for RAAAF's own website. To be frank, the mere presence of an article on the Dutch Wikipedia is of no relevance on the English Wikipedia. They have their own policies and guidelines, and we have ours. They have poor quality articles and we have poor quality articles, and Wikipedias in any language do not need more poor quality articles. We need less of them. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen328, thank you for your reply. I see what you mean about the tone of that sentence. I am afraid I might have been a little bit too enthusiastic. That being said, it still seems to me, however, an established fact that the artists at RAAAF have been cooperating with scientists, architects and all kinds of academic professionals. I have found a lot of academic literature that establishes this, but for this wikipedia article I decided to include only some notable secondary sources that were not academic. For example, in the Wired article I used as a source (see: https://www.wired.com/2014/12/weirdest-proposal-yet-office-future/), it says that "RAAAF has invited rotating groups of workers---philosophers, writers, psychology students, designers, and artists, to name a few examples---to post up in the "The End of Sitting" and offer feedback. Researchers from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands are documenting the results and will be publishing the findings next spring". Would you not say that the references I supplied at least establish sufficient notability? If so, should the article not be rewritten using a better, more neutral, tone/style, instead of being rejected? I am rather new to wikipedia, but I very much intend for the article to comply with the wikipedia guidelines. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wired article is based on an interview, and so is not independent; I'm also not sure that it amounts to significant coverage of RAAAF. In order to contribute to establishing notability a source must be all three of reliable, independent and containing significant coverage of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ColinFine, thank you for your reply. I thought I had taken care to pick sources that are reliable and independent according to wikipedia's standards. From reading the criteria, though, I do not quite see how interviews are necessarily excluded by the independence criterion? Surely Wired has no stake in whether or not RAAAF comes across well? I would very much appreciate it if I could be given further understanding about what I might be missing here.
Furthermore, I do understand that sources need to be reliable, independent and contain significant coverage. I am not sure however, how to approach significant coverage, in the case of the artists I am describing. I see them being covered not just by national newspapers (which I thought not to include due to paywalls and non-english language), and internationally by media (that I did reference in the article) like Wired, The New York Times Style Magazine (see: https://archive.nytimes.com/tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/the-architecture-biennale-a-last-look/), and ArchDaily (see: https://www.archdaily.com/69189/vacant-nl-an-exhibition-during-the-venice-biennale). Thanks again for your reply and thank you in advance for taking the time to respond. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are by definition the person speaking about themselves, that is not independent even if the outlet publishing the interview is. Interviews can be used for other purposes, but not for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 331dot! I understand that the parts where people talk about themselves (the information that they provide there) are not independent. But cannot the decision by the outlet to do an interview in itself already be a sign of notability? In this case, the RAAAF artists are interviewed about an artwork that they created, does this not establish that they were notable (independently of whatever they might say about themselves)? FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that an outlet conducted and published an interview does not establish notability. I'm not saying it is in this case, but interviews are sometimes paid promotional pieces. If something drew their attention to the subject of the interview, we need to know what that was and the mere fact that an interview occurred does not do that. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand. And an outlet that would publish a paid promotional piece would not be reliable, correct? I do not have a reason to think that this specific article was a paid promotion. The reason they did the interview, in all likelyhood, was because the artwork was inviting attention to health risks connected to sitting. The Wired article introduces what I think drew their attention to this artwork: "A couple years ago, after research about the health risks of prolonged sitting came to light, a wave of standing desks hit the market. Big companies like Ikea and Steelcase have rolled out standing desk designs; others are even attached to treadmills or recumbent bikes. While these certainly get workers up and off their derrieres, once an employee selects one of these models (and presumably goes through the company’s facilities manager to get it installed) she’s married to that particular product and posture." FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that "signs of notability" doesn't make sense in the context of Wikipedia. The criteria of notability are not about whether the subject is important, influential, famous, or popular, but about whether there is sufficient published material to ground an article. And while a limited amount of information from non-independent sources may eventually be included in an article, that "sufficient published material to ground an article" cannot include any information which comes from the subject or their associates. ColinFine (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my wording was confusing there, I meant "test of notability" as it is described in the reliability criterion (in the general notability guideline). Just to check if I am still at the same page: what I am trying to find out is whether or not all of my three listed references fail to meet all three of the criteria of being reliable, independent and containing significant coverage. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 11 July 2023 review of submission by NobleYeats

[edit]

Hello! I am trying to get a page published for BVGroup. My draft has been rejected, but don't understand why the references are not acceptable. The industry news sites are reliable and reputable. Many of the references are the same as used in the BetVictor Wikipedia page which is already published. (BetVictor is now just one of the brands managed by BVGroup). Please could someone tell me which references are not acceptable in my draft, so that I can change them or delete them? I just want to get something published with the basic neutral facts about BVGroup. Many thanks NobleYeats (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
Your draft summarizes the routine business activities of the company. That's not what is being looked for. 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 the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, and brief mentions do not establish notability. We are looking for sources that go beyond that coverage and discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about the company as they see it, not as the company sees itself. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NobleYeats, your draft is not so much about BVGroup as it is about BVGroup branding. The word "brand" appears at least eleven times in your short draft. Branding is fundamentally a marketing and promotional activity, and such behavior is forbidden on Wikipedia. When I read your draft, I learn very little about the specific services the company offers, other than corporate-speak jargon like provider of full-service, end-to-end technology solutions. There is no actual encyclopedic content in those words, but rather vacuous corporate preening that belongs on the company's website, not in a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 11 July 2023 review of submission by Deligma

[edit]

I got declined 2 times and I'm trying to write the wiki page,i did write in my bio and following the rules I'm the main developer of the game,so i don't know what other sources i should link to Deligma (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Deligma.
I'm afraid your game is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please read Wikipedia:Notability which explains what we mean by "notability".
You would need several references from independent, third party sources that are unconnected with your game. This means not from your game's Steam page, not from a press release, not from an interview, etc. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability for an explanation of the sort of references an article would need.
As the creator of the game, you should also not be creating articles directly due to your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If your game becomes notable enough to pass the Wikipedia notability threshold then one of the Wikipedia volunteers will likely create an article about it.
Finally, on a small note, I notice that you had some odd usage of commas in your draft article - we require a space after every comma. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_11&oldid=1166035719"