Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< May 4 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 6 >
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.


May 5

[edit]

06:01, 5 May 2023 review of submission by JennaHTN

[edit]

Hello, what do you mean by reliable source? The sources that I put which are for some of the articles are not enough? Thanks in advance JennaHTN (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JennaHTN: Instagram, YouTube and SoundCloud are not considered reliable sources, and they account for more than half the citations in this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer DoubleGrazing.
Sources 4 and 5 are articles, okay? I confirm certain references are social networks only to support certain remarks and indeed are not sources JennaHTN (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JennaHTN: there are two separate but related issues to do with referencing. The first is notability, to establish which it is usually enough to cite three solid sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria.
The other is verifiability, which means that every material statement must be supported by a reliable published source where the information can be verified. The reviewer is contending that a large proportion of the draft is either not referenced, or seemingly referenced by sources that are not considered reliable, and either way that part of the content is effectively unsupported. And given that sources 4 and 5 (if, for the sake of the argument, one accepts those as reliable) are both cited in the second paragraph only, that means that potentially the entire rest of the draft is either not referenced, or referenced using non-reliable sources, and therefore unsupported. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, what can I do to publish this article in this state? Should I remove unsourced paragraphs? What exactly do you recommend to improve it? JennaHTN (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could not be accepted as it stands, NONE of the sources are reliable or independent. The topic would need to pass the criteria at WP:NSINGER and currently it does not. Theroadislong (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Theroadislong! Sources 4 and 5 are not reliable and independent?? The other sources I agree since the subject has control over them JennaHTN (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JennaHTN No they are not, one doesn't lead to anything about the author and the other looks be written by someone connected to the subject. Sharing a name with the user who uploaded the image to Commons. I will be completely honest you may find it better to spend time on other things at this time. I don't see any evidence this person meets any criteria of WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you very much for your help ! JennaHTN (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Madchef81

[edit]

hello, i tryed to resubmit the entry but i havent received any response...Madchef81 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Madchef81: this draft hasn't been resubmitted since its most recent decline in February, therefore it is not currently pending review. If you wish to resubmit it, you need to click on that blue 'Resubmit' button when you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft as it stands is just blatant advertising with no sources, you will need to start again and summarise what reliable independent sources say about the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"blatant" :D you guys are the worse at comunicating with people! i will try again to make it less obvious, then i drop it, too difficult to pass trough your cencorship Madchef81 (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81: I would call that promotional, also; what would you call it?
For starters, the draft doesn't cite a single source, which suggests (or at least leaves the possibility open) that it isn't based on what independent and reliable secondary sources have said, but rather what you wish to say about the organisation.
Wikipedia does not allow promotional content; you may call this 'censorship', we call it policy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i dont know what to call it. in fact i tried to do a normal entry, with links etc but got refused already, with a strange story of having financial gain from it and/or being a payed agent or something. this is rather stupid, Mater Foundationis a NON PROFIT based in switerland that fight hunger and feed people in need, having a wikipedia entry is beneficial to make people know about it. Promotional, Advertisiment et such is business related, profit related. it doesnt apply to us obviously, am i correct? so now i try to add link etc, hopefully you will understand? Madchef81 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81: you say "having a wikipedia entry is beneficial to make people know about it", which is pretty much the definition of 'promotional'.
As for the paid editing query, you have yourself indicated some association with the subject ("hi, i am trying again to create the page for my foundation, all the texts are mine or from website i control my self"), and have at least twice tried to get this article published, hence why the matter has been queried. So far, you've not properly disclosed your relationship, as far as I can see at least; you should do so now, as your very next edit, lest you get sanctioned as an undisclosed paid editor.
Finally, a word of advice: Wikipedia is a collaborative effort between volunteers, and generally things work out smoother for everyone when we try to work together with others, rather than lashing out at every opportunity. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so: i am the founder of the foundation, as i said previously and its also wrote on the entry. get people to know what with do in a, let say, accademic way its very beneficial, it will for example imply that some readers get usefull information to replicate what we do somewhere else in the world. your continuous mention of "paied" implies that we do this for a financial, for profit, end WHICH IT COULDNT BE MORE FAR FROM THE TRUE. i can i prove that to you? materfondazione.com containts all our audits and activity reports for example. i still dont understand you meter of evaluation tho: there are hundreds of pages about non profit foundations that do the same activities... but our foundation is not good? we must be commercial agents!! i dont get it. Madchef81 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81: you have by your own admission a close relationship with the subject, therefore you at the very least have a conflict of interest (COI), and you may also come under our paid-editing rules; either way, you must formally disclose your relationship, either on your user page or on the draft's talk page, or preferably both. Whether your organisation is for-profit or not is immaterial here.
'Promotion' doesn't only mean advertising commercial, for-profit businesses, it means publicising your cause, or 'making people aware'; please see this essay, which explains it well: WP:YESPROMO.
In any case, the draft is promotional in tone and content. This is one of the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself or something you're closely affiliated with, because it can be very difficult to write in a neutral manner without putting a 'spin' on things.
Finally, the sources cited in this draft are insufficient to establish notability, therefore I have just declined it. Please see WP:GNG for the notability guideline which the draft must satisfy in order to be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81 "it doesnt apply to us obviously, am i correct?" Non-profits can and do (often) advertise. Also, non-profits can have paid staff. Your earlier comment saying the article was "refused" based on "payed agent" was probably that someone pointed you to the WP:PAID policy. Anyone who is paid a salary, even if they are paid by a nonprofit, must follow the instructions at the "Paid" link that I included, and disclose that they are paid by the subject of the article. Again, that includes nonprofits, if the article is about a nonprofit. And contrary to what you mentioned, you certainly can get a financial gain from the success of a nonprofit--as many nonprofits get larger and have bigger budgets, their Executive Director, or head of the nonprofit, can get a bigger salary. It is absolutely right that it's hard to write neutrally about an organization that you founded, or an organization that pays you, as DG says. David10244 (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you guys should at least get some infos on the subject you are giving opinions about. please just delete my entry and my account , or please tell me how to do it. This is trash conversation with self appointed "keepr of the knowledge", presumptuous minions, indeed if you are real people and not bots. Madchef81 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Chandrasekharmusic

[edit]

Why my page is rejected Chandrasekharmusic (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chandrasekharmusic: well, technically it wasn't rejected, it was declined and then speedily deleted, but that's just by the by. The reason this draft wasn't accepted is that it was entirely promotional, with no encyclopaedic content, and no reliable sources. Besides that, you shouldn't be writing about yourself (as I assume this was) in any case, for all the reasons explained at WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Matthew Tailor

[edit]

Hello Wikipedia-Editors,

I submitted an article about "Fifty Vinc" for review, a music producer and composer from Germany. It was rejected because I was told the article would not meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO.

Could you explain to my why?

When I read through the WP:MUSICBIO, it says:

- "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film.."

- "Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria" 

Matthew Tailor (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew Tailor: that's not my reading of the review (which, incidentally, resulted in a decline, not rejection). I think the reviewer AngusWOOF is asking you to elaborate on which criterion of MUSICBIO the subject meets, and what evidence supports that, rather than saying categorically it doesn't meet MUSICBIO. I'm sure AngusWOOF will correct me if I misinterpreted that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I'm sorry, of course it was declined NOT rejected. I think I missunderstood the review then.
With reference to the question which criteria the subject meets, I think the following criteria of WP:MUSICBIO are met:
1) Criteria for musicians and ensembles, #10. | "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film"
2) Criteria for composers and lyricists, #3. | "Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria"
I've linked the sources that supports that evidence, e.g. The Source Magazine, IMDb, Westfälische Nachrichten (German newspaper - both printed and digital article about Vincent Jewell), Backspin Magazine, Discogs, Swiss Hitparade and more. Matthew Tailor (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not reference Discogs or IMDb as they are NOT reliable sources. Do not reference YouTube videos either. They are cluttering up the article so that I can't tell what are the secondary sources.
So which work meets #10 and which work meets #3? Can you elaborate on that on the talk page for the draft? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a general question: Is it allowed to use Spotify, Apple Music, Bandcamp or any other of the major streaming platforms as a source? Today it’s very common that musicians / artists releases their music in digital form only. There’s also a metada available where all parties involved are listed in the most cases. Matthew Tailor (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still not notable. Feedback above not addressed. If you keep resubmitting without addressing the feedback it will be permanently rejected. Sounds like you’ve written an article and now try to argue notability. That’s why it’s best to find many sources covering the subject significantly and then write the article. Doesn’t appear sufficiently notable for our project. Sorry. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxnaCarta First of all, I’m not arguing for notability, I’m just referring to the [[WP:MUSICBIO]], that’s it. And secondly, I for sure addressed the feedback above, that’s why I removed the sources from Discogs, YouTube etc. I’ve replied on the Talk page as wished and also elaborated which criteria are met. So I would appreciate if you could explain to me what exactly the problem is? Thanks in advance. Matthew Tailor (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MUSICBIO is a subject specific notability guideline. Angus asked you a specific question pertaining to that criteria. Time to drop the stick. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered the question, there’s no need to drop any stick. By the way, that sounds very condescending. However, to answer the question again, the following works met WP:MUSICBIO
Criteria for musicians and ensembles, #10.:
1) Official soundtrack of the Brazilian shortfilm Djorge: Da Bonja pro Mundo
2) Walkout songs for UFC, broadcasted on ESPN
Criteria for composers and lyricists, #3.:
1) subjects music was used as the basis for a later composition by notable artists / songwriters / lyricist, e.g. Nina Menke (Mrs. Nina Chartier) - Flaschenpost, Chris Ares - Intro, BRDigung, Löwe and Machtwechsel, Rapido - Messias II, Vollautomatisch II, D12 (Swifty McVay & Kuniva), Ill Bill, Celph Titled, Slaine, King Magnetic.
Please correct me if I misunderstand the criteria. I can do mistakes too.. Matthew Tailor (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:59:44, 5 May 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Reward3

[edit]


Hello! I'm checking on a draft submission for page on "Pike Powers" which was last edited on March 6 by bpritti. The draft appears to have disappeared. Can you tell its status and/or offer suggestions regarding further edits? I greatly appreciate all the help. Lots of folks are waiting to edit and contribute to the page. THANK YOU! Raye

Reward3 (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Reward3: the draft hasn't disappeared, it's still there at Draft:Pike Powers. It hasn't been resubmitted after the March decline, so it will just sit there until six months have passed from the last human edit, at which time it will be deleted as stale. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DG — I revised (major) the draft incorporating Pbitti’s v appropriate suggestions and (believed) I’d resubmitted over a month ago. Where did it go do you think?
lost in translation, reward(3) Reward3 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Reward3: I couldn't say; I can only tell you what the edit history (the draft's and/or yours) shows, and there was no resubmission. You need to click on that blue 'Resubmit' button to request a new review. (Obviously, only do that when you feel you have sufficiently addressed the reasons for the previous decline.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DoubleGrazing, for your kind and patient responses. Reward3 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Reward3

[edit]

Hello! I resubmitted a proposed contribution on Pike Powers (John P Powers), incorporating the March 6 suggestions from bprittij. I have not received any comments on the submission, which seems to have been deleted. Can you provide an updated status and a reason for deletion? Thank you so much for your help, Raye Ward Reward3 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. David10244 (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Noelle Michael

[edit]

Need assistance determining why there's concerns about adequately supported by reliable sources. Sources are the local news, both recent and from archival. Noelle Michael (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Noelle Michael That's exactly the problem, it's only local sources. You need to find at least a couple of substantial sources with state-wide or national impact. Another issue is that you seem to be trying to write an entire biography when all your sourcing is about only the murder case. Refocus the draft to be "Murder of Danielle Houchins" then you can drop the hard to source content about the victim's family life, school, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback it was helpful. The biography part makes sense, and working on updates for that.
Still unclear on the gauge of sources from state-wide/national. Are you saying the size of the newspaper? The Bozeman Chronicle is one of the largest papers in the state, all news starts local. Or are you suggesting impact prospective? Those articles were used as sources for smaller papers across the region at the time. Noelle Michael (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Alok Biju

[edit]

How could this Wikipedia page be accepted? Alok Biju (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alok Biju: it wouldn't; it presents no evidence of notability, and for that reason it has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Leeriarama

[edit]

I need to necessary make my profile to the world for all those reasons! Leeriarama (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leeriarama: please do not write about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO as to why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced biographies of living people are contrary to policy. There is no evidence in your draft that you are a notable person, and therefore you are not eligible for a Wikipedia biography at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_May_5&oldid=1154231173"