Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 16 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 18 >
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.


November 17

[edit]

02:00, 17 November 2023 review of submission by ZENG Hao123

[edit]

how to let this page do not look like a commercial. ZENG Hao123 (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZENG Hao123: I'm not sure why you're asking that, this hasn't been declined for looking like an advertisement; it has been declined for complete lack of any evidence of notability. Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have previously said about a subject, and citing those sources as you go so that readers can see where the information came from. Your draft cites no sources at all, therefore failing the core requirements of not only notability but also basic verifiability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:18, 17 November 2023 review of submission by My Uttarakhand

[edit]

The article submitted is an experience summary of a writer. As the article is rejected, I am willing to find help in writing the same in an appropriate manner so that the information is added to Wikipedia. The person on whom the article is written is a very well-known writer and I think there is nothing bad in adding a detail on such personality when we already have many such personalities already added in the portal. 

My Uttarakhand (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@My Uttarakhand: do you have a question you would like to ask? This draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my question still remains the same. Coz I know that this article is not submitted as an advertisement, but it is about a personality, who is contributing in India's science and literature cummunity. I added links where it is evident that the writer is genuine, and also he has bagged quite good number of awards by the government as well as by renowned organisations.
Still, as mentioned, how can I add 'evidence of notability' or 'references' to this, which make it more real for wikipedia?
Also, if the added ones are not considered as references, what kind of links I have to add? My Uttarakhand (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article should not merely tell of the existence of someone and describe their accomplishments. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the writer, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 2401:BA80:A10D:8ED0:1798:4B58:1A38:2FE9

[edit]

I have seen many pages that doesn't have reliable sources and they are published with requesting additional resources. Why can't we do the same for this page? Secondly multiple Admins have multiple opinion. One consider one link as reliable and keep it and other reject that. The other consider another reference as reliable and then third person comes to reject and says it's not acceptable.

In the most recent revision one Admin came and updated the company intro entirely and even removed one service and referenced one link. When added few more links, all links got non reliable. One Admin says reads like an advertisement, which removed and second says non reliable at all. Seems like page is being discriminated and everyone came up with their own conclusion. I understand that Wikipedia is a platform where ALL Collaborate to reach a final conclusion, but what about those pages who are on Wikipedia with no notability and no link whatsoever and here dozens of references were just rejected with one statement that it doesn't meet the requirement.at least the industry market size research and mentioning of the company should have been thoroughly checked before making a final decision.

Please advise, and I would request not to delete this page but at least publish it with requesting additional citations. If English version of Wikipedia has but higher standard, you can move this to any other language where it could meet the requirement to be stayed on the Wikipedia at least. 2401:BA80:A10D:8ED0:1798:4B58:1A38:2FE9 (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's not enough in-depth coverage referenced that isn't written by the company itself. Website profiles and passing mentions aren't enough to support a Wikipedia article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work like that. We don't publish an article on a completely non-notable subject in the hope that someone might one day find some proof of notability. This has been rejected and won't be considered further.
I don't know who you refer to when you say "we", but whoever you are, you clearly have some sort of external relationship with this subject, which hasn't been disclosed anywhere that I could find. As if the situation wasn't bad enough already, COI/UPE editing makes it worse in my book at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. It's likely there are many inappropriate articles that have not yet been addressed by volunteer editors; this cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. If you would like to help us, please identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Rahulsinghnagi

[edit]

What’s the meaning of noteable on wikipedia  ? You told me secondary sources i added newspaper articles Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your query above, please don't make new topics. The notablility guideline is at WP:NACTRESS. Qcne (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 220.235.238.29

[edit]

why was it declined? 220.235.238.29 (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Pbritti Qcne (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft wasn't merely declined, it was rejected. The reviewer has concluded that the subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. If you wish to challenge that, you should make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Qcne, DoubleGrazing I've had a look at the drafting think may be borderline notable.
Pbritti I'm going to take the unusual and WP:IAR step undoing your rejection in order to allow a second opinion. A route might be to accept it myself having submitted it and to watch any subsequent deletion process as a neutral observer. I will think on that before taking any action. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel it was borderline. I think perhaps one more source would do it? Qcne (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne I am generally happy to accept borderline drafts. Another source would be welcome, but it could well be added post acceptance. Feel free to accept if you like. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems an uninvolved reviewer felt it to be the right side of the border. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my rejection. The references are lists of locomotives with no depth of coverage. The one article only makes a passing reference to the 1853. There is nothing that I have found to suggest there is any more basis for notability. Based on this IP's persistent REFBOMBing with references sometimes completely unrelated to the subject, I felt rejection ensured an editor who may have passed over this draft without thoroughly reviewing the contents of the sources was the appropriate decision. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its actually unfair 220.235.238.29 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti I think AfD is the correct venue rather than rejection. Thank you for nominating it. This means that the community can reach a consensus based verdict. You have given us further information. I do not intend to take part in the AfD (as stated above). 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has repeatedly engaged in bad-faith and manipulative behavior, detailed at ANI. Anything they submit should be subjected to significant scrutiny, as they have been shown to REFBOMB with sources that have trivial mentions of the subjects at best. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already speedied two of the IPs articles where they've engaged in manipulative behaviour and nominated another to AfD where they've WP:REFBOMB'ed the article to get it past AfC. Anything they submit should be subjected to a high degree of scrutiny. TarnishedPathtalk 04:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:06, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Fmhfms

[edit]

Hello Fellow Contributors, I wrote this article and I've cited everything literally to make it a perfect article. I don't know it's still not in a position to get published in mainspace? Please do help me out. I don't want to waste my time and effort that I've already put on this article. Fmhfms (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:11, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 93.35.241.248

[edit]

Hi, we are just trying to translate into English this Italian page: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefano_Caselli_(economista)

Stefano Caselli is the Dean of SDA Bocconi School of Management that is ranked 4th in EU and https://rankings.ft.com/rankings/2943/european-business-school-rankings-2022 Also with an MBA Program ranked 3rd in EU and 6th WW: https://rankings.ft.com/rankings/2909/mba-2023

Can we please understand the reason why this is not worth a eng Wikipedia page? Also seen that all other Deans of Business Schools in EU have one?

Please advise on how we should proceed. Thanks m 93.35.241.248 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"?
Please understand that what is acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, these are separate projects, with their own editors and policies. It does sound like he could be notable, but as reviewers noted you don't have enough independent reliable sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:06, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Rahulbumperkumar

[edit]

Respected sir Sir this is a personal details which i dont have any source for the information. i think his details are there in linkedin or on wikimedia commons also please go through and please let me publish the paper please sir hoping that you will help me thanking you Rahulbumperkumar (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulbumperkumar: we cannot accept articles without references. Especially in the case of living people (WP:BLP), we require comprehensive inline citations to reliable published sources to support to information. This draft also has no evidence of notability, which is a core requirement for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:19, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Drayden475

[edit]

This is my first fully written article ever on Wikipedia. I will admit that I work closely with Bushfires NT, being a Rural Firefighter. I would like some assistance on rectifying the issues that caused the initial drafts rejection, primarily around citation and making sure the article was up to full standards. I do plan to add photos once i have found some more Drayden475 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Drayden475:, thanks for reaching out. Please take a look at the decline notice. Wikipedia articles need in-depth coverage that is not written by, or affiliated with, the article's subject. The draft does not have any independent sources listed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I did not realize when first looking at it that it was a government agency. I don't think that government agencies require the same level of independent sources, though it be very useful. I'm also going to combine the references that all point to the same place. And "my research" is simply not appropriate as a reference and should be dropped.Naraht (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drayden475 As an additional comment. This is a decline notice, *not* a rejection. There is certainly time now to improve the draft and resubmit it. As a government agency, I think there is a good chance that it reaches notability and it isn't hideously written (I know "damning with fair praise"), external references need to be found. Honestly, using news.google and looking for "Brushfires NT" on abc.com.au is likely to give at least a couple of articles that deal with it in a way beyond simply reference (funding issues or even coverage of it fighting fires are probably good enough. I'd suggest continuing to improve the draft on references, there will be time for photos after it is approved for mainspace.Naraht (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 17 November 2023 review of submission by ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th

[edit]

How can I adjust this page to get it accepted? ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th: you cannot; this has been rejected, and won't be considered further. Please don't create more like this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it rejected?
Could I speak to your manager? Or should I get my lawyer involved.
I'm getting paid $15,000 to right that article. I just wanted the first part to be approved before I right an entire essay. I need to feed my kids please. ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th: I'll give you some free advice:
Do not continue in this vein, as you are likely heading for a block.
Do not make, even jokingly, anything that could be construed as a legal thread, as again that's a reason for a block.
You're welcome. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need my money, If I find a valid source will you accept my post?
Or, can I create another post about another client who I'm getting paid for? ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE MY SON! ZachMedalOfHonorMay17th (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:50, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Likhith NG

[edit]

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Likhith NG (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Likhith NG: You've submitted this essay 3 times with no sources and there is nothing on Google when you search for "Eternal Cognition Paradox". No proof of notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Likhith NG: when a draft is rejected (rather than merely declined), that means you should not resubmit it. This has been rejected twice, so you definitely should not resubmit it. I've undone your latest submission. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, if you search this Eternal Cognition Paradox in google, you will find a blogspot called "https://likhithng-paradox-theories.blogspot.com/" it's mine, original article I published if you want more proof please contant. Do you want me to delete the page "https://likhithng-paradox-theories.blogspot.com/"? I got message from Wikipedia that my article is copyrighted but it's mine original. Please understand my concern and reply me soon Likhith NG (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Likhith NG. Wikipedia is not for things that have been made up one day. Your Eternal Cognition Paradox is not suitable for Wikipedia. Do not submit a draft on it again. Qcne (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 2603:7000:9E3F:F6B0:5D09:66B9:398B:F376

[edit]

I am wondering which sources/if any were approved to be independent. I greatly appreciate any assistance as it will help me find more of these sources. 2603:7000:9E3F:F6B0:5D09:66B9:398B:F376 (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 2603:7000:9E3F:F6B0:5D09:66B9:398B:F376

[edit]

I am wondering regarding the comment about the independent sources are there specific parts that need to be sourced or just generally? Thanks for assistance. 2603:7000:9E3F:F6B0:5D09:66B9:398B:F376 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at several sources by doing an independent search on Google News and the principal problem I can see is that the references are written by Suzanne Kianpour or are third-party sources quoting things she has written about for the BBC. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of source material actually about her, and without that, we can't write an appropriate article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 17 November 2023 review of submission by JordiLS89

[edit]

What kind of sources should I use for an article about a moderately successful singer/dancer (if chart positions aren't valuable enough)? And what kind of info is absolutely necessary to include? I thought she already had a Wiki page around 10 years ago (and it was either deleted or I got her mixed up with someone else) that's why I'm creating one now, because another (also moderately successful) singer with the same name has the article instead. JordiLS89 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JordiLS89:, you have to have in-depth coverage, not just passing mentions and chart stats. Not seeing in-depth coverage in the sources currently listed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 17 November 2023 review of submission by 134.231.2.81

[edit]

I'd like some specific feedback about why these sources and this author--of a significant graphic memoir--about a significant topic--postpartum depression--which often overlooked and women are shamed for--is not considered notable. Thank you. 134.231.2.81 (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The litmus test for drafts is if it would survive a deletion debate. I did a Google News search for "Teresa Wong" and it came back with pieces from the New York Times and the Calgary Herald, amongst several others. I'll pass the review in a minute. The article has issues, so I'm going to clean some of the immediate issues up first, but my general view is we will be able to have an article about this person that is verified by high-quality sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 17 November 2023 review of submission by CarlosAlfonzo3531

[edit]

This is the draft of my article that got rejected:"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Valley_View_Airport". I don't get why it did. I saw other pages of airports in Nevada, and they have the same number and type of references. I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing, so I would like to learn why the article got rejected. Thank you so much.

Best, 

CarlosAlfonzo3531 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Broglio

[edit]

Hello...can you help me understand what is needed for this post. The comment indicates the need for references outside of the awards, but there are several provided.

Thank you Broglio (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if every single refernce in the draft is from the subject, or an institution that the subject is associated with. Thus not one single independent source is cited. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Amustard

[edit]

20:04:18, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Amustard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Submission declined on 13 June 2023 by Turnagra (talk). 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.

This biographic stub has 16 references. Nine of them are official Turkmen news agencies, in some cases repeating government decrees; the others are a mix of private news outlets generally considered reliable. All but two are in Russian, which is one of the two dominant languages of Turkmenistan. This article is part of an effort to create biographies of all heads of the oil and gas industry of Turkmenistan, which possesses the fourth-largest natural gas reserves in the world and is China's largest supplier of natural gas. I do not understand why the article was rejected on the grounds that it is "not adequately supported by reliable sources." The sources are reliable and are cited in other articles about Turkmenistan in Wikipedia. I would like for this article to be reviewed again. Amustard (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amustard As the reviewer noted, there are portions that are not sourced at all. If existing sources cover them, then see referencing for beginners to learn more about how to format references. Articles about living people have stricter requirements. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:52, 17 November 2023 review of submission by Avidworks

[edit]

I am trying to figure out why submission for Ken Barnes was declined as well as how to amend it to follow the guidelines to be approved. Avidworks (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link to your draft. You only have one source, and much of your draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_November_17&oldid=1186430888"