Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 October 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 17 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 19 >
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.


October 18

[edit]

00:31, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Bluebeamblue

[edit]

I am understudying the behavior of Wikipedia editors and I have come to some very disturbing finding: Many draft articles declined at the level of Afc meet the guidelines for notability but because such articles have been hastily declined from going into the main space by a first reviewer, the decision affects other reviewers and such articles never see the light of day. It appears there is a behavioral law, “If the first reviewer declines the submission of an article, no matter how it has been improved, it has to be declined again until it is deleted”. For example, the draft article on “Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ejikeme_Patrick_Nwosu) is obviously notable. The submission's references show significant, even multiple full page coverage about the subject in “published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. The newspapers referenced are so reliable that they have their own profiles in Wikipedia. Guardian is one of them. The Nation (Nigeria) is another. AllAfrica is another. The Punch is another. Daily Trust too. And many more. And they all reported about the subject, independent of the subject. I am surprised that Wikipedia administrators saw these references and ignored them. I then compared the references to many stubs already in Wikipedia main space and saw that this article, “Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu” is obviously better than they are. I do not want to lose confidence in this online encyclopaedia. I hope that editors should be trained in instantly knowing which newspaper is reliable and which is not by first checking if such a newspaper has a page in Wikipedia and what has been said about them. I am bringing this article to public notice so that more administrators can look at it. It appears African inventors are under-reported because the media used for their reportage are deemed unreliable. The management of Wikipedia needs to focus more on understanding the media problems of reporting Africa so that Wikipedia won’t unwittingly leave out very important world heritage data that are hidden in oral information or other forms that are deemed unreliable. 

Bluebeamblue (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluebeamblue: this draft has been resubmitted, and will be reviewed in due course to see if the subject is, indeed, "obviously notable" as you claim.
Other than that, do you have an actual question you wish to ask? Or did you just come here to rant and hurl accusations at us? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. But please, this is not an accusation, and I am not ranting. Sorry, if that is the impression created. It is not at all intended. I am a rationale being making an observation.
The question I have is this:
What other quality qualifies a stub that has only three reliable newspaper references acceptance into the main page, while a comprehensive article that has more than four reliable references (whose cited newspapers have positive wikilinks) declined acceptance? see "Becky Okorie" for example etc Bluebeamblue (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluebeamblue: articles can end up being published in many different ways; some predate the current guidelines and policies, others have been published directly by editors with the requisite user permissions, etc. There are well over 6 million articles in the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only deal with the ones that we become aware of: if you find an article that you feel doesn't meet the current requirements, you're welcome to either improve it or propose its deletion. In the meantime, it is pointless comparing a draft with any articles that might exist, as they may well have their own problems, and we do not wish to create more of the same. For that reason, we assess drafts with reference to the currently applicable policies and guidelines, not by comparing them to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
It's also worth noting that the number of sources isn't strictly relevant (beyond the basic requirement of having 'multiple'), as three solid sources always trumps a large number of flaky ones. Bearing also in mind that it isn't enough, in what comes to establishing notability, that a source is reliable and independent, it must also provide significant coverage of the subject. In other words, a source has to meet every aspect of the WP:GNG notability standard at once. So it is perfectly possible for a subject to be mentioned in highly reputable publications such as the ones you mention, and yet notability not be demonstrated if those publications only mention the subject in passing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:41, 18 October 2023 review of submission by RagingPichu

[edit]

There aren't a whole lot of sources on this game. It basically amounts to reviews, interviews, and Quell's Dev Blog on Tumblr. How should I proceed, keeping the verifiability criterion in mind? RagingPichu (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can’t find any reliable sources then there really isn’t anything that you can do. KingTheD (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:38, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Amit241903

[edit]

I want to write and add an article about my self and my journey but the article has be rejected, please suggest the changes so that i can as an article aby myself Amit241903 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amit241903: you should not be writing about yourself, for the reasons explained in WP:AUTOBIO. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you need to find another place for that. In any case, Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.) have said about the subject, whereas I'm guessing you would just like to 'tell your story' yourself? Again, that's not how this works. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 18 October 2023 review of submission by 185.130.156.203

[edit]

how can this page be improved? 185.130.156.203 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be improved, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:59, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Yoursfrag

[edit]

Hello, you rejected my proposal to create an Eviden company page for the spin off of Atos group. Can you advice me how can we create a simple new page for this new company representing 60k employees and many sub brands and acquisitions. Also I see that someone created the french page for Eviden; can you please authorize the english version, as there are now many press and indépendant sources mentionning Eviden ( Atos group spin off). Many thanks for your feedbacks and advices Yoursfrag (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoursfrag This draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. We don't have "company pages" here, we have articles about companies. 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. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject.
We don't have "simple new pages". Wikipedia is not a directory of companies or things that exist. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inculsion, which for companies is described at WP:ORG. We don't want sources with brief mentions of the company, or that describe its routine business activities(like acquisitions of competitors), but independent reliable sources that on their own and not based on materials from the company, go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about the company. Every company thinks that what it does is important/significant/influential, we want to know what others think.
The French Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Thony-Ferro

[edit]

I appreciate my colleague Johannes Maximilian's comment. However, the sources we possess concerning the band are reliable, including an article on SIC TV, one of the largest and most-watched Portuguese TV networks. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the vocalist, it is recommended to review this material. Notably, there are more references available for Master Dy compared to those provided for Alia Tempora, a band that already has a Wikipedia page. At the time of Alia Tempora's page publication, they had fewer releases and less prominence than Master Dy. I have included the link to "All Music," a certified source by Wikipedia itself, for Alia Tempora don't exist a simple link to All music. My intention is not to advocate for the band, but to underscore the research efforts I have undertaken over the past three years. While I could continue to cite additional instances of less prominent bands featured on Wikipedia, my focus is to provide insight into my ongoing work. In view of a lot of current content, my content does deserve a position. Thank you. Thony-Ferro (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thony-Ferro: it's not enough for sources to be reliable, for notability per WP:GNG they must also be sufficient enough in number and in the extent of their coverage.
Whether AllMusic is reliable is debatable, but it isn't "certified" in any sense, and notability doesn't hinge on having an AllMusic entry.
Self-published albums also do not satisfy the special WP:BAND guideline, unless this group has some other merits which I've missed.
I don't know what other article(s) you refer to, but this draft is being judged in its own right, not by comparing to any other articles that may exist out there; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Wikinewteam1

[edit]

Hi there,

Please can you let me know which areas need referencing or if unable removed in order to be successful during the next submission. Wikinewteam1 (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinewteam1 Your username suggests that this is a group or shared account. Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to rename your account to an individualistic username. If you work for or are associated with Ms. Lasi(perhaps associated with SI), please read conflict of interest and paid editing.
Your references are bare urls, and are only somewhat in-line with the draft text. Please see Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format references. Most of the references seem to document her activities and few have significant coverage of her personally. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 18 October 2023 review of submission by 128.151.150.25

[edit]

My submission was declined for lack of reliable sources. However, I’m not sure what would count as a reliable source since the majority of sources on my topic are local newspaper articles which I have cited. What do I do? 128.151.150.25 (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, it appears most of the sources are statements about people who played there rather than in-depth coverage about the club itself or interviews with those involved which are not independent and much of the content does not appear to be supported by the sources so fails verification). Also some of the sources are not reliable such as blogs, YouTube (see [[WP:RSPYT for more info), social media, etc. It's an interesting article but it appears your approached it the wrong way, at least in part. You you start with collecting independent reliable sources then summarize what they say (see WP:BACKWARD), not what you think or know (see original research). Even so, have you checked Google Books? S0091 (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:39, 18 October 2023 review of submission by AMRLPRHJR

[edit]

Hello, I am creating my first wikipedia page and my first draft was declined as I need to "cite independent sources not ones that are associated with the subject". Apologies for my ignorance, I am uncertain what sources would be more suitable - I believe it might be that I used the subjects website as a reference. Since being declined, I have found pages on the film website Mubi that I believe are independent, which provide information about the films I am referencing and cite Maureen's involvement. Are these sufficient as reference replacements? Any advice would be very welcome. I want to make sure the page sticks to community guidelines. AMRLPRHJR (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AMRLPRHJR I fixed your link to your draft(it must appear exactly for it to work). IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user-editable. "Foxtrot Films" seems to be a primary source that you are using to merely document people who worked with Murray. This isn't necessary usually as the film credits serve to do that- one can just watch the film.
You say things like she has acted as an industry mentor, but offer no reliable sources to support that claim or that describe her particular influence. An article primarily must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the person and show how they are notable- either as a notable person broadly or more narrowly in this case as a notable creative professional.
Do you have an association with this person? 331dot (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:32, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Origagari

[edit]

Hi Again,

I updated, can you check again?

Good work. Origagari (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Origagari: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The draft was rejected, which typically means that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft since it was rejected, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as promotional. 😢 Left 'm my standard notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Mint tin 5506

[edit]

I need to know how to add the category box 

Mint tin 5506 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mint tin 5506: what's a "category box"? If you mean the section on the bottom with categories in it, categories are only added when the article is published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ohhhhhhhhh ok thanks for the help I appreciate the help. Mint tin 5506 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Sidharthsnair

[edit]

What is the reason why my draft was rejected an how can I make it better Sidharthsnair (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sidharthsnair: it was rejected because it is clearly not notable. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about yourself or things you made up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:20, 18 October 2023 review of submission by 37.5.253.134

[edit]

I need assistance copying results and entries on to graphs in the page. 37.5.253.134 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I suggest asking for help at the Teahouse. The AfC Helpdesk is here to answer questions related to reviews rather than general editing questions. S0091 (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Khalifasheraz

[edit]

If I remove the links, then it can be approved? As i was searching for turbo filters in Wikipedia and didn't find ay relevant articles thats why I write this one. please let me know. Khalifasheraz (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is a completely unsourced essay of original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state, in an encyclopedic style. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 18 October 2023 review of submission by 188.150.13.167

[edit]

Hello there, I would love some assistance to my current project, the pianist Matti Hirvonen. I recently published his article but was declined due to reference incorrectly. I would love to have some review of my article and assistance in the matter. It’s my first wiki. :)

Thank you 188.150.13.167 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the posts left by the reviewer, as well as the links therein, especially Referencing for beginners. You may then resubmit when you've added proper references. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please log into your account when editing. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend turning on the WP:VISUALEDITOR and following the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. This is an easier-to-use editor and has automatic in-line citations. Qcne (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 18 October 2023 review of submission by 72.34.120.68

[edit]

i just wanted to know: why can't you guys just hire more people to check the drafts of everybody, making things go a lot quicker? 72.34.120.68 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This website is run by volunteers, there are no paid employees of Wikipedia. Every draft review has been done by someone in their spare time. Qcne (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was reviewed within 18 minutes of you submitting, I think that's pretty good? Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Thomson Walt

[edit]

I want to resubmit this draft after the fully-protected redirect page of Miss Grand International 2020 was reduced the protection to ECP as per this DRV.

Best, Thomson Walt (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:28, 18 October 2023 review of submission by Dreadfibre

[edit]

i dont know what else to write Dreadfibre (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. See WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_October_18&oldid=1181608586"