Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 10 << Mar | April | May >> April 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.


April 11

[edit]

01:37, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Kellysnitelimit

[edit]

I would like for my entire account to be deleted or deactivated from Wikipedia. i would like to have my grandfather's photograph deleted as well. I accept your decision to decline my article. However, i have the original articles published in the Florida Times Union in which they interviewed him at the night club in January 2004 for his 50th year of business. Every source is verifiable and related to him. After 20 years the articles have most likely been archived and are only available for a fee. i have the original newspaper for my grandfather's legacy. No sources are mentioned in passing. All sources are related to him. They were listed on the wiki references section/ article as printed on the original source (The Florida Tiimes Union/The Times Union). The Indigenous Biography of Cleo Kelly is live on amazon.com as we speak. It's been 70 years since he business opened but over 380 followers on Facebook follow the page because they know the club was real and many of them knew my grandparents and their children in Lawtey, Bradford County Florida. the manuscript for his bio was accepted for registration at the Library of Congress 10/23/2023. Cleo Kelly is his adopted. He changed his name to Clifford Kelly as an adult after the Great Depression Era. Legacy.com list his obituary and noted his business Kelly's Nite Limit as listed in the Gainesville Sun and can be verified. Again, please delete my account and his photograph. Its a shame i can't honor him with a page here but life goes on and so will I,...........as soon as my account and his picture are deleted. My account is less than 12 hours old so this can't be too difficult to process. Thank you and kind Regards. Ms. K. Kellysnitelimit (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellysnitelimit: Wikipedia user accounts cannot be deleted or closed, but you can simply stop using yours. I have requested your draft, which you had blanked already, to be deleted. You may go to the Commons where you had uploaded the photo and request that it be deleted. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for responding but this is pitiful. i should have looked before i leaped. wikipedia is free and all it cost is an account you don't need or want over an unwanted article? live and learn. so sorry i signed up. i'll take your advice and stop using it forever.....after my pic is removed of course. smh. Ms. K. Kellysnitelimit (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kellysnitelimit: I don't quite understand what the problem is. Your draft was declined, once, and you consequently decide to give up; that is obviously entirely your prerogative. All I've done is point out that user accounts cannot be closed or deleted (for legal reasons). What is so "pitiful"? DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes you pointed it out but i don't have to be happy about anything i decided to do on wikipedia. it was my choice to sign up and i regret it. my article was denied and i accept it. giving up on this is best. i've never had an account that couldn;t be deleted. the juice ain't worth the squeeze on this one so i quit, i give up, and i move on. Kellysnitelimit (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kellysnitelimit Accounts cannot be deleted for legal reasons, as all edits must be attributable to someone. If you intend to not return to Wikipedia, you can request that your account be vanished, see WP:VANISH. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:09, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Quantor

[edit]

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to review the article about Alhena (band). I acknowledge the rejection and I would like to improve it taking into account the detailed comments. But I admit that I don't exactly understand them... The reason for rejecting the article is "too many external links". I was convinced that every fact written down should be supported by a source. Previously, some of my articles were rejected due to too few external-source references, so I'm really confused. This was the second attempt to publish this article on English Wikipedia, in which I took into account the comments of the person who previously rejected the article. At that time, there were no any objections to the references. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could point out any links that you think are unnecessary and should be removed. Other specific comments for improvement are also welcome and I will be glad to make proper corrections suggested by more experienced colleagues. Thank You in advance. Quantor (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quantor: probably best disregard that "too many external links" comment, I'm not sure what it refers to either (unless it means the WP:REFBOMBING, which is plentiful). The point is that this draft was declined (not 'rejected') for lack of evident notability, and that seems right to me. Based on a quick scan, the sources, despite their number, don't seem to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, and nothing in the draft would seem to satisfy WP:BAND, either, in any obvious way. Therefore your job going forward is to work towards meeting either GNG or BAND, and then resubmitting the draft. And if you want to cut down on the REFBOMBING, you might consider removing the references which only provide reviews of the band's music, as those don't directly contribute to the band's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Rosesociety.co

[edit]

Why is this request being rejected? Rosesociety.co (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is blatant advertising and totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Please disclose your paid editing status too. Theroadislong (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosesociety.co: because it is pure promotion, which is not allowed. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing channel for your business. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 11 April 2024 review of submission by GMako6

[edit]

I need improvement for an article to be qualified to go live since the person am writing the article about is notable since he serves more than 56 countries as an advisor on Cybersecurity and in his carrier there are only 79 specialist all over the world GMako6 (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GMako6: we require actua evidence of notability; you saying that the person is notable is not enough, nor does being an 'advisor' make anyone inherently notable. We need to see sources that meet the WP:GNG guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:13, 11 April 2024 review of submission by TRU Alumni

[edit]

How can I get this submitted? I am doing wikipedia a huge favour by making this page. Would I be able to add to these 'subjected' sources by citing ted talks that he is done to these same passages? This information is indeed legit and well sourced and it is disappointing that this page was not accepted. TRU Alumni (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TRU Alumni: you can "get this submitted" by clicking on that blue 'resubmit' button. But first you need to address the reasons for the earlier decline, otherwise this will just be declined again. We need to see evidence of notability, either per WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of your sources are independent of the subject so you are clearly NOT "doing wikipedia a huge favour by making this page" articles are based on what reliable independent sources say about a subject, not what the subject says themselves. Theroadislong (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Nemesia345

[edit]

I believe all comments have been addressed to enable publication of this page. That said, I would like to check with experienced editors to see if any changes should be made before resubmitting for publication.

The previous comments on draft that have now been addressed are as follows:

1. Completely unreferenced advantages: New references added to this section and throughout article to address.

2. table with exclusively external links: This was a formatting error due to limited author Wiki experience. Table has been updated to use appropriate references format.

3. Based on how this article currently exists, it does not seem as if its unique existence is warranted, and would be better served on a glossary of terms as suggested by AngusWOOF: Respectfully disagree. Closed-loop geothermal is a large category of research and commercial development highlighted in US Department of Energy and other highly reputable source reports, with associated content extending well beyond level of the geothermal 'glossary of terms' page. Further, the talk pages proposed for further discussion are not active. Comments have not received feedback in over 6 months Nemesia345 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


IMO it meets the criteria for existence as a separate article. I'd be happy to review if you ping me. That's not saying that it doesn't need more development. It needs more specifics on how it's done. Also clarifying terminology with respect to (and possibly linking to) closely related articles which I can see from your history that you are already helping at. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll send your way Nemesia345 (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 11 April 2024 review of submission by AlMad81

[edit]

Quoting the message rejecting a draft:

«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.»

However, without specifics or an example of a reference that does not meet these criteria, it is difficult to amend a draft and make sure the next re-submission will not be rejected as well. There cannot be a 'learning about mistakes' if these mistakes are not concisely and unambiguously pointed out.

Hence my request to any experienced editor, including the controller himself, to provide detailed information of where something could be clarified, corrected or simply removed.

Thank you in advance. AlMad81 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlMad81 I fixed your link for proper display, we don't need the whole url.
I will ask you, what are the three(and only three, please) best sources you have that provide significant coverage of this series of games? Most of your sources seem to just discuss specific games. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for chipping in. One of the sources is in the draft article: https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/45203/designer-diary-high-frontier; there is also a small video on the history of the game series by Phasing Player: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUm3rnQRRhw; unable to find a 3rd reference that would cover all the titles mentioned in the article - only partial references or comparative reviews. This is precisely the goal of the entry, to provide a history of the design.
Although that got me thinking. Should it be each title on its own? Or title the article based on the latest edition and use the other titles in a historical context?
This was originally a translation of the Spanish entry, which had already been accepted by Wikipedia and vetted by the designer of the games. I am only a collaborator and as a new editor, a bit confused about the inconsistency of the rules based on reviewer and Wikipedia version. Thank you in any case for your input. This will probably help if I ever decide to contribute with content by my own initiative. AlMad81 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that blogs are almost never regarded as reliable sources for English Wikipedia. Your stated goal to provide a history of the design, is very clearly not in line with the purposes of Wikipedia: if an independent reliable source has already done so, then a Wikipedia article could summarise it; but unless you can find several sources each of which meets all the criteria in WP:42, the games do not meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible.
I have emphasised "English Wikipedia", because other Wikipedias have different rules and criteria. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a very surprising reply considering the scope of Project board games in Wikipedia, where there are entries to a number of games, many of them not necessarily classical nor 'relevant' from a notoriety point of view (this excludes chess and the like), and an entry like Dungeons and Dragons is one of the most complete as well in terms of the historical development of the game, with many references being the game's own materials - as I have done here.
At this point, there is either (1) an issue with the actual entry name, and I should focus on just one title and its development in the fashion depicted above, (2) a very unclear way to select what contributions are relevant to Project board games, or (3) a set of purely formal issues with the article, like unclear references, irrelevant info etc. that has yet to be precisely pointed out.
Again: since I initially set out to translate, but found out I could learn something about editing here in the process, I would not want to spend time debating, and focus on finalizing a product. If it cannot be in English, so be it. AlMad81 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are acceptable in certain situations, but not to establish notability- which is the main thing that you need to do. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 11 April 2024 review of submission by LibrariesStillRock

[edit]

Could I move this into my user draft space? I don't think it will pass through review right now but I don't want it to disappear entirely in case I find some more notable sources to add.

Thanks! LibrariesStillRock (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to move it. It won't disappear as long as it is edited at least once every six months, and even if it wasn't, it could easily be undeleted. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:18, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Loganmascarenhas

[edit]

What if I cannot find any other sources, citations, or references online besides what is already there. Loganmascarenhas (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Loganmascarenhas: if you cannot find and cite sufficient sources to establish notability, then it will not be possible to publish an article on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:34, 11 April 2024 review of submission by Cleverdisguise

[edit]

I'm slowly moving forward as a beginner in the Wikipedia space to write this page of theater history. I've recently gotten permission from the photographer to publish a photo which appeared in Vanity Fair magazine in 1991, which I hope will add some veracity to the page -- once I figure out how to add a photo! I'm working slowly because I'm a beginner, not a coder, and because I can only work on this project occasionally. Thanks, everybody, for your help in getting it right! Cleverdisguise (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cleverdisguise: you don't ask a question, but can I just say that your main concern should be to show verifiability and notability, both of which are demonstrated through referencing; not photos, which are not required in any way, and do not add 'veracity' in any meaningful sense.
You also should not upload someone else's copyright content, unless you have show evidence that the copyright owner has agreed to relinquish their rights and release their content into the public domain. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_11&oldid=1219311804"