Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< April 8 << Mar | April | May >> April 10 >
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 9

[edit]

04:33, 9 April 2024 review of submission by Marcello Vałe

[edit]

my article was rejected. Why? Marcello Vałe (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because as it says in the rejection notice the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia and be aware that hi jacking an article as you did at Rakhmanov is very disruptive. Theroadislong (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 9 April 2024 review of submission by HistoryofJournalism

[edit]

Hello,

I need help fixing the links and help linking to sources. I have not published an article for a long time and did not realize that I had forgotten how to do this part until I spent time working on it. Is there someone who can format the links so that they appear properly in the article? I will follow the format and add the rest from there. I follow journalists and their publications. I'd like to make sure the last section is formatted properly for Wikipedia. The rest of the article seems fine, I believe.

Thank you DJ 

HistoryofJournalism (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofJournalism: you've largely done it right, just place the citations inline after the information they support rather than piling everything at the bottom. See WP:REFB for further advice. And you may find the WP:RefToolbar useful in generating citations. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm not sure how these separate lines appeared. Place the citations inline where? Do I copy and paste them into the article or do I place them at the bottom of the article under References or External Links? HistoryofJournalism (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to myself because this is an open question for everyone. As part of my investigation and research I queried this company anonymously using a non de plume to gain first-hand knowledge of their operations. Most of what I found online was straightforward but not objective enough. Through my research I was able to gather information that was not readily available online and shared it in my article. I've already started researching my next article, which is for American Zoetrope. I noticed the article currently on Wikipedia doesn't mention or acknowledge that American Zoetrope has an active social media community and was one of the first social media platforms dating back to 1998. I visited and did my research there as well. I plan to add this information to the American Zoetrope page. Is this type of research appropriate for updating or creating Wikipedia pages? HistoryofJournalism (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HistoryofJournalism No that is what we call original research and cannot be used here, we require that sources be published, you cannot use any personal knowledge. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know for future references. Thank you HistoryofJournalism (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, How do I find the reply to my question? Is there a method to receive notification that someone replied? Where do I click. Sorry about the dumb questions. HistoryofJournalism (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofJournalism Please just edit this existing section when responding, don't create a new section for every post.
You may watchlist this page so it appears in your watchlist, but there is no way to do that with this particular section- you should just monitor this page for replies. If you have your account preferences set to email you whenever your user talk page is edited, you can request that people post there when they reply to you. Also, when people use your username as I and DoubleGrazing did, you will receive what is called a ping, a notification, usually found at the top of the screen(it should be a red box with a number in it)- make sure you have pings turned on in your account preferences. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can 'subscribe' to a specific section, though, or is that not available in all user interfaces? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are correct; I forgot. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 9 April 2024 review of submission by KERALAMAN

[edit]

Please help me with this article. Highlight the mistakes. KERALAMAN (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message left by the reviewer- this tells the mistakes. Are you associated with this company? 331dot (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 9 April 2024 review of submission by KERALAMAN

[edit]

I used the content which is already published. need help regarding this subject. KERALAMAN (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not used content which was independently published. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 9 April 2024 review of submission by Bekilicious

[edit]

What more can be done? he was presented as an entrepreneur, it was rejected. we presented him as a philantropist, it was still rejected. pls advise. Bekilicious (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined the first time, rejected the second time. Rejection means that there is nothing further that can be done at this time. Who is "we"? Do you represent this man? 331dot (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not represent him. I only volunteered to write on him seeing the impact he has made and his NGO is already published on Wikipedia. If his NGO wiki can fly, why cant the biography of the person behind the NGO be published? Bekilicious (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible for an organization to merit an article but not its founder. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You "volunteered"; whom did you volunteer to? 331dot (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bekilicious: it doesn't matter what you "present" him as, the requirements for notability are the same regardless of what the person does (with some exceptions like scientists and legislators).
Who is "we" in your question?
Nothing more can be done, as the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bekilicious You do seem to be associated with him, as you took the very professional looking image of him and he posed for you. This relationship must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is no proof to this allegation. How do you ascertain that I took the picture? check Google for his photos. there is nothing special about that photo. Bekilicious (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case Bekilicious you are fraudulently claiming to hold the copyright of somebody else's photograph. Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bekilicious If you did not personally take the image of this man with your camera, you must immediately(right now, after you are done reading this) go to Commons and request deletion of the image. You have put this entire project in jeopardy. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps worth noting that the user has been issued final warning on Commons for repeated copyright violations, so this shouldn't be news to them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, you need to tell us who "we" is("we presented him", you said) 331dot (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 9 April 2024 review of submission by Robbakk

[edit]

I honestly don't understand why this article has been denied. Every developer is known because of their games. Why are any of them profiled? What about this guy, who is ALWAYS confused with the person in the article I am creating? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Bell_(programmer) What qualifies this? He made a game and works at autodesk? What have I missed about the entire video game developer profile category on Wikipedia? Robbakk (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robbakk: game reviews etc. may make the games notable, but notability is not inherited or transferred by association. We need to see significant coverage, directly of him, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject.
As for any other articles that may be out there, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And if you have come across ones that don't meet our notability etc. requirements, you're more than welcome to improve them, or tag them with appropriate maintenance tags, or initiate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply.
I honestly don't see that, basically ever, on any video game developer profiles... It's about the games and, in his case as CEO, the business moves - which I covered. If it has to be personal, then obviously that's a major area of information missing from almost every other article in this category.
Regardless, I know he has donated to charities, been covered for that, but I'm not really sure what else to say on that. He's a qualified psychologist? Would academics help? I think this subject is as worthy as many others, but I'm a bit lost because there's so few examples actually doing what I'm being asked to do.
If I held other video game developer profiles to the same standard this is, there won't be very many left. And I feel Wikipedia would be worse off for it. Without a profile for Ian Bell (the guy I linked above, not the guy I am trying to make a profile for) then the only other reliable source of info about him is MobyGames, which is now owned by a corporation and could be placed behind a paywall or shut down entirely whenever it doesn't make sense to someone at the top. Robbakk (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robbakk: I'm not sure what you're asking, if anything, but just to explain that Wikipedia articles are mainly written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. If such sources don't exist, then it isn't possible to summarise them, and isn't therefore possible to write an article. This is pretty much the definition of our concept of notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Not every person is notable, not even every person who has done 'important' or 'worthy' things. Wikipedia may well be worse off for it, but them's the rules, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robbakk We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles; those articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on theor own say about the topic, showing how it is notable. Game reviews make games notable, but not necessarily the creator of the game, at least in terms of meriting a standalone article and not just a mention in the article about the game. For the creator/developer to merit an article, there must be something beyond "they made games". There must be significant coverage of the person that details their life and what makes them important/significant/influential as a game developer. Something like Shigeru Miyamoto. Wikipedia isn't a place to just document the existence of someone and tell what they do. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I used the wrong word.
I fully understand that in a lot of cases there are things past association on game developer articles. I just felt like I had that, and far more than the example I gave. That's all.
I'd personally argue that the example you gave wouldn't be approved without association to Nintendo or the games listed for the reasons mine was. I think the WIlliam Ian Bell article would be expanded on. I guess I'm just a bit sad it's not being given a chance to.
I do appreciate the response, I'm just bummed about it. Robbakk (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robbakk If the sources aren't there about Mr. Bell, then they aren't there. I would suggest concentrating on writing about his games, perhaps if there are enough articles about his games, independent sources who see those articles might choose to study Bell and write about his life, then those sources might merit him a standalone article.
You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I own and run a sim racing site that indexes racing games cross referenced with the cars and tracks that feature within them, has scanned box art, manuals, allows some to be played in browser, etc. I probably could really easily start to properly index racing games on Wikipedia as well. I just don't know if I could cope with the disappointment on rejection hahah
I work in the industry and have since 2005 at multiple different studios, including one with Ian. I figured it was best to say so. Robbakk (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the answer. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, would the disambiguation issue not be enough? This is the first result I found on Google. There's plenty of others, more recent, etc.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/so-where-is-ian-bell-in-all-this.27763/post-582580
In the post above a person is clearly confusing Ian Bell (developer of Elite) with William "Ian" Bell (developer of Project Cars). This post is on the current Elite developers forum. Robbakk (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this would not merit this man an article, unless there is much more extensive coverage in the news about this confusion. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks. Robbakk (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 9 April 2024 review of submission by RodRodney20

[edit]

Hi, I was just looking at other wiki articles that would be similar to this one. I feel like Tello Mobile and Ultra Mobile have the same kind of sources as the ones I used, and as for Tello, I included double the amount. However I keep getting denied for my sources. Any help appreciated. thanks. RodRodney20 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RodRodney20 Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles has little bearing on your draft, as those articles themselves could be problematic and you would be unaware of this as a new user. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to get by us, we can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles.
Your draft does little more than document the existence of the company and tell of its activities. That is insufficient for an article. An article 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. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling what the company does, and goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about the company. The vast majority of companies do not merit articles.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Tello Mobile is marked as problematic, so it definitely is not the best to use as an example. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 9 April 2024 review of submission by Jona Hauch

[edit]

Hey, the article provided includes several different sources that mention the company in-depht. Those sources include known Universities, news pages and other companies and institutions. The Forbes article was indeed written by on of our Founders, but there is more than that. What else is needed to add that the article gets accepted? Jona Hauch (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jona Hauch First, as you seem to work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. You should also read conflict of interest.
I'm afraid that you (and your company) have a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is that we do here. Wikipedia is not a database of companies, or a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely describing the offerings of the company or telling about its activities, and goes into detail about what the sources sees as important/significant/influential about the company- not what the company sees as important about itself. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, but I can't really follow it to be honest. 90% of the citations are external, notable sources that mention us and/or our programs which is our main offering (same with Y Combinator, 500 Global, Techstars, etc.). The sources may not have a standing like Forbes and NYT, but that is all what you look for?
On the contents level, those are very much the same as the pages of Y Combinator and other above mentioned accelerators show, compared to some even more and general informative.
Asking for that we don't start to trigger an article means you ask us to pay another Wikipedia writer to do it? But that alone wouldn't change what you actually mentioned about what Wikipedia is about (what we are very aware of and not what you are trying to imply). Jona Hauch (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't want sources that just mention your programs or the company. We want sources that are significant coverage, as I described above. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. Can you give an example to understand it better? I tried to check other company Wikipedia pages, especially comparable to us and what I found were always references to their company or their programs (as this is what they do). Jona Hauch (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jona Hauch: 'significant coverage' is as explained above by 331dot. If you want examples, then this BBC Sport story provides significant coverage of Rory McIlroy, who is the main subject of that entire article, whereas this one makes only a passing mention of him as part of a routine tournament update. See the difference? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for taking your time and sharing those examples. Based on those it is very clear, although I was trying to understand it based on more comparable Wikipedia Sites like the one from Y Combinator, 500 Global, Techstars, and similar accelerator programs. But I will do some more research to get a better understanding. Jona Hauch (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jona Hauch We don't have "company pages" here that are for the benefit of and controlled by the company; we have articles about topics, some of which are about companies that meet our criteria.
Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to help us, please identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So a page about Y Combinator, Global 500 or Techstars is not a Wikipedia page about a company? Sorry if I doesnt used the perfect terminology, but I wanted to make clear what I am talking about. Jona Hauch (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "page" is any type of page you find on Wikipedia. All articles are pages, but not all pages are articles. Many will use term "article" to emphasize that they have a different purpose and mindset than just a "page". 331dot (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not disclosed your paid editing status, you need to make that your next edit or you are likely to be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:19, 9 April 2024 review of submission by ItsDaRetailGuy1025

[edit]

Did I do something wrong with the stations references & external links? ItsDaRetailGuy1025 (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsDaRetailGuy1025: there are no references; there is one reference, citing a source that does not even contribute towards, let alone establish, notability. Consequently, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:45, 9 April 2024 review of submission by Centaur25555

[edit]

What else do I need, I can't find other sources or references on this township other than the website in external links section of my draft. 

Centaur25555 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Centaur25555: this draft has been rejected for lack of evidence of notability, and because it seems to duplicate an existing article already in the main article space. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_April_9&oldid=1218972374"