Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< August 14 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 16 >
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.


August 15

[edit]

05:55, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Omworld786

[edit]

We want to Publish This article But Not Getting Approval How we can Approved this article Kindly Guide us Omworld786 (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omworld786: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.
Who is "we" in your question/comment?
Why have you created three different drafts on this subject?
And what is your relationship with the subject? This has been queried on your talk page earlier, but you have not responded to the query. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 15 August 2024 review of submission by 102.90.58.104

[edit]

Please what should I do? 102.90.58.104 (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can return to your original account and get unblocked. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will look into it 102.90.65.219 (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you are not allowed to edit even when logged out of your blocked account. The block is personal to you, not to a particular account or IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining this, I need to understand the issue. Thank you for making out your time. 105.113.12.102 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Kalinators

[edit]

Hello all. This article clearly requires to be on wikipedia, as the subject is a succesful sportsperson who has been reported my multiple independent media in his country of origin and country of citizenship. The draft was rejected multiple times on the accusation "You cannot write an article about yourself", however, this was not after a fair and honest review of the article, hence it was rejected on no basis. Please kindly review, resubmit, and approve the article. Best regards. Kalinators (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's not why it was rejected and 2) nothing is "required" to be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators: your autobio was rejected. You then created another one, which was rejected. You're now badgering editors to review the rejected draft, which is tendentious. All this to promote yourself on Wikipedia, which is not allowed in the first place. I would ask you to drop this matter now, or risk getting blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, I am not promoting myself on Wikipedia, I am adding an article that fits in wikipedia's guidelines. CLEARLY.
Whoever rejects it, does not do a proper review, as simple as that, they just reject it because it's me writing about myself. Without an actual valid reason. Kalinators (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly are, given that every single one of your edits has to do with you. What would you call that if not self-promotion? You evidently aren't here to help help build an encyclopaedia. But fine, if you want to carry on and run the risk of sanctions, on your head be it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer who rejected the draft stated "No improvements since last decline". This was not true, as additional information about the subject, plus additional multiple independent media reports about the subject, were added. Additionally, 2 months ago, in the first review, I was told that as soon as 3 independent media have reported about the subject, it will be approved. Furthermore, an editor who approved 2 sources in the first review, came back to review the updated draft as soon as the 3rd source was added, and rejected it because apparently the sources he had approved before, were not good enough. He also stated that a main Stuttgart newspaper is not independent, clearly untrue. We come to now, when the draft has 6 independent media reports, plus a few additional links which prove factuality. All this comes to show that that the review was improper or violated policy, so I kindly ask for a consensus that the review was improper or violated policy. Kalinators (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not said which policies were violated. Please provide diffs or other evidence to support your claims, specifically where it was said "as soon as 3 independent media reports about the subject it will be approved"- which is absolutely not the case, so if you were told that, the person who did was in error. I'm trying to help you, to get you to see what you are doing wrong and what assumptions you have that are wrong, but you aren't listening because it's not what you want to hear. Yet another reason why editing about yourself is problematic- it's difficult to hear criticism of your own work when its about you. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no valid reason for the decline listed. The reason listed was "no improvements since last decline", which was visibly untrue, as I clarified that additional information about the subject, plus additional multiple independent media reports about the subject, were added. Unfortunately I cannot show you the discussion from 2 months ago, but I remember that it was @DoubleGrazing and @Qcne both saying that, after approving 2 media reports, the response from both was "Ok, we have two, so we need one more and then it will be approved". Later on, Double grazing was the first to reject it, contradicting his own comments from before while stating that the initial 2 media were not good, adding that the third one, a main Stuttgart newspaper, is not independent, again, clearly untrue. Kalinators (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If (purely for the sake of the argument) you have two acceptable sources and we say that's not enough, it doesn't mean that if more are added then the draft must be accepted. Especially as you seem to have a rather fundamental misunderstanding of what is an acceptable source. (And I really can't be bothered to go yet another round over the sources.)
The bottom line is, you can wikilawyer about this all you want, but it doesn't suddenly make a rejected draft about a non-notable subject appear in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that you once said that source X and source Y are good, but one more is needed. Then, once another was added, you backed off saying that source X and source Y are not good. This is a clearly not neutral review, as if it were, you wouldn't contradict yourself. The article is about a notable subject, clearly proven. Kalinators (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not- a runner up (i.e. someone who did not win) a youth competition in a niche gaming event is not getting the coverage needed for an article- which must go beyond merely documenting your activities. You gravely misunderstand "neutral" as well as what it is we do here in general. You are just wasting your time at this point and I highly advise you to abandon this effort voluntarily before you are forced to with a block. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I won't be the one to make it, as I'm too deep into this. But that's the course you are on. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, your boss will fire you after I report your activities to him.
The article MUST and WILL be on wikipedia. So, you meet world youth runners-up every day on the street?
It is not a "niche gaming event", whatever this means, it is a world championship. I know you are envious, but sorry, not everyone can go to a final of a world championship. As I said and you know, the media will not report my credit card number or stuff like that, they can only report my activities and achievements. [Blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for advertising redacted] Kalinators (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This blatant advertising will only get you blocked. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you are threatening someone and blatantly advertising? I am quite sure none of our bosses care about what are we doing on Wikipedia. Do you really wanted to be blocked? ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the guy's wikipedia boss. Kalinators (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one. Wikipedia does not operate that way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is indeffed, no TPA. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:44, 15 August 2024 review of submission by WikiWonka888!

[edit]

This article about filmmaking duo Siegel & McGehee was intended to replace sub-standard stub articles, for individual filmmakers Scott McGehee and David Siegel. Can someone help to reset those two pages as "redirects" to here to complete this effort? WikiWonka888! (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWonka888! This help desk is to ask about drafts, not existing articles, you want the main Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! WikiWonka888! (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:05, 15 August 2024 review of submission by MorganKBrowne

[edit]

i want to write an article that helps inform peeople about Enterpryze MorganKBrowne (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MorganKBrowne: if you do, don't do it like that; this draft has been deleted as promotional.
What is your relationship to Enterpryze? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im the CEO. first time creating an article on wiki MorganKBrowne (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MorganKBrowne: thank you. In that case, you have a conflict of interest which must be disclosed. I'll post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MorganKBrowne "Inform people about Enterpryze" is exactly what promotion is. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) 09:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Pagemaker14

[edit]

How do I get my drafts accepted? Pagemaker14 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemaker14 I think you meant to put Draft:Andrew Deliberis, your only draft, in your request. You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It got declined. Pagemaker14 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pagemaker14: yes, I declined it, because it is completely unreferenced with zero evidence of notability. (There are two alleged citations, but both return 404 errors.)
You appear to have subsequently resubmitted the draft without any attempt at improving it. Please don't do that, as it suggests that you're unable or unwilling to improve the draft, and this may result in it being rejected outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Jfowler4368

[edit]

Hoping to get my draft approved. I have made the edits as requested by the reviewer, but it will not let me resubmit for review. Thanks! Jfowler4368 (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfowler4368: there is a blue button at the bottom of the previous decline notice, which says 'resubmit'; click on that.
Having said which, the sources are insufficient for demonstrating notability per WP:NCORP, so this draft would still be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 15 August 2024 review of submission by YunusEmret

[edit]

Hi, i cant change the title as The Religious Syncretism in Ephesus: A Confluence of Cults i have no iddia how the topic name added as "Draft:Yunus_Emre_Tekin" i was try to add new content but now i see the title is not The Religious Syncretism in Ephesus: A Confluence of Cults. How can i change the title? Thank you for your help. YunusEmret (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YunusEmret: your draft has been deleted, so there is nothing to be done here, but for future reference, changes to page titles are effected by moving the page to a new title. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft titles are also provisional at best. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 15 August 2024 review of submission by ArtInspiration4all

[edit]

The majority of citations are from well-known third-party news organizations. Can someone help me edit this? ArtInspiration4all (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtInspiration4all: the media outlets are secondary sources, but when it's the artist herself talking about her work, that makes it a primary source. We need to see what entirely independent and reliable sources have chosen of their own volition to say about this painting. (Also, The Mail is a deprecated source and mustn't be cited.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I removed the deprecated source and added primary sources to the article as requested. ArtInspiration4all (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtInspiration4all: we don't need more primary sources, we need more secondary ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sorry. I thought more primary sources were needed. ArtInspiration4all (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added additional secondary sources as requested ArtInspiration4all (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Your user page states that you are a paid editor, but the disclosure doesn't make it clear to what subjects this refers. Is it to do with the subject of this draft? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtInspiration4all: An alternate method is to not create a new article at all and use the edit request wizard instead to specify what information and sources be added to an existing article on a related topic, such as Akiane#Prince of Peace. Then, if the topic gains more coverage later on, it can eventually be split or spun-off into its own article.
Again, just my opinion; another Wikipedia editor may have a differing view. Thanks for reading, and good luck. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Elephant1997

[edit]

Hi! I would like help in understanding why this page got rejected. The citations are from independent, secondary, and high-authority sources such as The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The articles discuss the subject in depth (are not just brief mentions) and discuss negative aspects about the company and carbon market. Elephant1997 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephant1997 Have yu asked Jamiebuba who declined this draft? If not I recommend that you do first. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - yes I messaged @Jamiebuba and he archived my message without responding. Have you actually read the sources? The NYT, WSJ, and United Nations articles are entirely about the organization and / or how its founder went about setting up the company. I've extensively reviewed the notability page, and all of the sources meet the criteria. Thanks Elephant1997 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first few sources mention Wildlife Works, but do not say very much about it - they are about individuals associated with it. I haven't looked further, but if they are all like that then you have not provided the requisite set of reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject to establish that the company is notable in Wikipedia's sense. See WP:42 for the criteria which every source must pass in order to contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Thanks for your response. Been off for a while. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Jimboson

[edit]

I am reaching out because I do not think the reasoning given for declining this submission came from a genuine place. This is one of the most well-known rabbis of the past 200 years, known by all different sects of Orthodox Jews. I think it should be looked at again by someone else. Jimboson (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimboson The reason given was a paucity of correct referencing. That someone is one of the most well-known rabbis of the past 200 years is neither here nor there, because the references do not show it. If he is that well known, please find references which meet the statement in the decline notice.
On another matter, "I do not think the reasoning given for declining this submission came from a genuine place." is not appropriate. You, we, any editor at all, are required to assume good faith at all times. Instead of expressing this thought you might have held your peace. This is a lack of civility and is likely to make some excellent reviewers think twice about reviewing this draft. This is shooting yourself in the foot.
I can also infer all sorts of things from your statement, as can others. More than one of those things is, at best, distasteful, for more than one reason. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock. Stated on their user talk page that they were making unfounded accusations of racial/religious prejudice. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 15 August 2024 review of submission by EkRahgir

[edit]

How can I add this person on Wikipedia, He's Genuine and popular in field of homeopath in India, Bihar & Kolkata specially. Please suggest. I can add more references EkRahgir (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, rejected means that resubmssion is not possible. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "genuine" nor "popular" is of any relevance to determining notability as Wikipedia means it: this is basically, "Is there enough reliable independent material available to base an article on?", remembering that 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) 10:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_August_15&oldid=1241406772"